HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2001_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS U t
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO.23 November 19, 2001
Regular Adjourned 7:00 p.m.
PAGE
1 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
2-3
D)
CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1.
Approval of Minutes
4-5
2.
Resolution of Support for DM&E Community Mitigation Bonding
Request
6-10
3.
Request for Funding/Olmsted County Historical Society
11
4.
Weatherstone Phase 1 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond
•
Resolution
12
5.
Weatherstone Phase 2 Final Bond Resolution
13
6.
Long Term Parking Rate Change at the Rochester International
Airport
14
7.
Bid Awards for Security Improvements
15
8.
Professional Services Agreement with Airport Consulting Services
Group to Provide Blast Assessment for the Terminal Building
16-17
9.
Licenses, Bonds, & Miscellaneous Activities
18
10.
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor for Silver Lake Liquor
19
11.
Award of Amateur Boxing Franchise
20
12.
Accounts Payable
21-22
13.
301 Projects (Fund) — Transfer of Unexpected Balance of Permanent
Improvement Projects
23-27
14.
Closing of Local Improvement Projects — Fund 501
28
15.
Assignment of Computer Consulting Services Agreement from Sirius
Point 5 Solutions to CD Group Inc.
29-32
16.
Annexation Petition #01-22 to Annex Approximately 137.65 acres of
City Owned Property Local Along the East and West Sides of 500
Avenue NW and North of 19th Street NW
33
17,
Railroad Crossing Agreement with MnDOT and DM&E
34-35
18,
Professional Services Agreement Amendment for the Preparation of
Storm Water Management Plan
• 36-37
19.
Municipal State Aid Segment Addition: Bandel Road NW
Cry Council Meeting
November 19, 2001
Page 2
38-43
20.
Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the
Southtown Height Subdivision Area, J9791
44-46
21.
Award of Contract: Asbestos Removal Eastwood Village Apartments,
J 2068
47
22.
H/C Parking for Resident at 811 8th Avenue SE
48
23.
Development Agreement — Heim Property Elmcroft 4th Area
49
24.
Development Agreement — Stonehedge Development with Sherm
Stoflet
50
25.
Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right -of -Way Acquisition for
the Badger Run Sewer Project — J9745
51-52
26.
Variance Request: Improvements to 50th Ave NW (J9578)
53
27.
Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Royal Plaza Subdivision
(J9634)
54
28.
Owner Contract — SS & WM to Serve L6, B1, Replat of p/o B3,
Knollwood Acres (Whitter & Woods Property) (J9821)
55
29.
Owner Contract Basic Construction in Diamond Ridge Commercial
Park (J9866)
56
30.
Stormwater Management Agreements
57
31.
Agreement for Park & Ride Lot/Bethel Lutheran Church
58
32.
Land Acquisition — Settlement for 50d' Avenue NW (J9718)
59
33.
Parking Restrictions: 900 block of 2"d Street NE
60
34.
Owner Contract — Stormsewer Extension to Serve the Home Federal
61
62
E)
63-85
Savings Bank (J9870)
35. Engineering Service Agreement for Restoration of Civic Center Ramp
and Third Street Ramp
36. Con ributioNreeme t — i a ichelle VanEss 11d' Avenue SW
31_ Aidr h" . d•. a.
HEARINGS V
86-134
135-168
169-188 4
189-209 5.
210-225 6.
226-240 7
241-261 8.
262-280
Final Plat #01-44 by Carriage Homes XVII, Inc. to be known as Fox Ridge
Townhomes First CIC #159
Type III Phase If Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by
Rochester Development, Inc.
Amendment to General Development Plan #83, known as The Arboretum
revising the roadway alignment on the westerly portion of the property
Type III Phase II Special District Amendment Project Development Plan
#01-04 to allow the construction of a Commercial Building in Special
District #1 (Arboretum) located along the east side of West Circle Drive
Amendment to General Development Plan #92, known as Manor Woods
West, by Forbrook-Bigelow Development
Preliminary Plat #01-28 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development to be known
as Manor Woods West Central Subdivision
Preliminary Plat #01-29 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development to be known
as Manor Woods North First Subdivision
Rochester Urban Service Area Lane Use Plan Map Amendment #01-04
by Morris Memorial LLC from Low Density to Residential
General Development Plan #01-167 by Morris Memorial LLC to be known
as Morris Meadows
Gty Council Meeting
November 19, 2001
Page 3
281-289 10.
290 11.
291-308 12.
309-316 13.
317-335 14.
336-337 15.
338 16.
339-344 17.
345 18.
346-352 19.
353 20.
354-358 21.
Zoning District Amendment #01-12 by Morris Memorial LLC from the H
District to the M-1 District
Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon Oaks
First Subdivision
Final Plat #01-48 by Jim Heim to be known as Elmcroft Fourth Addition
Final Plat #01-49 by Dan Soderberg to be known as Northview Second
Subdivision
City Initiated Text Amendment #01-12 to amend Sections 60.200, 62,390
and related sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual that addresses the use of storage containers.
Applications for State Transit Assistance Funds for 2002 for Regular
Route and Dial -A -Ride Services.
Proposed Establishment of Residential Permit Parking Zone #6 (Edison
Neighborhood) on the 600 Block of 8'h Avenue S.W.
Making of Local Improvement Project No. 6306-2-00 (J-9607) "Curb,
Gutter & Overlay on 6ch Avenue S.E. from 16 % Street S.E. to End of Cul-
de-Sac"
Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement Project No. 6306-2-00
(J-9607) "Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 6'h Avenue S.E. from 16 % Street
S.E. to End of Cul-de-Sac".
Making of Local Improvement Project No. 6307-2-02
(J-9840) "Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 7'h Avenue S.E. from 161h Street to
16'/: Street S.E.".
Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement Project No. 6307-2-02 (J-
9840) "Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 7"' Avenue S.E. from 161h Street to 16'/z
Street S.E.".
Making of Local Improvement Project No. 6205-4-99A (J-9540) "Curb,
Gutter & Overlay on 5'h Place N.W. from 16'h Avenue N.W. to Civic Center
Drive N.W."
359 22. Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement Project No. 6205-4-99A (J-
9540) "Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 5' Place N.W. from 16" Avenue N.W. to
Civic Center Drive N.W."
360 23. Hearing for Assessing Weed Removal, Snow Removal, Debris
Removal, Tree Removal, Impound Towing, Secure Property, and
Sidewalk Repair
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
361 G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
0 DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO:
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D -1-36
M DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the
Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed
from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1. Approval of Minutes
D-2. Resolution of Support for DM&E Community Mitigation Bonding Request
D-3. Request for Funding/Olmsted County Historical Society
D-4. Weatherstone Phase 1 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Resolution
D-5. Weatherstone Phase 2 Final Bond Resolution
D-6. Long Term Parking Rate Change at the Rochester International Airport
D-7. Bid Awards for Security Improvements
D-8. Professional Services Agreement with Airport Consulting Services Group to Provide Blast
Assessment for the Terminal Building
D-9. Licenses, Bonds, & Miscellaneous Activities
D-10, Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor for Silver Lake Liquor
D-11. Award of Amateur Boxing Franchise
' 2. Accounts Payable
3 301 Projects (Fund) — Transfer of Unexpected Balance of Permanent Improvement Projects
D-14. Closing of Local Improvement Projects — Fund 501
D.15. Assignment of Computer Consulting Services Agreement from Sirius Point 5 Solutions to CD
Group Inc.
DA6. Annexation Petition #01-22 to Annex Approximately 137.65 acres of City Owned Property Local
Along the East and West Sides of 50"' Avenue NW and North of 19t' Street NW
D-17. Railroad Crossing Agreement with MnDOT and DM&E
D-18. Professional Services Agreement Amendment for the Preparation of Storm Water Management
Plan
D-19. Municipal State Aid Segment Addition: Bandel Road NW
D-20. Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Southtown Height Subdivision
Area, J9791
D-21. Award of Contract: Asbestos Removal Eastwood Village Apartments, J 2068
D-22. H/C Parking for Resident at 811 8a' Avenue SE
D-23. Development Agreement— Heim Property Elmcroft 4th Area
D-24. Development Agreement — Stonehedge Development with Sherm Stoflet
D-25. Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right -of -Way Acquisition for the Badger Run Sewer
Project — J9745
D-26. Variance Request: Improvements to 50th Ave NW (J9578)
D-27. Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Royal Plaza Subdivision (J9634)
D-28. Owner Contract — SS & WM to Serve L6, B1, Replat of p/o B3, Knollwood Acres (Whitter & Woods
Property)(J9821)
9. Owner Contract Basic Construction in Diamond Ridge Commercial Park (J9866)
D-30. Stormwater Management Agreements
D-31. Agreement for Park & Ride Lot/Bethel Lutheran Church
D-32. Land Acquisition — Settlement for 50s' Avenue NW (J9718)
Consent Agenda
November 19, 2001
Page 2
-33. Parking Restrictions: 900 block of 2"d Street NE
D-34 Owner Contract — Stormsewer Extension to Serve the Home Federal Savings Bank (J9870)
D-35. Engineering Service Agreement for Restoration of Civic Center Ramp and Third Street Ramp
D-36. Contribution Agreement — Jim and Michelle VanEss 11 th Avenue SW
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
i
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
_ i
M DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR DME COMMUNITY
PREPARED BY:
MITIGATION BONDING REQUEST
G. NEUMANN
The Mayors and administrative staffs from the cities of Mankato, Owatonna, Winona, New Ulm and Rochester
have previously discussed and agreed to submit a request to the State of Minnesota for $50 million in State
Bonding Funds that could be utilized to mitigate adverse impacts caused by the DME Railroad Project. This
request is similar to the request that was submitted to the State in 1999. That request was considered during the
2000 legislative session. However, one of the main concerns at that time was that a decision had not been made
by the STB on the DME's proposed project. With a pending STB staff recommendation on the EIS scheduled
for release on November 19"', that issue may be resolved.
The proposed $50 million in State assistance is proposed to be available to all cities and counties along the line
for various mitigation purposes, such as noise mitigation, traffic improvements, crossing improvements and
improvements to emergency response systems as is described in the attachments.
Council Action Requested.
Approval to adopt prepared resolution of support for the request to the State of Minnesota for $50 million for
DME Community Mitigation Funding.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR STATE FUNDING TO MITIGATE
THE IMPACTS OF THE DM&E RAILROAD EXPANSION PROJECT
ON SOUTHERN MINNESOTA COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the DM&E Railroad is proposing a complete re -building of their rail
line across Southern Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose for the re -building is to haul coal from the
Powder River Basin in Wyoming to markets east of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, this project is projected to result in an increase in train traffic on the
DM&E line from the current 3 trains per day to 37 trains per day; and
WHEREAS, this substantial increase in train traffic will have serious impacts on
the quality of life, public safety, noise, and traffic congestion in affected Southern
Minnesota communities; and
WHEREAS, these impacts will need to be mitigated for the future health, safety,
and economic development of these communities; and
WHEREAS, the cost to mitigate the impacts could not have been anticipated or
planned for by the affected communities; and
WHEREAS, assistance from the State of Minnesota is needed to assist the
affected communities in addressing the significant impacts that will be caused by the
DM&E Railroad project and the increase of 34 coal trains per day.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby supports
and endorses the request for funding assistance from the State of Minnesota to assist
the local communities in addressing the impacts that will be caused by the DM&E
Railroad expansion project on Southern Minnesota communities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
. MINNESOTA. THIS DAY OF 1999.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
X, F.-TIONTINTill INT-Wil■
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Administration
_
A DESCRIPTION: Request for Funding/Olmsted County Historical Society
PREPARED BY:
S. Kvcnvold
The Olmsted County Historical Society is requesting $70,000 from the City of Rochester to install a
new heating, ventilating, air conditioning and humidity control system for their museum building. (See
attached)
Olmsted County will also provide $70,000 for this purpose.
If approved, the funding would be appropriated from the Future Construction Account.
Council Action Requested:
Request a motion appropriating $70,000 from the Future Construction Account to assist in the funding
of the replacement of the heating and cooling system at the Olmsted County Historical Society
Building.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
• OLMSTED COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
VdV
November 14, 2001
Dear City Council Members:
I want to begin by thanking the City Council for their support of the Historical Society over the
past years. The Board of Directors is pleased that the Council recognizes the benefit to the
community in having a well functioning museum campus offering educational, genealogical and
historic exhibits to the residents and visitors to the area.
Due to chronic HVAC system failures and humidity and temperature regulating problems, the
Society hired the engineering firm of TSP One Inc. to assess the system in the fall of 2000, Upon
their recommendations and after consulting with Rochester Public Utilities , the Society has
decided to install a Direct Exchange system known as "Earthlinked."This system relies on the
direct transfer of thermal energy from the earth. The History Center is an excellent candidate for
the DX system because of the surrounding acreage available for the ground loop system.
We have spent the past eight months working with RPU writing a grant in hopes of funding part
of the cost of installing a new heating, ventilating, air conditioning and humidity control system
for the museum. Unfortunately the grant did not get funded. This past summer Johnson Controls
was out eleven times working on the air conditioning unit, it is 29 years old and has been rebuilt
twice by vocational technical students. Two weeks ago the heat exchanger developed a crack and
leaks water after each heat cycle.
A General Conservation Assessment Survey of the History Center was conducted by the Upper
Midwest Conservation Association the first week of October. The gentleman that did the survey
reiterated the fact that the current HVAC is not up to museum standards and that was before the
heat exchanger problem.
This letter is a request on behalf of our membership, the Board of Directors and staff to consider
an appropriation of $70,000 to match a future request that will be made to the County Board for
$70,000 and $32,000 the Society has in commitments, to cover the cost of the HVAC system and
repairs to the cracked heat exchanger.
An early and favorable decision will enable us to arrange for the design work to be done by Karl
Dirksen and system components to be ordered to allow us to do earthwork and construction as
soon as the weather allows in the spring
Our facility serves all of the citizens of both the City and County and numerous visitors each year.
It is a very visible way for the City and County to cooperate to the benefit of its taxpayers.
S' ce el
t�
A] Schafer Pre dent
1195 WEST CIRCLE DRIVE SOUTHWEST • ROCHESTER, MN 55902 • PHONE 507.282.9447
TSP one, Inc- November 9, 2001
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901
phone (507) 288-8155
laa (507) 288-7220 John Hunziker
www.teamtsp. ppm Olmsted County History Center
1195 West Circle Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Architecture
Engineering
Interior Design Re: Olmsted County History Center Infrastructure Study
Rochester, Minnesota
TSP Project No. 2872.01
Offices In Rochamr
end Minneapolis, MN Last fall TSP was retained by the Olmsted County History Center to study the
condition and describe potential improvements to the existing hearing ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in the building. The intent of the HVAC
infrastructure study is to not only identify ways to improve the interior environment
for employees, visitors, and artifacts, but also to reduce operating costs. This letter
is intended as a summary of the recommendations presented in that study.
TSP's report also identified, to the maximum extent practical, items affecting the
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) as it relates to human occupants as well as stored and
exhibited artifacts. No destructive demolition has been done to determine the
condition of concealed components. No chemical analysis has been performed on
the interior of the building to determine if specific microorganisms were present.
TSP interviewed History Center representatives. They were encouraged to express
concerns related to air temperature and humidity as they affect the comfort of
building occupants and preservation of archived and displayed material. TSP also
investigated the use of a geothermal -based heating and cooling system as a means
of reducing operating costs while improving conditions.
The original HVAC system has not been significantly modified or updated since its
installation in 1972 (29 years) except for the replacement of the original oil -fired
boiler with a natural gas -fired boiler and the addition of a heat recovery device
intended for use during summer dehumidification that is no longer functional.
AFFILIATED OFFICES
Rochester, MN
The air supply ductwork and distribution components are intact but require Minneapolis, MN cleaning. The humidifiers have not been operated for many years. The original air-
Denwer. CO cooled condensingunit has had its compressors rebuilt twice. The air supply,or Air
Fort Collins, CC I�
MRapoltow $IA D Handling Unit (AHU), is functional but will require extensive cleaning. The
CitySioux Falls. $D pneumatic control system has been infrequently recalibrated or cleaned. With the
Sheridan. WV advent of digital control, pneumatic system repair service is not readily available.
An Equal Opparlunly,
Alflnati. Action Enpbyer
TSP Project No. 2872.01 - 11/9/01
9
John Hunziker
The HVAC system used in the newest addition does not appear to be well suited to
the task of maintaining the appropriate humidity levels at a comfortable inside
temperature. The system has been a source of chronic failures and expense.
Although the HVAC system design, a constant air volume reheat system, is 29
years old, it is still one of the most reliable and least complicated methods of
controlling temperature and humidity in this type of facility. The system design is
recommended by the American Society of Heating Refrigeration Engineers
(ASHRAE).
The nearly 30 year old air conditioning equipment operates very ineffectively. Its
energy efficiency ratio (EER) may be as low as 7, while new geothermal equipment
operates at EER of 19. This represents a 170% increase in efficiency.
Of the 16 options presented, we feel these are of greatest importance.
A. Replace the present heating and cooling source
from gas fire heating and electric direct expansion
cooling to geothermal -based system including new
piping, exterior excavation and restoration. $ 82,00
B. Clean existing AHU and all supply and return ductwork.
Replace insulation in AHU cabinet with washable insulation.
Seal surface of existing duct insulation. $ 16,000
C. Replace non-functioning humidifiers with new units. Add
booster for Archives (three total). $ 18,000
D. Extend ductwork and heating piping to serve Archives from the
main system and discontinue present system.
Add humidifier. $ 8,500
E. Rebalance airflow to all air outlets to assure proper
distribution to all spaces. $ 6,500
F. Replace existing pneumatic controls on all heating and
cooling equipment with direct digital control (DDC) with
energy management capability. $ 30,000
F. Engineering design, drawings, specifications, securing
bids, contract preparation, and construction monitoring. $ 11,000
TOTAL $172,001
-2-
/D i
Please feel free to call with any questions.
TSP One, Inc.
4m--�Karll J.Dirrksen
NV0901 KDJc
TSP Project No. 2872.01 - 11/9/01
John Hunziker
-3-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
[a tal F.V51ul12 ST7
A DESCRIPTION: WEATHERSTONE PHASE 1 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
791'/:1�1�1:1:Z�7�17:7DI.Y�71[I11Y[�7�1
- Zi
3REPARED BY:
T.SPAETH
Previously, Weathestone Development was issued $7.45 in housing revenue bonds, of which approximately $ 6
million was tax exempt, and the remainder were taxable. Because of an increase in the tax exempt volume limit,
Weatherstone had intended to refund the previous bond issuance and seek a new bond issuance of tax exempt
bonds for the project.
The bondholder has not agreed to refund and refinance the previous bond issuance, and at this time,
Weatherstone is seeking an additional $480,000 in tax exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds to cover the
costs associated with the project completion.
The Council held a public hearing and approved the housing program on October 15, 2001.
These bonds are an obligation of Weatherstone Townhomes, LLC and not of the City of Rochester.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Resolution for the issuance and sale of multifamily housing revenue bonds to provide funds for
completion of a multifamily housing project on behalf of Weatherstone Townhomes Limited Partnership.
NCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/19J01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
d DESCRIPTION: WEATHERSTONE PHASE 2 FINAL BOND RESOLUTION
PREPARED BY:
T.SPAETH
On November 5, 2001 the Council held a public hearing on the housing program and issuance of multi family
housing revenue bonds in the amount of $20 million for Phase 2 of the Weatherstone Townhomes Development.
The developer is "parking" the bond issuance at this time, and will likely not finalize the issuance until the
spring of 2002 when construction is proposed to commence. In order to accomplish this, the developer will
need to "remarket" the bond issuance after 3 months. This was not reflected in the previous resolution approved
on November 5th, and at this time the developer is requesting that a revised resolution be adopted by the City to
reflect this change.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Resolution for Tax Exempt Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond issuance of $20,000,000 to
Weatherstone Townhomes Limited Partnership - II.
INCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second by: to:
FA —
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
ITEM NO.
_
M DESCRIPTION: Long Term Parking rate change at the Rochester International Airport.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Increase the weekly and daily cost of parking in the long term parking area at the Rochester International
Airport from a maximum of $5 per day or $30 for seven days to a maximum of $6 per day or $36 for seven
days. The hourly rate in the long term lot and all short term rates are to remain unchanged.
The increase will help bring us more in line with downtown parking rates and help offset the increased cost to
screen cars which is an FAA requirement in order to use the parking spaces within the 300 foot restricted
parking area.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the rate adjustment.
JNCILACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Rochester International Airport
A DESCRIPTION: Bid awards for security improvements.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
1. Bid award to Horsman Fence Company to provide additional fencing and new gates with automatic openers
as part of new, recently implemented FAA security requirements. $10,980.77
2. Bid award to Nietz Electric to provide access control (proximity card controllers and readers) for new gates
and one interior door as part of new, recently implemented FAA security requirements. $18,750.00
Copies of bid proposals attached.
Funding: 90% Federal
10% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
lution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the bid awards.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Rochester International Airport
_
M DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with Airport Consulting Services
PREPARED BY:
Group to provide blast assessment for the Terminal Building.
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. to provide a blast assessment for the Terminal
Building. Agreement not to exceed $16,770.00
The information provided by the blast assessment report will identify changes required to protect the terminal
building from a bomb blast in the parking lot area. This is the first step required to try and recover parking
spaces within the current 300 foot restricted area.
Funding: 90% Federal
10% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
r
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
i� _
A DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNAISCHOTT
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 — RAFFLE
Pheasants Forever — Tri County Chapter
PO Box 6225
Rochester, Mo. 55903
Raffle 03/15/02 AT
Radisson Centerplace Hotel
150 S. Bdwy.
(Please Waive 30 Day Waiting Period)
Ronald McDonald House
850 2nd St SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Raffle 2/10/01 AT
Rochester Community & Technical College
1926 College View Rd SE
MOTION PICTURES —TRANSFER
Chateau Theatres, Inc. DBA Galleria 6
111 S. Bdwy.
Rochester, Mn 55904
MOTION PICTURES — NEW
Chateau Theatres, Inc. DBA Chateau 14
971 E Circle Dr. NE
Rochester, Mn. 55906
SIDEWALKS — CEMENT
Dan Krahn DBA Krahncrete, Inc.
2726 Melrose St SE
Rochester, Mn.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to.
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE 2
NOVEMBER 19, 2001
SIGNS
Nesper Sign Advertising, Inc.
4620 J St SW
Cedar Rapids, Ia. 52404
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities
CONSENT AGENDA
I DESCRIPTION: OFF
LIQUOR
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING
CITY CLERK
LIQUOR FOR SILVER LAKE
MEETING
DATE: 1 l / 19/01
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
DONNA J SCHOT'I'
Application for an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License has been received from Barbara K. Kellner.
The name of the business will be Silver Lake Liquor located at 1400 North Broadway. The applicant
was the former owner of Barb's Northbrook Liquor at 1635 North Broadway. Opening of the liquor store is
scheduled for the first of December.
Issuance of the license is pending all departmental approvals, insurance certificates and all required
Fees due the City of Rochester. Completion of a confidential investigative report on the applicant has been
returned satisfactorily.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Silver Lake Liquor.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/1/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Clerk
iFl) _
A DESCRIPTION: Award of Amateur Boxing Franchise
PREPARED BY.
Judy Scherr
On November 1, 1998, the Council awarded the Amateur Boxing Franchise on the condition that
the franchise alternates from year-to-year between the Rochester Youth Boxing Club, Inc. and the
Rochester Fourth Street Boxing Gym.
The Rochester Fourth Street Boxing Gym held the franchise from December 1, 2000, to
November 30, 2001. Therefore, the franchise will transfer to the Rochester Youth Boxing Club,
Inc. from December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution awarding the Amateur Boxing Franchise to the
Rochester Youth Boxing Club, Inc. from December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2002, with the
condition that the Rochester Fourth Street Boxing Gym also be allowed to use the franchise.
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING --
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
0 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 $1,617,029.61.
Less: Any exceptions
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Finance Department
_ �. -
d DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
301 PROJECTS (FUND) - TRANSFER OF UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF
Dale Martinson
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects and authorizing transfer of the unexpended
balances. The project funds were created and financed pursuant to city Charter, Section 11.10.
The amount of funds transferred is broken down as follows:
Park $ 9,198.03
Traffic 3,823.79
Other 37,885.94
Net Funds Transferred $ 50,907.76
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution closing completed improvement projects
and transferring unexpended balances pursuant to City Charter, Section 11.10
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
RESOLUTION
t
WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 and balances remaining therein are:
Proiect Number Proiect Description Amount
Sidewalks
2258 Con Blvd S. of 14 ST<Brdw>E S Lk $ 25,279.38
2259 Ext Clvrt48St&18A NW;23St&11A SE 12,606.56
Subtotal 37,885.94
Park
2987 Viking Hills Park Development (trfto J2891) 9,198.03
2989 Homestead Park Development (trsf fr J2895)-648.00
Funds transferred to J2989 from J2895 (SE Park Dedication) 648.00
Subtotal 9,198.03
Traffic
6324 Trfc Sgnl on 41StNW@FireSta#4 11,863.70
6356 UpgrdRR Xing 2 Ave NE 1,124.70
6395 Trfc Sgnl@Valleyhigh Dr&19StNW (trsf fr J6324)-9,164.61
Subtotal 3,823.79
Net Funds Transferred $ 50,907.76
WHEREAS, the above listed projects have been completed and all costs of said improvements have been paid.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota
under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd 4 that:
1. The above named funds shall be discontinued and the remaining balances in said funds
shall be transferred to the following local improvement project funds:
Proiect Number Proiect Description Amount
Park
2891 Century Hills Park Development 9,198.03
Traffic
6380 Trf Sgl Intrcnt - Remote Loc 3,823.79
Other
1994 Future Construction 37,885.94
Net Funds Transferred $ 50,907.76
2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to put into effect the provision of this
resolution as of October 31, 2001.
Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 19th day of
November, 2001.
President of said Common Council
City Clerk
Approved this —day of ,2001.
Mayor of said City
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Finance Department
Dee Olson
11/8/2001
N:\Finance%FinExcel\DEE\Project Closings.xls\301
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Finance Department
M DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
CLOSINGS OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS -FUND 501
Dale Martinson
Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects and authorizing transfer of the unexpended
balances. The project funds were created and financed pursuant to the approved Capital Improvements
program or other specific Council action.
The net transferred out of closed projects totals $ 468,668.75
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution closing completed improvement projects
and transferring unexpended balances pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd.4.
JNCIL ACTION: motion by. Second by: to:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 and balances remaining therein are:
Project
Number
Project Description
Amount
9310
Recon 19St NW <32A.W Crcl Or (trsf fr J4844)
-323.54
Funds transferred to J9310 from J4844 (MSAS Constr)
323.54
9330
Reconst 2 St SW<11>6 Av
131,431.43
9406
Recon E Cntr St<11Av E> 15Av E
51.372.17
9409
BIC North Park 8th - O/C
-0.99
9437
4BStW/Meat<H52WFrtRdN.Okellys-O/C
-10.67
9450
Rehab 900 Blk-17.5 St SE wIC/G
-1,962.07
9465
Intersects Enhancment@New HyVee
-12,550.66
Funds transferred to J9465 from J2201 (St Resrfc & Preservatn)
12,550.66
9493
C&G/StRsrf-21&22St NE, SWofNHtDr
-2,464.93
9498
W/M.srvStellylce& Dtorage-O/C
-1.88
9499
W/M.srvMenards North Addtn-O/C
4.29
9500
BIC Essex Estates 4th Subd-O/C
-0.33
9504
W/M>srvWestemDigital -0/C
-2.34
9506
SUSw/M>srvPrkshorePlcSubd-O/C
-3.39
9509
W/M ExtsrvCalvaryBaptistChrch-O/C
-1.56
9511.
Recon300BlckN-Salley<brdy>lAvSW(trf to 301-2201)
29,655.55
9512
Recon200B)ckN-Salley<brdy>lAvSW(trf to 301-2201)
64,203.15
9520
Recon 16, 17, 18.5St<18Av>20AvNW
-11,064.04
Funds transferred to J9520 from J2200 (Bitms Pvmnt Rehab)
11,064.04
9522
ReconWaldnLnSW<FohvellDr>Skylin (trf to J2200)
45,822.18
9524
Recon 9 AvSW<2StSW>6StSW(trf to J2200)
33,294.10
9525
Recon 6 Axx SE<E CtrSt>4 St SE (trf to J2200)
22,402.79
9526
C&G,Ovdyl9StNE<NHgtsD,->eastend
-7,577.14
Funds transferred to J9526 from J2201 (St Resrfc & Preservatn)
7,577.14
9528
W/M>srvUS Bank,CircleDr BusPrk-O/C
-1.42
9529
W/M>sry CascadeRidgeTwnhms-O/C
-1.88
9530
W/M>sry UnivFord Expansion -O/C
-0.55
9531
Recon Wilshire Court NE
1,097.94
9532
W/M Ext48StNW>srvSatum of Roch
-3.19
9537
C&G,Ovrly 5 AV SE<16StSE>end (trsf fir J2201)
-4,208.12
Funds transferred to J9537 from J2201 (St Resrfc & Preservatn)
4,208,12
9539
Recon 5 StNW<n Brdwy>4 Av NW
-9.60
9542
Recon 12AvNE<14SNE>culdesac end(fr J2200)
-61,101.86
Funds transferred to J9542 from J2200 (Bitms Pvmnt Rehab)
61,101.86
9544
C/G,Ovdy4AvNW<ElttnHls>ZumbroDr
43,507.25
9547
W/M>sry Stanton 2nd Subd-O/C
-1.98
9564
Sn/S W/M>srvAvalonCove Ph1-O/C
-2.31
9568
BIC Wedgewd Hils 2nd Subd-O/C
-1.10
9569
BIC White Oaks 3rd Subd-O/C
-0.34
9570
BIC 25 St SE <H63> 800' East
-0.66
9572
W/M>srvHosannaLutheranChurch-OIC
-1.54
Finance Department - Cary McNallan 11/812001
N:TinanceTinExcellDEE\Prcject Closings.xls\501
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 and balances remaining therein are:
"ect
fiber
Project Description
Amount
9580
W/M St/S>srvWalmart/25StSE-O/C
-0.68
9585
W/Mext&Hydmt.srvFordMetro-O/C
-1.10
9586
W/Mext&Hydrnt>CityAutoGlass-O/C
-1.43
9590
W/M & Hydmt>srvSunrise Twnhms-O/C
-2.31
9592
W/Mhydrant>srvCntrySuites-O/C
-1•54
9593
BIC Diamond Ridge 16 Subd-O/C
-2.31
9609
GIG 15StNW<VlyhghDrNW>W endRdwy
50,167.84
9614
C/G 18.5AvNW<19 StNW>>26 SWW
-16.83
9616
BIC Spruce Meadows Subd-OIC
-0.33
9619
W/M>srvLots2&3NrthviewSubd-O/C
-0.99
9620
B/CTrailRidge&ConstArboretumDr
-4.95
9628
W/M>srvOualityOvrheadDoor-O/C
-1.76
9631
C/G&Ovrly28StNW<ZumbroDr>9AVNW
-0.55
9633
BIC South Pointe 5th Sund-O/C
-1.98
9638
Sn/S W/M>sry The Homestead -O/C
199.72
9641
BIC Orchard HlsSouth-1stSbd-O/C
-1.54
9642
Sn/S>srvCirclel9Plaza-Phl-O/C
-4.58
9645
W/M ext for MenardsNorth-O/C
-1.98
9647
BIC The Gardens mh prk-Phi-OIC
-2.42
9650
BIC Diamond Ridge 18 Subd-O/C
-1.76
9652
B/c Lincolnshire Nrth4Subd-O/C
-0.77
9653
BIC Essex Estates 5th Subd-O/C
-1.87
9658
BIC Circlel9Plaza Subd Ph2-O/C
-383.32
9660
BIC Eagle Ridge 4th Subd-OIC
-0.88
9661
W/M>srvGeorge Twnhms-O/C
-1.98
9662
W/M Sn/S>sry Deer Haven -O/C
-1.76
9665
W/M>srvRochOvrheadDoor-O/C
-1.43
9667
BIC CenturyHillsTwnhms#Subd-OIC
-1.98
9668
BIC N hts NTwnhms 3rd Subd-O/C
-1.10
9671
WIM>srvAvalonCove Ph2-0/C
-1•87
9674
BIC Emerald Hills 2nd Subd-O/C
-1.B7
9675
BIC South Park 5th Subd-O/C
-2.31
9679
W/M&HydrntsrvTchlesCarWsh-O/C
-2.09
9681
BIC Orchard Hills North Subd-O/C
-3.94
9682
BIC Orchard HlsSouth-1 st Ph2-O/C
-1.10
9683
B/cC WedgewdHls 3rd Subd-Ph2-OIC
-4.70
9684
BIC Kingsbury hills Subd-O/C
-2.66
9687
SNVext>OImCoHistoricalBldg-O/C
822.68
9688
B/C>srvRochesterMarktPlace-O/C
-185.47
9689
B/C>srvWeatherstoneClc#166-O/C
-2.20
9691
Sn/SW/M.srvAirbomeExpress-O/C
-2.75
9692
B/C>srvPinewoodHlslstSubd-O/C
-1.10
Finance Department - Cary MONallan 11/6/2001
N:1FinanceTinExceADEETroject Closings.xlsZo1
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter429 and balances remaining therein are:
Project
Number
Project Description
Amount
9693
Sn/SW/M>srvLt2BIcklShorewd-O/C
-1.98
9696
W/M&Hydrant>EmmanualBaptist-O/C
-2.42
9697
B/C>srvChristOurRockChurch-O/C
-2.36
9699
BIC Emerald Hills 3rd Subd-O/C
-116.98
9701
W/M>sry AutumnWoods RV Park-OIC
-4.25
9703
BIC SouthernWoods 3rd Subd-O/C
-152.64
9704
BIC CircIeDriveBuSCtf2ndSubd-O/C
-2.42
9705
BIC Orchard HlsSouth-2nd Subd-O/C
-1.52
9706
BIC Valley Side Estates -O/C
-2,86
9709
W/M&Hydmt>sry The Willows -O/C
-1.98
9721
W/M&Hydrnt>sry Slumberland-O/C
-1.94
9727
Sn/S W/M>sry Crown Apts-O/C
-1.98
9728
W/M>sry 1808 3rd Av SE -O/C
-1.94
9730
BIC Summit Pointe -O/C
-1.98
9731
San/SW/Mhydmt>srvGoodinCo-OIC
824.91
9732
Sn/SWIM>srvWthrstoneTwnhms-O/C
-228.19
9733
W/M$Hydmt>Ltl&2-Celesica-O/C
-2.86
9736
Sn/SWIM>Ltl&2HndrmnFtxgdSbd-O/C
-2.09
9739
BIC Badger Ridge Subd-O/C
-0.77
9740
BIC South Pointe 6th Subd-O/C
-1.94
9741
W/M>sry Salem Mdws Ph3-O/C
-1.54
9742
BIC 26StNW<CSAH 22>500'west-OIC
-438.53
9743
BIC Manorwoods West 12 Subd-O/C
-2.91
9744
SNS W/M.srvStaybrdgSuites-OIC
-0.99
9754
BIC srvRiversideCentrlElmSchl-O/C
-1.52
9755
W/M&Hydrnt>CrclDrCorpPkPh2-0/C
-1.54
9759
BIC Century Hills 5th Subd-O/C
-1.94
9767
BIC ValleysideVillas 1Adtn-O/C
-1.94
9770
B/c Kingsbury hills 2nd Subd-O/C
-2.06
9774
BIC South Park 6th Subd-O/C
-1.94
9778
W/M>srvClassic MiniStorage-O/C
-1.52
9782
W/M&Hydmt.>srvArptSleepinn-O/C
-1.52
9797
BIC Greystone 2nd Subd-O/C
-2.78
9798
BIC WedgewoodHills 4thSubd-OIC
-1.52
9802
BIC Orchard Ridge 1st Subd Ph2-O/C
-0.97
9805
BIC Summit Pointe 2nd-OIC
-1.60
9814
BIC Fox Hill -O/C
-1.83
Net Funds Transferred
$ 468,668.75
WHEREAS, the above listed projects have been completed and all costs of said improvements
have been paid.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota
Finance Department- Cary McNallan 11/WD01
N:1Finance\FinExce1iDEE\Prcject Closings.xls1501
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 and balances remaining therein are:
fiber Project Description Amount
under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429,091, Subd 4 that:
1. The above named funds shall be discontinued and the remaining balances in said funds
shall be transferred to the following local improvement project funds:
Project
Number
Project Description
Amount
1994
Future Construction
1,920.62
2200
Bitumns Pvmt Rehab w/pci 0-59
227,842.17
2201
StResrfGPresry w/pci60-100
187,533.79
4644
M S A S Construction (trf fir J9406)
51,372.17
Net Funds Transferred
468,668.75
2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to put into effect the provision of this
resolution as of November 5, 2001.
Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 5th day of
November, 2001.
Attest
City Clerk
Approved this_day of ,2001.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
President of said Common Council
Mayor of said City
Finance Department - Cary McNallan 11/82001
WTinanceWinFxceINOEMProject Closings.xlsl901
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
ID _"--
A DESCRIPTION: Assignment of Computer Consulting Services Agreement from Sirius
PREPARED BY:
Point 5 Soloutions to CD Group Inc.
Dale Martinson
REQUEST:
We are requesting authorization to execute an assignment of our JD Edwards consulting services contract from
our current consultant company to a new one that is proposing to buy them out. There would be no changes to
the personnel assigned to our project as they would become employees of the new owner.
BACKGROUND:
In October of 2000, the council approved a consulting services agreement with Sirius Corporation and their
subsidiary, Point 5 Solutions to provide implementation assistance on the JD Edwards enterprise system
software. We are in the final phases of that implementation, but have just been notified that Sirius plans to sell
Point 5 Solutions to a company called CD Group, Incorporated. This new company is in the same JD Edwards
consulting business as Point 5 Solutions and they feel customers will benefit by the larger resource base.
We do not expect any impact on our project as all of the consultants assigned to our project will become
employees of the new company and will continue to be assigned to our project. The rates and all other
conditions of the contract remain in effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute the assignment of our consulting agreement with Sirius/Point 5
Solutions to CD Group, Incorporated.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
:M DESCRIPTION: City Council Initiated Annexation Petition #01-22 to annex
PREPARED BY:
proximately 137.65 acres of City Owned property located along the east and west sides
Theresa Fogarty,
of 501h Avenue NW and north of 191h Street NW. The land is located in a part of the E1/2 of
Planner
the NE1/4, Section 30 and a part of the NW1/4, Section 29, Cascade Township
November 15, 2001
City Planninq and Zoninq Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on November 14, 2001. The Commission
found that this property is owned by the City of Rochester and adjacent to the city limits along its northern boundary. The
Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of City Council Initiated Annexation #01-22.
Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated November 7, 2001.
The 137.65 acres of land proposed for annexation is owned by the City of Rochester, therefore no taxes were paid for this
parcel.
Council Action Needed:
1. 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.
Attachments
1. Staff report, date November 7, 2001.
2. Draft copy of the minutes of November 14, 2001 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 19, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
%.,.,UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
ROUHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPAKIMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U M T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: November 7, 2001
e RocxesTex.�,� .
'•r
DRA TEr) ALIBG VST„S. P'
RE: City Council initiated Annexation #01-22 to annex approximately 108 acres
of city owned property located along the east and west sides of 50th
Avenue NW and north of 191h Street NW. The land is located in a part of the
E1/2 of the NE1/4, Section 30 and a part of the NW1/4, Section 29, Cascade
Township.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners:
Report Attachments:
Summary & Recommendation:
City of Rochester
C/O City Administration
201 41h St. SE
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
1. Location Map
At the request of the City Public Works Department, the City Council initiated annexation of this property on
October 15, 2001. The property includes approximately 137 acres, owned by the City which was acquired
for Flood Control purposes, surrounding the KR-6 reservoir. The property is adjacent to the city limits along
its northern boundary. An Ordinance may be approved to annex this property per MS 414.033 Subd. 2 (1).
Staff recommends approval.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-6232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
.e,.,.. PLANNING/TONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Draft Minutes of the City Planning & Zoning Commission
Date of Hearing: November 14, 2001
ANNEXATION:
NW. The land is located in a part of the E Y2 of the NE 1/4, Section 30 and a part of the
NW 1/4, Section 29, Cascade Township.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 7, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of City Council initiated Annexation #01-22.
Mr. Staver seconded the motion.; The motion `carried 8-0.
Page 1 of 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION-
ORIGINATING DEPT'
ITEM NO_
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
—
M DESCRIPTION: Railroad Crossing Agreement with MnDOT and DM&E
PREPARED BY:
R. Freese
lk
MnDOT is recommending the replacement of the existing grade crossing warning device at the 15"
Avenue NE crossing with the DM&E Railroad. MnDOT has determined that the existing grade crossing
warning devise is no longer adequate pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 219.39.
MnDOT has determined that the warning device needs upgraded flashers and circuitry.
MnDOT and DM&E have worked out a cost share agreement for the upgrade of the warning device at
this crossing. MnDOT and DM&E will share in the cost of the work. The City's only obligation is for a
road detour if one is needed for the work. The City would be responsible for the road detour signing.
Public Works staff have reviewed a copy of an Agreement prepared by MnDOT, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 161.20 for the upgrade of the railroad grade crossing. Staff recommends approval of the
agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement with MnDOT and
DM&E for the upgrade of the 15tb Avenue NE grade crossing warning device.
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT-
Public Works
ITEM NO.
-' _ ', 2
M DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement Amendment for the
PREPARED BY:
Preparation of Storm Water Management Plan
B. Huberty
In July 2001, the Rochester City Council approved the execution of a professional services agreement
with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates to prepare three addenda for Rochester's Storm
Water Management Plan. The areas to receive additional evaluation for storm water management
purposes were the Bear Creek, the Northwest Territory, and the Hadley Valley Sewer Service Areas.
The original agreement which was executed on 7/3/01 was for a Total Not to Exceed Cost of $149,798.
As work has proceeded in the Northwest Territory Sewer Service Area, it has been determined that an
expansion of the NWT study area would be prudent for two reasons:
1) The development potential in this area that will be stimulated by the forthcoming reconstruction
of the Essex Park Lift Station, and
2) The impact of this portion of the sub -watershed on the channel conveyance capacity at TH 52.
The proposed study area expansion would add 1429 acres, beyond the original 6113 acres previously
identified as the study area as shown on the attached map.
The contract amount for this amendment is $10,750 that will be funded by the Storm Water
Management Voluntary Contribution Fund (J2472).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an amendment to the Professional Services
Agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to prepare addenda to the Rochester
Storm Water Management Plan to increase the size of the Northwest Territory study area by 1429
acres.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
H:GSIo rmwate r\B RAAC ontractAmen dRCA.d oc
35-
A
M� a rfAal
- i�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT!
ITEM NO.
CONCENT AGENDA
Public Works
T� . J
_M DESCRIPTION: Municipal State Aid Segment Addition: Bandel Road NW.
PRAREI D BY:
EP
D.Nelson ut
At the August 6, 2001 Council meeting, the council approved the design for the
"Reconstruction of Bandel Road NW from 57th St NW to 651h St NW"
J-9815
This project is included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (pg 34, item #25). Funding for the
local share of the project is anticipated from Municipal State Aid funds. As such, we need to request the
Commissioner of Transportation to approve adding this segment to the City of Rochester's VISAS
system.
The following road segments should be added:
Bandel Road NW 1.0 miles
from 65th St NW to 65th St NW and along 65th St from TH 52 to intersection of
Bandel Rd & 65th St.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution adding Bandel Road NW from 65th St NW to 65th St NW to the City's
Municipal State Aid System and provide this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his
approval.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
3 7
Bandel Rd Seament add to MSAS
/ � i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
✓�
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA RECTION-
ORIGINATING DEPT-
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
A DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the
Southtown Heights Subdivision Area, J9791
PREPARED BY:
F J. Loehr
This is the Feasibility Report for the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the
Southtown Heights Subdivision Area in a project described as follows:
Proiect No. M1-30, J9791
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 895,085
Service Connections 64,615
Sub -Total $ 959,700
Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 287,910
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,247,610
The Southtown Heights Area sewer and water extension project is included in the proposed 2002
Capital Budget.
The Southtown Heights Area was annexed by the City of Rochester in 2000. The annexation of the Area
was approved by the State Planning Agency in December 2000. The annexation became effective on
January 1, 2001. Therefore, an Orderly Annexation Agreement with Rochester Township is not required.
The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection
Agreements), Sales Tax revenue and future Watermain Connection Charges that will be included in
Developer/City-Owner Contract Agreements for new development that will occur in property adjacent to
Southtown Heights.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a Project Hearing for December 17, 2001.
Attachments: Feasibility Report
Location Map
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN
TO SERVE THE SOUTHTOWN HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION AREA.
November 13, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area was
forwarded by the City Council at their meeting of April 19, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the
preparation of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was
signed by 39 of 50 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents
78.0 percent of the single-family residential lots within the Southtown Heights Area that are eligible to
participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on
December 21, 1998. The Southtown Heights Area also includes 6 undeveloped single-family residential
lots.
Feasibility Report
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of
this project is within an area of existing single-family residential development that currently lacks public
sanitary sewer and watermain. A majority of the septic systems and wells within the Area were constructed
prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction
of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under %s acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates
created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's
ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow
property owners of lots containing existing single-family residential dwellings to connect to public sanitary
sewer and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This project also allows the
undeveloped single-family residential lots to develop with public sewer and watermain
The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection
charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water
Quality Protection Program for existing single-family residential lots, and watermain connection charges
for a watermain extension from Greystone development through 40 acres of undeveloped property lying
between Greystone and Southtown Heights.
The proposed project consists of the installation of 8-inch sanitary sewer lines, 8-inch watermain lines, and
sewer and water service connections, to serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area.
Public sanitary sewer is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway at the southeast
corner of Southtown Heights. Sanitary sewer will be extended from that location to serve Southtown
Heights. Therefore, an extension of trunkline sanitary sewer is not required to serve the Southtown Heights
Area.
Main level watermain is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway at the southeast
corner of Southtown Heights. This watermain can be extended to serve those Southtown Heights properties
located in the main level service area (east 1/2 of Southtown Heights).
High-level watermain is currently available in Greystone Subdivision that is located approximately 1300
feet west of Southtown Heights. This watermain must be extended to serve those Southtown Heights
properties located in the high-level water service area (west 1/2 of Southtown Heights). This cost can be
recovered as connection charges in the future as this 40-acre parcel develops.
Applicable Connection Charge Rates and per Lot Cans
Since the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area petition was received prior to August 1, 1999, the date that
the Water Quality Protection Program rates and per lot caps were adjusted by the change in the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during
the preceding calendar year, the Department of Public Works recommends that the sanitary sewer and
watermain connection charges for this project be based on the connection charge rates and per lot caps in
affect at the time the petition was received by the City as follows:
• Maximum sanitary sewer and water connection charge rate of $66.30 per foot of frontage.
• Maximum sewer and water connection charge per lot cap for a developed lot that contains a
habitable single family dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1) maximum $8,160 per lot for any developed lot 1/2 acre or less.
2) $8,160 per lot, plus $0.19 per square foot for any developed lot greater than %s
acre up to 1-1/2 acre.
3) maximum $16,320 per lot for any developed lot 1-1/2 acre or larger.
The estimated construction costs and expenses of the project made without completed plans or
sun,ev are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
$ 517 640
High -Level Watermain from Greystone
145,340
Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 56 services
42,000
Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 56 services
42,000
Roadway Restoration, Seed & Sod
428,155
Temporary Neighborhood Access Road
72,475
$1,247,610
The estimated project costs are proposed to be funded as follows:
Utility Connection Agreements
$ 457,416
Sales Tax Revenue (see below)
644,854
Watermain Connection Charges (new development)
145,340
Estimated Cost of the Project
$1,247 610
Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Proiect:
Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 569,854
Sales Tax (Sewer Service Stub -Out Allowances) 50 services x $750/sery 37,500
Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances) 50 services x $750/sery 37,500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $644,854
Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property
Of the 56 lots within the project area 50 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are
eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows:
Sewer Service Lateral
50 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
50,000
Water Service Lateral
50 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
50,000
Well Closure
50 lots x $1,100 per lot
$
50,000
Septic Closure
50 lots x $ 500 per lot
$
25,000
Private Force
4 lots x $4,000 per lot
$
16,000
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances
$
191,000
For Work on Private Property
Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Proiect and Allowances
Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 644,854
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 191,000
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $ 835,854
Allowances for Work on Private Property
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections
in the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing
sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program.
Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits
contained therein, are required to:
1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the City
initiates the project.
2. Connect the existing single-family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems
within five (5) years of the date of project initiation.
3. Statement of Annexation:
The City of Rochester annexed the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area and other lands in Rochester
Township that were 100% surrounded by the City. The Minnesota State Planning Agency approved the
annexation in December 2000. The action taken by the State Planning Agency is currently being
challenged in District Court by 12 property owners in the surrounded area. In addition the situation with
regards to revisions to annexation laws in the legislation session will be uncertain until the session ends.
Despite these uncertainties, the staff recommends that the City Council proceed to accept this Feasibility
Report and authorize that the project be constructed. The City utility services are badly needed in this
subdivision. We remain optimistic about the resolution of the uncertainties. In addition our Utility
Connection Agreement language would require the owners to grant the City authority to annex the property
in the future, should the State Planning Agency previous decision of the annexation be overturned.
for your consideration: Approved:
hr, Richard Freese,
Protection Program City Engineer
Project
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: MI-30
J No: 9791
Date (Orig.) 11/13/2001
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Southtown Heights Subdivision Area
Construction
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
Service Connections
High -Level Watermain from Greystone Subd
Roadway Restoration, Seed & Sod
Temporary Neighborhood Access Road
Construction Cost
Engineering/Interest/Contingency
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Watermain Connection Charges
High Level Watermain from Greystone
Future Development
Sales Tax Funding
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
$ 398,185
64,615
111,800
329,350
55,750
959,700
287,910
$1,247,610
$ 457,416
145,340
644.854
$1,247,610
kEE
v3ar wolHlnos 3HL 3Aa3s of
• sxHM a a31vM P 83M3s Aavl Hvs `
YZ
IUD
MS 13 Noll 3 gp
� 3
S 1NON3a
a m /
P
Z
a _
D
i---I----v7--
I
i
�'�_ l l I I 1 1 1 � �•
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
T, _�2/
M DESCRIPTION: Award of Contract: Asbestos Removal Eastwood Village
P EPARED BY.
Apartments, J 2068.
D. Nelson
Bids were received and opened after 4 p.m., November 13, 2001 for the following local improvement
project:
J 2068 Asbestos Removal in Four (4) Eastwood Village Apartments.
The following bids were received:
EnviroTech Remediation Services $7,320.00 (low)
Veit Environmental, Inc. $9,442.00
Danwick Poole Environmental $10,000.00
After removal of asbestos containing building materials has been completed a contract will be bid for the
demolition of the four structures. Asbestos removal is scheduled to be completed by December 15,
2001.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the council wishes to proceed, a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to EnviroTech
Remediation Services, Inc. Roseville, MN, for $7,320.00.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Nov 14 01 08:56a
McGHIE&BETTS INC
507-289-7333
P•�
Rochester
Minnesota
Environmental Site
Investigations. Management
& Design
Asbestos, Lard, & Other
Hazardous Materials
Wetland Delineation
& Permitting
Indoor Air Quality
Geological Hazards
UST & Spills
Environmental
Assessment Worksheet
& Impact Statements
VIC (VOlUl'taty Investigation
& Clean UPI
1648 Third Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
Tel. 507.289.3919
Fax. 507,289,7333
November 13, 2001
Mr. Doug Nelson
Rochester City Engineer
Rochester City Hall
201 4 h Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Eastwood Apartments Asbestos Project Bid Recap
Dear Mr. Nelson:
In accordance with your authorization we have prepared specifications for the removal of
the friable asbestos sheet flooring at 1950, 2024, 2032 and 2048 8'/2 Street SE, buildings in
the Eastwood Apartment complex, We invited four qualified bidders to attend the
November 9 pre -bid. At 4:00 PM on November 13 I received bids via FAX from three
bidders, no bids were received in the office of the City Clerk. A recap of the bids is
presented below:
$
Contractor
$7,320.00
EnviroTech Remediation
Services, Inc, Roseville, MN
$9,442.00
Veit Environmental, Inc,
Rogers, MN
$101000.00
Danwick Poole Environmental,
Rochester, MN
No bid
MAVO Systems
Based on the bid results we recommend awarding the bid to Enviro Tech as the lowest
qualified bidder.
Sincerely,
McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc.
Jeff4 S. rober ;LPG
Vice President
Minnesota Licensed Professional Geologist # 19
Minnesota Licensed Asbestos Project Designer #PD3042
cc: Judy Sheer, City Clerk
Bidders,
e-mailmcghiebetts corn
Established 1991
110v 19 u1 ua:5ba McUH1ln&dEI Ib INC
507-289-7333
p.3
November 14, 2001
Mr, Harley Foster
EnvironTech Remediation Services, Inc
2958 North Cleveland Ave
Roseville, MN 55113-1199
Re: Contract Award
City of Rochester Public Works
Eastwood Apartments.
R o c h e s t e r Dear Mr, Foster:
M i n n e s o t a Congratulations, In accordance with the authorization of the City of Rochester Public
Works Departmetn I am notifying you that EnviranTech has been selected for the
contract to complete the asbestos abatement for the Eastwood Apartments in Rochester.
Environmental Site We are completing the contract documents based on your bid of $7,320.00 for work that
Investigations. Management will be completed before December 15, 2001. To process the contract please provide us
& Design with a Certificate of Insurance and a Performance and Surety Bond for the contract
Asbestos, Lead, &other amount. The contract will be available for your signature as early as Tuesday,
Ha idous Materials November 20.
Weiland Delineation
& Permitting Start of work can commence as early as possible pending the submittal of your NOI and
Indoor Air Quality submittal of all necessary contract documents.
• Geological Hazards
If you have further questions or comments please contact me at McGhie &Betts
UST & spills (507)289-3919.
Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Sincerely:
& Impact Statements
VIC Voluntary investigationMcGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc.
& Clean Up)
J\` � Q,
7efirey B ober , LPG, REM
Vice President
Minnesota Licensed Asbestos Project Designer #PD 3042
Minnesota Licensed Professional Geologist #30019
Registered Environmental Manager #3009
Cc: Judy Scheer, City Administrator, City of Rochester MN
Doug Nelson, City Engineer
Susan LeGare —Gulden, Rochester Building and Safety
1648 Third Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
•
Tel 507.289.3919
Fax. 507.289,7333
e-mail. mcghiebetts.com
Established 1991
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
It-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: IVC Parking for Resident at 811 8th Avenue SE
ITEM NO.
1 — jc�
PREPARED B
�R D. Rossman
The City has received a request from Mr. Kevin Chinn (529-0799) of 811-8th Avenue SE to
designate a handicapped -parking stall at his place of residence. This is needed to accommodate
parking for his family. His dwelling shares a driveway with a neighbor. There are times when it
is not available and the curbside spaces are full.
This area is presently unrestricted. There is a parking lane along with an 11-foot traffic lane.
Traffic volumes are 2,100 vehicles per day. This has also been reviewed by the City Police
Department staff, which agrees with the recommendation.
Staff would recommend in favor of the request.
.V=
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking
Resolution book:
1) Add paragraph (8) of section C "Special Parking Zones' (Zone A - General) to read;
(8)8 In Avenue SE, on the west side, (1 stall for handicapped parking) in front of the premise known as
811 8th Avenue SE.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
T `,
:M DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Heim Property Elmcroft 4 area.
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The Owner, Jim Heim, owns existing lots in the Elmcroft 4tn Subdivision and wishes to further develop
them. Mr. Heim and City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the development of the
property on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on our discussions, the content for a development
agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the
agreement include the following:
• Pedestrian facilities within and abutting the development.
• Owner's payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges
including SAC, WAC, connection charges, future pedestrian facility charges, Park
Dedication, and Storm Water Management.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the
agreement.
J
25 ST SW
il
i
t
iol
Elm VIEW PL SW
ei
FIAICROFf DR 3W
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Jim and Carla Heim.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING / ?t9
DATE: 11/W01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
41
M DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Stonehedge Development with Sherm
PREPARED BY:
Stoflet
M. Nigbur Till'
The Developer of land, located North of Circle Drive NE lying West of Century High School, and City
Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the project on the surrounding infrastructure. Based
on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has
been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Pedestrian facilities within and abutting the development.
• Traffic Improvements including right of way dedication, signage, traffic signal, bus
shelter location, provisions for secondary access and controlled access.
• Utility extensions and water booster station site
• Park and storm water facility dedication
• Private Lift Station construction, maintenance and removal
• Owners payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges
including SAC, WAC, Storm Water Management, and Area Street Improvements.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Developer has executed the
agreement.
35th Street NE
ZProperty
r
Plateau Drive/Rocky Creek Drive
°a Intersection
y
3 East Circle Drive NE
16th Avenue NE
�W
z
_--- -------—
LLhNo S
h
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Sherm Stoflet for the
Stonehedge Development.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
,�D
11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION,
ORIGINATING DEPT!
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
� DI _ �2
M DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right of Way Acquisition
PREPARED BY:
for the Badger Run Sewer Project — J9745
M. Nigbur }�71
The City's WQPP project to extend sanitary sewer to serve portions of Marion Township required the
procurement of easements. City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property using the state
acquisition requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a
preliminary settlement has been reached. The terms of the settlement include payment of $2,000 per
average size acquisition and $2,500 for larger acquisitions. By settling on the acquisition cost with the
Owners the City has avoided the cost of condemning these properties.
The following property Owners have agreed to provide the easement in exchange for payment:
• Mr. Randy Reynolds $2500
• Mr. Todd Fiedler $2500
7t-7 _ _{
s r�� z+szs I
I
a ,
a
Sewer Line -- �
(( BEIA
L 2557¢E- Fiedler -W
Pro ert ood oR e
P y
og
k
u
Reynolds a
Property -�
6~Vr 12'S SE
k
as
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the payment for the needed easements for the above referenced property owners.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ✓ //yy
DATE: 11401
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works,
M DESCRIPTION: Variance Request: (J9578)
PR AIRED BY:
Improvements to 50th Ave NW. (J-9578)
R. Kelm
t2k
This is a request for a resolution regarding a variance for the following:
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester proposes to reconstruct 50th Avenue NW from a point 2,307 feet
south of the Northwest Corner of Section 17, Township 107N, Range 14W to 65th Street NW as project
SP 159-080-09; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 8820.9920 requires that the minimum design speed for Rural and
Suburban reconstruction projects is 40 miles per hour; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester proposes to reconstruct the southernmost 250 feet of the project,
where it matches into the existing gravel roadway, to a design speed of 30 miles per hour in lieu of the
required 40 miles per hour called for;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Rochester requests a variance from the
Geometric Design Standards; Rural and Suburban Reconstruction Projects for design speed , as
specified in Minnesota Rules 8820.9920, as they apply to the southernmost 250 feet of proposed project
SP 159-080-09; and
FURTHERMORE, the City of Rochester indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless the State of Minnesota
and its agents and employees of and from claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of
or by reason of the granting of this variance.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the variance.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
S
r�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION'
ORIGINATING DFPT-
ITEM NO
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
T, r
W DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Royal Plaza Subdivision
PREPARED BY:
(J9634)
1k)( M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Dakota of Rochester, Inc. (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner
Contract J9634 consisting of "Basic Construction in Royal Plaza Subdivision".
55th St NW
B
Z w.
¢ 'E
L
0
W;
r�
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9634
"Basic Construction in Royal Plaza Subdivision".
JNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
r,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION,
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
_ ) — a'?
A DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — SS & WM to Serve L6, B1, Replat of p/o B3,
R PARED BY:
Knollwood Acres (Whitter & Woods Property) (J9821)
J M. Baker
`�h
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Sarasota Consulting, Inc. (Owner) & Jech Excavating (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner
Contract J9821 consisting of "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 6, Block 1, Replat of part of
Block 3, Knollwood Acres (Whitter & Woods Property)".
21 st St SW
T
3
a
m
0 2
Whitter` & Woods Property,,:-,
o
co
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract forJ9821,
"Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 6, Block 1, Replat of part of Block 3, Knollwood Acres
(Whitter & Woods Property)".
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
M DESCRIPTICN: Owner Contract— Basic C
Commercial Park (J98661
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works — a9
PRPPARED BY:
A,J R. Freese
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
DeWitz Construction, Inc. (Owner) & Elcor Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner
Contract J9866 consisting of "Basic Construction in Diamond Ridge Commercial".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9866
"Basic Construction in Diamond Ridge Commercial Park".
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by, Second by: to:
,-,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING J(,O
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING ❑EPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
PREPARED BY:
L
M. Baker 1�z
The Department of Public Works has received a request on two (2) properties, to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). This department
has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for
participation. The Owners of the following properties have requested voluntary participation in
the City's Plan, with the applicable participation fees as follows:
• Robnik, LLP (2027 East River Road NE)
(SDP#01-78) $5, 025.57
• Olmsted Medical Center (1650 4th St SE — South Parking Lot)
(SDP#01-84) $9,656.95
The Owners of these properties have already provided payment for its respective charges.
These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in
the City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted properties, in the
City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
j ( MEETING 11-19-01
DATE:
ArFNnA SFCTInN-
nRIMNATINr; nFPT-
ITFM N2
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS
- 3/
m AGREEMENT FOR PARK & RIDE LOT/ BETHEL LUTHERAN
PRFPARFn RV
CHURCH
A KNAUER
This is a recommendation to renew an agreement with Bethel Lutheran Church at 810 3Id
Avenue SE to use their west parking lot for the period 1/1/2002 through 12/31/2002 for a park
and ride facility.
Under the agreement Bethel provides up to 97 spaces for persons to park and ride the City bus
into the downtown. The lot owner is paid for spaces sold on a basis of $10.00 per space up to
85 spaces. (The last 12 spaces are free to the program.) The spaces are available Monday
through Friday, 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The agreement can be terminated by either party with
30 days notice.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving an agreement with Bethel Lutheran to establish a
park and ride during 2002 in the 800 block of 3rd Avenue SE.
^^"NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
11 /19/01
AGENDA RFCTION-
CONSENT AGENDA
M DESCRIPTION: Land
ORIGINATING DEPT,
Public Works
Avenue NW (J
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
4V M. Nigbur
City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property using the state acquisition requirements. Based on
the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a preliminary settlement has been reached.
The terms of the settlement include payment to the Owners. By settling the acquisition with the Owners
the City and Owners have avoided the cost of condemning these properties.
The following property Owners have agreed to provide the right of way in exchange for payment::
• Mr, and Mrs. Maidal settlement amount $34,000 (appraised value was $24,200) —
The increase in the value is attributable to a change in the method of appraisal for the property.
The City's consultant used different methods of valuations on several different properties. In the
negotiations the Owner wished to have their property valued in a manor which was consistent
with others in the corridor. In discussion with our consultant they concurred the Owner's request
was not unreasonable. Therefore Staff proceeded to negotiate a settlement using this alternate
appraisal method.
Authorize the payment for the needed land rights for the above referenced property owner
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction: 900 block of 2nd Street NE
MEETING 57
DATE: 11-19-01
ITEM NO.
-33
PREPARED BY:,. J
_ D. RossmanfC
The City has received a request through the area Councilperson, originating from two residents of this
block, to restrict parking on the north side of 2"d Street NE/900 block. Contributing factors to this request
are narrow street width and a high incidence of on -street parking.
The pavement on 2"d Street NE is 30 feet wide. This width allows 2 through lanes of traffic- one in each
direction- with a parking lane on one side. The average daily traffic is around 300 vehicles per day.
Parking is allowed along both sides of the street. Employees from nearby businesses use on -street
parking. When vehicles are parked on both sides of the street, travel width is restricted resulting in
congestion, as well as concems about emergency access, and visibility when entering/exiting the alley.
Staff would recommend in favor of the residents' request.
i
I
1 --- - L
an
____—
mn
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (63.7) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read;
(63.7) Second Street NE on the north side of the street from 9t" Avenue to 101" Avenue, at all times.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
-
11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Stormsewer Extension to Serve the Home
PR ARED AB
Federal Savings Bank (J9870)M.
Bak
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Home Federal Savings Bank, a Federally Chartered Savings Bank (Owner) & Knutson Construction,
Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9870 consisting of "Stormsewer Extension to
Serve the Home Federal Savings Bank (55th St NW)".
55th St NW
Home Federal Savings Bank
J9870
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9870
"Stormsewer Extension to Serve the Home Federal Savings Bank (55th St NW)".
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 6/ '
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
— 3�
=M DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Agreement for Restoration of Civic Center
PREPARED BY:
Ramp and Third Street Ramp
D. Rossman I
This is a recommendation to retain the firm of Buildings Consulting Group, Inc (BCG) to provide
professional engineering services for City Project 8215-38-02 (J2583) — Restoration #1 of Third Street Ramp
And City Project 8215-39-02 (J2578) — Restoration #2 of Civic Center Ramp. BCG has conducted this type of
work once before for the City of Rochester in 1999 in a satisfactory manner. For this project they have teamed up
with HGA of Rochester and AGA of Minneapolis for specific advise in electrical and mechanical areas.
These projects are listed in the City's Capital Improvement program. The ramps will be 4 and 9 years old
respectively in 2002. Presently structural surveys are conducted once every 4 years. Any minor repairs
that are needed will be documented, and the cause of stress will be determined and a repair estimate will
be developed. The cost of this survey is budgeted in the respective J-accounts. BCG will conduct the
following professional services:
1. A visual condition survey, chain drag with soundings, and documentation of location of stress of the
top & bottom of all supported decks; all columns, walls, and beams; structural connections;
expansion joints; and adjacent stair towers.
2. Obtain concrete dust samples on each deck to determine dissolved chloride ions.
3. A condition survey of the electrical and mechanical HVAC, drainage, elevators, fire protection
system, energy management systems and parking control systems.
4. Prepare a report on the results of the survey, photographs, cause of distress, recommended repairs,
estimated cost of repair, and the capability of the structure to continue to safely support the imposed
loads.
The fee for this work is $ 11,200 plus reimbursable expenses. The schedule is to complete the inspection
work and report by January, receive repair bids in March and conduct the actual repair work in mid
summer. Proposals for this work were received from 2 other firms. BCG's proposal is recommended
based upon timeliness, experience of the proposers with the 3rd Street Ramp, and their past work on City
ramps for similar work.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City Officials to accept the proposal of "Buildings Consultant
Group, Inc of 2817 Anthony lane S, Suite 201 Minneapolis Mn 55418; to provide Professional
Engineering Services for City Project 8215-38-02 (J2583) — Restoration 41 of Third Street Ramp; And
City Project 8215-39-02 (J2578) — Restoration #2 of Civic Center Ramp
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (pJ,
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA RECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO. ,
Consent Public Works
I
!� J
M DESCRIPTION: Contribution Agreement— Jim and Michelle VanEss 11 Avenue
p EPARED BY:
SW
M. Nigbur�
The Owners have indicated they may develop the property as a residential development and connect
their new home to public utilities. The Owners have requested to enter into a Contribution Agreement
with the City, to address their financial obligations for the connection of the home and the potential costs
related to development of their property.
City Staff have prepared, and the Owner's have executed, a Contribution Agreement as discussed
above. Staff recommends the Council approve the Contribution Agreement.
1 1
j
I Z
.;'"COhYE r'INE'DR5W �,,---� --
,NI I
,
i
i
Vaness Property
Driveway
j
Sander Pro ert —
f I �
I �
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Contribution Agreement for the VanEss property on
111h Avenue SW
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Administrator
D - 3-7
DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related to Conditional Use
PREPARED BY:
Permit # 98-05
T. Spaeth
At the November 5, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing to reconsider the bituminous batch
plant included in Restricted Development CUP # 98-05
Upon review of the record, the City Attorney has prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law and order relating to
said matter. Attached for the Council's review are the findings of fact prepared by the City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
Copy of City Attorney prepared Findings of fact and Conclusions of law dated November 13, 2001.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
.' MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 13, 2001
TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator
FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney -0
SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit #98-05
On November 5, 2001, the Council held a public hearing to reconsider the bituminous batch
plant included in Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 for property located
south of 40t' Street S.W., west of Trunk Highway 63. Following the hearing, the Council directed
me to prepare draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and to bring this document
back to the Council for its review and consideration. As further instructed by the Council, I
prepared the Findings document so as to determine that the applicant had voluntarily withdrawn
his request for a continuation of the bituminous batch plant operation as part of this conditional
use permit.
I enclose that draft document for presentation to the Council. The Council may adopt, reject or
modify the document as it pleases.
Enclosure
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
In Re: Restricted Development
Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit
#98-05 by
Franklin P. Kottschade
Amended
Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law,
and Order
On November 5, 2001, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public
hearing, upon notice to the public, to reconsider a portion of a Type III, Phase II Amendment to
Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05. The portion of the Amendment under
reconsideration allows Franklin P. Kottschade ("Applicant") to operate a portable bituminous
drum mixer facility ("Bituminous Plant") on a portion of the property bounded by 40th Street S.W.,
Trunk Highway 63 South, 11th Avenue S.W., ("Site").
On March 15, 1999, the Council gave temporary approval of that portion of the permit
concerning the Bituminous Plant so that it could revisit the Bituminous Plant's operation after it
was in place. The Council later extended the Bituminous Plant's expiration date to November 6,
2000, and then to November 5, 2001. This hearing occurs in response to the November 5,
2001, expiration date.
At the hearing, the President of an adjacent property owner, John Arnold, appeared and
testified. An interested neighbor also appeared and testified. The Applicant did not appear at
the hearing.
1
Based upon the evidence presented at all of the public hearings, the Common Council of
_*e City of Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
order
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532(5)
and Minn. Stat. §462.3595, subd. 2.
2. Franklin P. Kottschade applied for a Type III, Phase II Amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-5 so as to allow for the following modifications to
Permit #98-5:
a) extension of the area designated for processing of granular materials by 9.4
acres to the west;
b) addition of a bituminous batch mixing plant, the location of which would be
limited to the most easterly part of the processing area and that includes the
following: addition of traffic associated with the bituminous plant,
processing of materials originating off -site as needed for producing and
processing the bituminous and an extension of the hours/days of operation
limitations for the bituminous plant from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday
through Friday that currently applies to processing on -site to allow the plant
to operate 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays
as needed;
c) modification of haul roads; and
d) addition of stock pile locations
3. Following its January 27, 1999, public hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the testimony, applied the applicable criteria and recommended denial
of the Applicant's request.
2
4. The Planning and Zoning Department staff recommended approval of the
-Opplicant's request subject to eight conditions.
5. On March 15, 1999, Common Council held a public hearing to consider the
Amendment. At the March 15th public hearing, Applicant's legal counsel, Attorney John Arnold
and the City Attorney mutually agreed that the seventh condition should be amended and a ninth
condition should be added.
6. Following the March 15th public hearing, the Council approved the Amendment
subject to the nine conditions. On March 31, 1999, the Council adopted Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order, in order to memorialize its actions on March 15, 1999. A copy of
this document is attached and identified as Exhibit A.
7. The March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document included the following statement:
Council member Hansen indicated that the Council should review that portion of
the request concerning the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of
2000. That review should come directly to the Council without payment of any
application or filing fee.
8. On March 6, 2000, the Council held another public hearing to conduct the "review"
as described above. During that hearing, there was considerable confusion among staff and
Council Members as to what was meant by the term "review" as used in the March 31, 1999,
Findings of Fact document. As a result, the Council, on April 3, 2000, adopted an Amended
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order clarifying its intent to conduct a yearly review of
the Bituminous Plant's operation. In that part of its Order addressing the addition of a
Bituminous Plant, the Council stated "[t]his temporary approval shall expire on November 6,
2000, but may be renewed or extended by the Council at that time following its review of the
3
operation of the Bituminous Plant." A copy of the April 3rd Findings of Fact document is attached
And identified as Exhibit B.
9. On November 6, 2000, the Council adopted Resolution # 787-00, which essentially
extended the temporary approval of the Bituminous Plant until November 5, 2001. The
extension occurred as the Bituminous Plant had yet to begin operation. Thus, there was no
history as to the impact of the Bituminous Plant's operation on adjacent property. A copy of the
November 6ch Resolution is attached and identified as Exhibit C.
10. The November 5, 2001, hearing occurs in response to the November 6, 2001,
Resolution #787-00 and the April 3, 2000, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. The
purpose of the November 5, 2001, hearing is to consider that portion of Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05, which concerns the operation of the Bituminous Plant. Unless
the Council extends this portion of the Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant's authority to
operate the Bituminous Plant will terminate on November 5, 2001.
11. At the November 5, 2001, public hearing, the Council considered the Planning
Department's October 31, 2001, staff report. In relevant part, the report states the following:
At this time, there is no operational history for the bituminous plant since it has not
been put into use since the approval of the permit. Mr. Kottschade has contacted
the Planning Department and has stated that he wishes not to extend the portion
of the Permit relating to the Bituminous Plant since it has not been put into
operation. In a letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council, dated October 17,
2001, Mr. Kottschade declines to request or accept an extension of the renewal of
Amendment to Restrictive Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 to allow for
a bituminous plant. Staff recommends that the Council not extend the permit as
requested by Mr. Kottschade, as it relates to the bituminous plant, and that if the
applicant wishes to locate the bituminous plant on the property in the future, a
request to amend to [sic] Conditional Use Permit #98-05 shall be filed by the
applicant." [Italics in original]
4
12. A copy of the October 17, 2001, letter from the Applicant is attached and identified
As Exhibit D.
13. At the November 5, 2001, public hearing, attorney John Arnold appeared not as
the Applicant's legal counsel, but as the President of SJC Properties. SJC Properties owns
property adjacent to the property under consideration. Mr. Arnold indicated that he did not favor
nor oppose the continuation of the Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit. He did
acknowledge his receipt of the Applicant's October 17, 2001, letter, "indicating he did not want to
go forward with his bituminous batch plant operation." Mr. Arnold's only concern was the
continuation of access pending the City's formal response to SJC Properties' request for
permanent access. Department of Public Works representative Mike Nigbur confirmed the City's
position indicating SJC Properties would continue to enjoy temporary access pending the City's
formal response to SJC Properties' request for permanent access.
14. An interested citizen appeared and stated the neighbors were pleased to hear that
the Applicant was not pursuing the Bituminous Plant's operation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LA W
1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532
and Minn. Stat. §462.3595.
2. By a substantial weight of the evidence presented, the Common Council
determines that there is a legal basis to not extend the Council's approval of that portion of the
amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 which authorizes the
operation of a Bituminous Plant for a specific time period if the Applicant complies with nine
F
L
conditions. The Applicant has voluntarily abandoned his earlier request for the operation of a
Bituminous Plant. He has made it clear that he does not wish any further extension of this
portion of the Conditional Use Permit.
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §§60.532(5), 61.146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006 and 62.1010 does hereby deny that portion of the amendment to
Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to add a portable bituminous drum
mixer facility for a specific time period if the Applicant complies with nine conditions. The
Applicant has voluntarily abandoned the Bituminous Plant portion of this Conditional Use Permit.
He has made it clear that he does not wish any further extension of this portion of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of November, 2001.
FOf.zone\conduee3.amd965.fo£
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
6
OCnl ICCT Ct)D rni iurti erTlnu ummpd :
t
Gerald J (Jerry) Balm
2190 17th Street N.E. Home: (507) 282-9378
Rochester. Minnesota 55906 E-mail: jeritbnaattglobal.net
SUMMARY: I am an Electrical Engineer with over 31 years of industry experience in
managerial, technical and staff assignments; and with considerable teaching and speaking
experience. My major areas of expertise are: Quality Improvement, electronics design and
its tools, business ethics and general management/leadership.
EXPERIENCE: 1954 - was graduated from High School in Fort Dodge, IA
1955-59 - active military duty with U. S. Navy
1954-55 & 1959-66 - attending college
1966-97 - various assignments within IBM
1997-98 - Customized Training Coordinator at RCTC (local college)
1998-99 - Interim Executive Director to Board of Directors of GRAUC
ACCOMPLISHMENT HIGHLIGHTS:
eighteen years served in IBM Engineering Design in managerial, technical and staff
capacities contributing to the design and release of the IBM Systeml38 computer and
some Optical Character Recognition equipment.
Three years in IBM s Technical Education developing and teaching courses and
managing an Engineering Education Department.
served on a team deploying Total Quality Management resulting in IBM Rochester being
awarded a 1990 Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award.
- IBM Corporate Benchmarking facilitator after serving three years as an IBM Division
Benchmarking facilitator resulting in the divisional and corporate training and activity
databases as well as widespread use of TQM continuous improvement tools.
- Published over 21 papers/reports/articles plus one book
- Numerous talks, presentations and classes taught.
EDUCATION: 1955 - Electronics Technician schooling in U.S. Navy
1962 - B.S. E.E. from Iowa State University
1963 - M.S.E.E. from Iowa State University
1966 - Ph D in E.E. from Iowa. State University
TEACHING: 1966-1997 - taught 13 courses in IBM (many had multiple sections)
1988-1992 - adjunct Associate Professor at Saint Mary's University (in ethics)
1999-2000 - taught Problem Solving ABUS 4012 for Univ of MN at UCR
LEADERSHIP: 1958-1959 - Electronics Technician Group Leader in U.S. Navy
1968-1997 - several managerial, task force & group leadership positions in IBM
1969-1993 - several leadership roles in American Society for Engineering Educ
1987-1989 - Executive Director to the Greater Rochester Area University
Center (as a loaned executive from IBM)
1987-present - several professional and community Board positions.
„ocxuru
,��•'`� :?� Nht}or Chuck Canfield bftd
J( =: 201 +th Street SE - Room 281 all ;veaia cm
R,xhester. NIN 5590-1-3782
c"* - ,:..�..-_:.`; o• Phone: i507i 28.5-8080 Fax: (5071 28/-7979
LO: AVG WT'S•�
d
CITY OF ROCHES1.ER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
ADDRESS: _ - - - ---::'•.
DO YOU R SIDE VIIT3IN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES <> NO
P?.ACE OF EMPLOYMENT:
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON AQC'13-, ✓ ;C fir .�liC 1,�Zl r OS._
rEmil i._: e al art a- ,AUS3. .-- --- __
_
O; 00 _ -,�i �,j .9 ''L1C_ti 0 =tip
a si -'-i ficant co� 33r Ji03 for a. 'liverse 00:--urd ,w
l2 .3 _1OC'_1e3ter. -
=�.5 PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (FDUCATIvN, S?ECIA.L INTERESTS,
AC:i1 V h!ENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY SNrVOLVEMENI') Attach additional
information, if desired.
�—
^1 ._ .....' 1 ... ... ___•_ _ 1
'3-11 .” fon:ier :.ie_:DOr Of Tv Fou-:_' 3v10_i__oar ', Served
DATE SUS;!IT.ED: OC 1, _, SIGNED:
Return to: Office of the Mayor -
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
♦a.****<.....saff....w..4.ww....***.....+:,'. w.a 4.l A:r. r 4..*A***4s
DATE OF APP0I:4TMENT:�_—_
TERN EXPIRATION:,—_
OTHER DATA:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS- Continued Item
PLANNING
ze-
Final Plat #01-44 by Carriage Homes XVII Inc., to be known as Fox
PREPARED BY:
.4DESCRIPTION:
Townhomes First CIC # 159 First Supplemental. This Plat proposes to subdivide
Brent Svenby,
14.97 acres of land into 64 lots for townhome development and 1 outlot. The property will
Planner
be served by private roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial
Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain areas
within the development. The property is located west and north of Meadow Lakes Drive
NW and south of 3rd Street.
November 15, 2001
Planning Department Review:
i I
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2001 recommending approval subject to the following
modifications / conditions:
1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that
cash in lieu of land in amount of $29,640 will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat has stated in the
October 3, 2001 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. Payment is due prior to the
recording of the final plat documents.
2. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities shall be recorded
concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars).
I i
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial
of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity. Staff suggests one condition of
approval. See page 4 of the staff report.
I
Distribution:
1. City Administrator j
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, November 19, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.`/ y
7. South Eastern Engineering and Brand& Massey Surveying, Inc /N�y by d✓-
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: .o« to: --
(J
7i-
M < % /h 44�rri /tit = ti
C ;%
South Eastern Engineering Inc. ell
40 IV Street, SE ♦ Suite 0 ♦ Rochester, Mn 55904
Phone 507 287-0110 1 Fax 507 286-9188 ♦ Email seengr@sparc.isl.net
November 14, 2001
Mr. Brent Svenby
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive S.E.
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
RE: Fox Ridge Townhomes I", CIC #159, 0 Supplemental
Dear Mr, Svenby:
The following is in response to the City Council's concerns on November 5, 2001, for
Zoning Ordinance 62.1105 (2) and (14).
62.1105 (2) — The majority of the excavation takes place on the interior of the site. The
grading activities are expected to take 30 working days. There are approximately 42,100
cubic yards of material that need to be removed from the site. This material will be taken
to a number of sites for disposal via City and County roads. We have obtained
permission from the County and the City to use the haul roads. The City has put the
following conditions on the haul route permit (a) daily sweeping of haul routes (b) notify
David Dvv} er and David Kramer of Public Works when work is done (c) obtain grading
permit.
The Contractor will sweep the haul route at the end of each day. The Engineer will notify
David Dwyer and David Kramer when hauling activities are complete. A grading permit
has been applied for and approved pending the approval of the Substantial Land
Alteration.
The visual, noise, dust and/or excessive on- or off- site environmental impacts, from the
excavation activities, on public parks, roadways and residential areas should take no more
than 30 working days and will be typical of any construction project of this nature. The
Contractor has installed stabilized vehicle exits at three (3) locations to reduce the
amount of material tracked offsite on the wheels of the trucks. As part of an executed
Contract between the Developer and the Contractor, the Contractor has been required to
meet public safety and maintenance of traffic issues. See attached excerpts from the
Special Provisions — 01100- 2 and 3.
The Contractor shall meet the City of Rochester Noise Ordinance 85.10 Subp. 2 by only
performing construction activities from 7 am to 10 pm Monday to Saturday and noon to
10 pm on Sunday.
The cost of any of these measures were incorporated into the Contractors bid prices and
thus the Contractor is aware of the cost of these measures, and the Developer has signed a
Contract with the Contractor to pay them for such work. The Contractor has provided a
Performance Bond to assure that all work required under the Contract will be executed.
62.1105 (14) — The Contractor has provided a Performance Bond for the entire project.
A copy of the bond will be provided to Public Works on Monday, November 19, 2001.
Sincerely,
South Eastern Engineering, Inc.
Pam Shakal, PE
enc.
cc David Rossman
Doug Nelson
Rochester City Council Members
Carriage Homes XVII
C. he Contractor shall then install all sanitary and stontt sewe , water mains,
an rvice connections, and any other underground st res. On
compleu of utility installation, the Contractor s complete the street
grading, incI g subgrade preparation, and nstruct the aggregate base,
bituminous pavem t and curb and Burt
D. Setting of all castings locate ' pavement areas shall be made by the
underground Contractor er the cement of the bituminous base course.
Castings located in r and gutter are shall be adjusted by the underground
contractor in c junction with curb and gu construction. All adjustments
of cas tin ill be considered incidental to the c struction of the structure.
The al adjustments of the casting shall be made p to the bituminous
ear paving in 2002 by the paving contractor. This work al be paid for at
the unit price to adjust castings.
1.04 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE
A. All work within the project shall be conducted in accordance with iMriDOT
requirements conceming: signs, barricades, lighting, flagpersons, or other
traffic and safety devices. Construction operations shall be conducted to cause
the least possible conflict with existing traffic.
1.05 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
A. A traffic flow pattern on city streets shall be maintained to provide emergency
vehicle access to all property. Fire hydrants, on or adjacent to the work, shall
be kept accessible to fire fighting equipment at all times. All street closings
shall be approved by the City prior to closing. The temporary closing of any
streets will require the installation of sufficient barricades, fences, and signs,
to adequately deter traffic from entering the sites. If the streets are not closed,
one lane of traffic shall be maintained at all times, and signs installed
indicating "local traffic only".
B. All driveways shall be accessible at the end of the working day. No
driveways can be without access for more than four hours.
C. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to ensure that all access points are
kept open and maintained.
D. Haul routes shall generally be along C.S.A.H. streets or trunk highways, and
coordinated with the engineer.
E. The Contractor shall comply with all legal load restrictions, Minnesota
0
I
1!
E
C
00135 oecial Provisions
01100 - 2
lu
Statutes 169.53 and 169.S32, in the hauling of materials and the movement of
equipment over structures, base courses, and pavements within the project
which are under construction, or which have been completed.
Equipment mounted on crawler tracks or steel -tired wheels shall not be
operated, on or across concrete or bituminous surfaces, without specific
authorization from the Engineer.
G. Should construction operations necessitate the crossing of an existing
pavement or completed portions of the pavement structure with equipment or
loads which would otherwise be prohibited, approved methods of load
distribution or bridging shall be provided by the Contractor at their expense.
H. Neither by issuance of a special permit, nor by adherence to any other
restrictions imposed, shall the Contractor be relieved of their liability for any
damages resulting from the operation and movement of their construction
equipment.
1.06 PROTECTION OF UTILITIES
A. location of underground facilities, as shown on the Plans, area roximate
only, d are shown only for the Contractor's general informati .The
Enginee oes no assume responsibility for showing all utili i s in the Plans.
The Contra r shall notifiy all public and private utilite f their work
schedule, and suitable precautions to prevent da ge to pipes, conduits,
and other undersT d or overhead structures.
WO
C.
1.07
In some instances it mayN impossible
which will allow construcno to oroce
If this should occur, the utility
and required to do what is nea
resident engineer shall appr
utilities.
construction procedures
$
d over, around, or under the utilities.
es shall be notified by the Contractor
save their facilities from harm. The
ston changes necessary to protect
When utilities nXit be located, the Contractor sh cooperate with the utility
company an rovide them access to the work and tt a to make adjustments
without i erference.
"IPNIENT RATES
The Contractor shall prepare a schedule of equipment rental rates for all\
equipment to be used on the project. Rates shall include all costs for opera
overhead, and profit for subcontractors and contractor. The schedule shall
also include all classes of laborers and supervisors.
Special Provisions
00135 01100 - 3
l0(J
Memo
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ron Boose, Director of Building Safety
Date: November 14, 2001
Subject: Fox Ridge Town Homes 1st (Carriage Homes Inc.)
I have met with building safety department staff members regarding the
complaints voiced to the council by homeowners in this development.
While this project did not progress as smoothly as most, we are not
aware of any unresolved building code violations at this time. Our
department has received several complaints from homeowners regarding
the conditions in or around their homes but the vast majority of these
complaints were not building code violations. To our knowledge, any
homeowner complaints that were building code violations have been
resolved.
I will be present during your inspection of this development on Monday to
answer any questions that may arise regarding building code items.
N�
HE
�
• ae ��� � RiS � � ` N
! s
I
I� O. L D
22
IuiI � HvN"g
1
Lu
LL = N
00�_
F— �
om L S'N i' 9 I UN
w� -N II�+9 �' N I •� I X g
m p
LLJ
OQ� IF , i C3 P�j! :. .�7�1 n m Ig
CLZ� W �IL'm �e�l 9 r ICI �' f.�l • ^ �o
0 g n al ����a ��� ; � �m I • « J �. � I W � m
#A
` o
m I��� Y^• �l'� g y�'`i �im m
Gi n�.°
{
//f �•I � LS'f9L 3 ..S0,9hD0 5
i
r.ru w a,rin ru,s.-, ram.
Nlol DI LsTj f �lm a, i Wil
L�
W lo
z
Fo
U�
oi,
ol ... ...
it
11,
IN
Im.
A-11
I
1p
JIA,
TI.
14
6V43alSM AiISNM ADT 3kn usaxad
M),a3m
.Ol99 m 'W.Vw:tl a "M ust M
ONI JNIZIaSNIJN3 KHl Hlf
Iryx:�r ;I�
1
1
/71
I
�
L.
RT7.
•r
w 1
• H
I A:1
� I
-,o
II
-
. Ni[tl
I �1
1
F Ixi
F m»n
'I
wnu
aAu
N%I[
t :
i
T:
QN
Q W
1 wu
I
_ QW
y
ROCH STER-OLAISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CCU X T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 1, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-44 to be known as Fox Ridge Townhomes First CIC
159 First Supplemental
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Carriage Homes XVII Inc.
6750 Stillwater Blvd. North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Surveyors/Engineers: Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
1009 Whitewater Avenue
St. Charles, MN 55972
South Eastern Engineering, Inc.
40 16`" Street SE, Suite D
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1.
RPU Water Division
2.
RPU Operations Division
3.
Rochester Public Works
4.
Planning Dept. - Addressing
5.
Rochester Public Works Department
6.
Planning Dept. — Wetlands
7.
Rochester Building and Safety
Report Attachments: 1.
Referral Comments ( 3 Letters)
2.
Location Map
3.
Copy of Final Plat
4.
SLA Map
5.
SLA Letter
Plat Data:
Location of Property: The property is located west and north of Meadow
Lakes Drive NW and south of 3 ° Street NW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1X on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 14.97 acres of land to
be subdivided into 64 lots for a towmhome
development and one common lot.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
-._�. PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287.2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1. 2001
Streets:
Sidewalk:
Drainage:
There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat. The property has access from Meadow Lakes
Drive NW. The roadways serving the townhomes will
be private.
In accordance with current City policy pedestrian
facilities including pedestrian ramps are required
along both sides of all of the new roadways.
The grading and drainage plans have been approved
subject to the approval of the Substantial Land
Alteration.
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: The City has approved the public improvement (water
main and sanitary sewer construction) plans for the
subdivision.
Spillover Parking: Spillover parking requirements were reviewed at the
time the performance residential development plan
was approved.
Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department
recommends that the parkland dedication
requirements for this plat be met via cash in lieu of
land in the amount of $39,640. Payment is due prior
to the recording of the final plat documents.
General Development Plan: The proposed plat is consistent with the approved
Fox Ridge General Development Plan.
Substantial Land Alteration
The applicant is also requesting approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land
Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for
excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat,
subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM.
➢ This development includes a proposal for grading work which involves a grade change of 10-
feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The attached map labeled SLA Map identifies the
area on the site where the existing grades are proposed to be altered by 10-foot or more. The
attached letter and map from Pam Shekel of South Eastern Engineering, Inc. has identified
the location were the grading is taking place. Some of the material will be trucked off -site.
The grading work will be completed in about 30 days.
Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached.
Page 3
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
Staff Suggested Findings:
If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the
following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land
Development Manual:
62.1105
1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The slopes will be designed with a
maximum slope of 4:1. The cuttfill areas are not adjacent to any areas planned parks or
existing residential areas. The finished grading work will allow for townhomes to be
constructed. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be
approved by the Rochester Public Works Department.
2) The grading and drainage plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public
Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. Noise and dust control will
need to comply with City standards.
3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized
in grading the roadways in the development. Some of the material will be hauled from the
site. Prior to material being removed from the site, the applicant shall submit a haul route
plan to the City Engineer for review and approval.
4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water
quality.
5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester.
There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area
will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for dwellings, roads and drainage.
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 and the approved General Development
Plan for the property.
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 in
approximately 30 days.
8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings
pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed in approximately
30 days.
9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in
accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester.
10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City.
Stormwater management will be provided for the development. The grading of these areas
will help provide the adequate drainage for the property.
11) The area of grading does not contain sinkholes.
12) The grading work is expected to be completed in approximately 30 days. The duration seems
appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project.
Page 4
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
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 they
completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the agwwer-oem4set
pwnw6 for this development.
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) Prior to material being removed from the site, the applicant shall submitted a haul route plan
to the City Engineer for review and approval
2) Not applicable
3) Not applicable
4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and
drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and
sediment control.
5) Not applicable
6) Not applicable
7) Not applicable
8) Not applicable
Staff would recommend that prior to material being removed from the site, the applicant
shall submit a haul route plan to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Preliminary Plat:
There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this
Plat.
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's
needs for parkland and that cash in lieu of land in amount of $29,640 will fulfill the
dedication obligation of this plat has stated in the October 3, 2001 memo from the
Rochester Park and Recreation Department. Payment is due prior to the recording
of the final plat documents.
Page 5
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
2. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities
shall be recorded concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars).
Page 6
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1. 2001
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
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;
Page 7
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 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;
6) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from
unsightly features of the excavation operation;
9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and
stabilization of cut and fill areas;
10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns
or stormwater management facilities;
11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other
natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality;
12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is
appropriate for the size and location of the activity;
13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been
approved by the City;
14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after
completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits
reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,
neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies.
15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building
code.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council
shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of
the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards
to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will
be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose
Page 8
Fox Ridge Townhomes
November 1, 2001
undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public
facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the
site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent
properties.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in
the Phase 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
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/8/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final
Plat #01-44 on the Fox Ridge Townhomes First CIC#159 First Supplemental
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. A City -Owner Contract has been executed for this development.
3. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required at the Owner's expense,
along the entire frontage of 2nd St NW / Meadow Lakes Dr NW.
Development Charges are addressed in the City -Owner Contract & Development
Agreement for this property , with the exception of:
❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
8 Street Name Signs
Plus "No Parking" signs on the curve of Meadow Lakes Dr.
C:IWINNT\ProfileslplabsvenlTemporary Internet Files1OLK931FP01-44 Fox Ridge Townhomes First Supplemental CIC
159.doc
`ROCHESTER PARK AND RSREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 3, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Final Plat #01-44
Fox Ridge Townhomes First CIC #159
Acreageof plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Densityfactor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
14.97 a
64 units
4.28 units/a
.0244
1.56 a
$8/a
rq,va0
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
2'r' (ryo
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $20AW with payment due prior to recordation of the
final plat.
Applicant:
Carriage Homes XVII
6750 Stillwater Bvld North
Stillwater. MN 55082
0:\DSTOTZ\2001\DEDICATION\NW 2698\FOX RIDGE TWHMOMES.DOC
I
Memo
To: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
From: Randy S. Johnson
Date: October 1, 2001
Re: Final Plat #01-44 by Carriage Homes XVII Inc. to be known as Fox Ridge Townhomes First
CIC #1595 First Supplemental. This plat proposes to subdivide 14.97 acres of land into 64 lots
for townhome development and 1 outlot.
The above referenced Plat appears to indicate new construction that is regulated under the Building
Code and will require building permits. Complete plans and specifications are required to be submitted
for a building permits prior to construction.
The proposed construction appears to consist of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on
separate lots with property lines between the units. Please verify the following items:
Separate utility services (i.e. sewer, water, gas, electric, etc.) are required to be provided to
each dwelling unit. The utilities are not permitted to encroach onto or through the adjacent
lots.
The dwelling units are required to be provided with fire rated walls at property lines in
accordance with the 1997 UBC Section 503.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concems.
Thank you
0 Page 1
South Eastern Engineering Inc.
40 161" Street, SE ♦ Suite D 4 Rochester, Mn 55904
Phone 507 287-0110 ♦ Fax 507 286.9188 0 Email seengr@sparc.isl.net
July 23, 2001
Mr. Brent Svenby
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive S.E.
Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
RE: Exemption from Section 62.1101.2(a) for Fox Ridge Townhomes 1", CIC #159,
1" Supplemental
Dear Mr. Svenby:
The grading of the Fox Ridge Townhomes site will result in exceeding a 10 foot vertical cut in an
area between the proposed Meadow Lakes Lane N.W. and Prairie View Place N.W. This project
meets the definition of Section 62.1101.2.a.1(d) where the cut\fill involves a grade change of 10
feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The enclosed plan indicates the area of cut in excess of
10 feet. The raw cut volume is approximately 76,600 cubic yards. It is estimated that only 34,500
cubic yards of fill will be used on the site, thus the contractor will be required to dispose of
42,100 cubic yards of excavation off site. The maximum extreme cut would be approximately 20
feet and that would occur at approximately station I±10 (see attached profile).
Section 62.1102.1 F provides for an exemption provided there are sufficient findings made as
contained in 62.1105. The following are suggested findings in support of the request:
62.1105 (1-15)
1. The activity necessary to grade the portions in excess of 10 foot vertical cut will not result in
unstable slopes or unsafe access. The maximum proposed finished grade on this site is 4:1.
The area with the largest cut is in the interior of the property and thus will not create an
unsafe access problem to the site. The closest this grading in excess of 10 feet, gets to
developed property is 40 feet. The cut area is not adjacent to a public park or roadway.
2. The contractor will be required to meet the City's noise ordinance and will be responsible
for obtaining permission to use haul roads. The Contractor will be responsible for
minimizing dust on all haul roads and repair and clean up of haul roads when excavation is
complete. (See attached excerpts from the Specifications.)
3. See the attached excerpt from the project specifications regarding public safety and
convenience.
4. See attached excerpt from the project specifications regarding air and water,pollutltm h.i
additional grading will not affect the air or water quality. —
SEP 2 5 2001
5. The natural topography of the area will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for
townhomes, but the overall scenic quality will be maintained. Also, the contractor is
required to seed and utilize erosion control mat on designated areas prior to building permits
being issued.
6. The grading is compatible with the proposed adjacent neighborhood developments.
7. The grading will be confined to the Fox Ridge Townhome property and will not unduly
affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
8. The grading activity will take place for the entire site for approximately 30 working days.
The required buffer yards on the west, north and south will be installed prior to completion
of this project. (See attached plan.)
9. The grading plan will provide for proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the
codes of the City of Rochester.
10. The grading will not result in negative impacts on the drainage patterns. The site will drain
in four directions as the ungraded site does and will ultimately flow to twin ponds
constructed in the first phase and sized to receive this runoff.
11. The area of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and will not affect the
groundwater or the subsurface water quality once restoration and stabilization is completed.
12. The grading of the entire site will take approximately 30 working days. This time frame is
appropriate for the sized and location of this activity.
13. Permanent and interim (during construction) erosion\sedimentation control have been
provided for in the grading plan. The city has approved the grading plan contingent upon the
SLA.
14. The contractor is required to provide a performance bond for all of the work on the site.
15. The activity is not associated with the building code ordinance 62.1100 and the standards in
the Land Developmental Manual and on file with Public Works shall apply to the design
standards and construction process.
Sincerely,
South Eastern Engineering, Inc.
-fCw.r7lL —'1aLOA
Pamela Shakal, P.E.
enc
cc Carriage Homes XVII
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
C
'17EM DESCRIPTION: Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester
PREPARED By:
Development, Inc, for a 26 story building to consist of long-term and short-term stay
Brent Svenby,
housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center. The property includes the former
Planner
library, Open Table and Christmas Shoppe at 1" St. SE and Broadway.
November 15, 2001
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application at a public hearing on November 14, 2001.
The Commission recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1.
The Final Development Plan application shall include:
• Revised building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, colors and type of glass;
• Additional details for the canopies and awnings, including materials, colors and elevations;
Details for exterior lighting, on the building and in the right-of-way;
• Additional details for the streetscape, including materials, plantings, colors and elevations;
• A sign plan, if signs will be proposed;
• Revised utility plans to have only one sanitary sewer and storm sewer connection to Broadway utility trunk
lines utilizing a common trench;
• Modifications to the first floor loading docks and below grade parking to eliminate conflict points and comply
with Ordinance standards, unless a Variance is approved.
2.
The Walker, Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available to serve this project. The
applicant shall coordinate with the City to resolve issues related to the supply of and demand for parking, prior
to submitting the Final Development Plan application.
The applicant must abandoned the existing domestic and fire service connections as identified in item 2 from
RPU Water Division comments dated September 21, 2001,
4.
The applicant shall provide the City with drainage and capacity calculations of the surrounding stormwater
system to address sheet draining from the significant surface area of the building, and provide additional details
regarding the street drainage patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on 1" Street.
5.
Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done concurrent with this project at the
Owner's expense.
6.
The cost of any needed City utility andlor street modifications will be the responsibility of the Owner/Developer.
Any such work must be performed under a City/Owner Contract. Relocation of private utilities in the alley shall
be coordinated with the City.
7.
The alley adjacent to the project shall be reconstructed as concrete instead of bituminous. Prior to the issuance
of building permits, a construction access management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the
City Engineer.
8.
The applicant will need to modify the plans to comply with Ordinance regulations for on -site parking design, or
file for variances to be considered at a future date.
__,_
9.
The applicant shall continue to work with Staff on the final location and design of the public entrance to the
skyway system from Broadway. Final location and design will need to be resolved prior to the submittal of the
final plan application.
10.
It appears that a portion of the revolving door is within the right-of-way of Is'Street SE. The door will need to be
moved outside of the right-of-way if the City doesn't grant a revocable permit for it.
- -
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Page 2
RCA
November 15. 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.
Attachment:
1. Staff Report dated November 9, 2001
2. Minutes from October 10, 2001 and November 14, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission meetings
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 19, 2001, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. Consultants (Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates).
1\10 ;-t 4
A'gvc C.r. SCs� 7� T'%7e Wcshu�
S2pg f"IcI7
r
• �I
m
I
6
R
@p
t ai I
Z
9r �
re
{ &aadw Plaza
�j r Rothener Dr topm t IM.
0,1 SITE AMIM PIAN/S
!ROADWAY
MATiaM
a
00000000 00000 00 0
s as I ani'!ii! !y'{41.1 1>•{i•I•'1•��IIBA®��lt�E
E.i.! {!if!iil ejE EI}I}il •I •I;t al a lil e l 1 i a
i fill I
�i
IE i}j ��i!j1;=;E lE �cj
9�j I}.'a{i�! 111
t
',• {,,j I ,} r i,oi,, Ir a t} , , i I, i {I }�
_r_ sir
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 15, 2001
8:00 A.M. ROOM 104, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT
Trent Fluegel, John Kruesel, Wally Arnold, Mike Quinn, Councilmember Hanson,
Councilmenber McConnell
MEMBERS ABSENT
William Ryan, Jeff Thompson, Jack Van Sickle, Cynthia Daube
CITY/COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT
Doug Knott, Development Administrator; Terry Spaeth, Administrative Assistant; Brent
Svenby, Planning and Zoning; John Hunziker, Council President
OTHERS PRESENT
Kevin Mullin, Royal Management and Development; Jack Gryzbek, Melissa Sarko, Burt
Hill Architects; Henry Dion, GAC; Bob Suk, Christine Schultze, Jeff Allman, CUDE
.q
Post Bulletin, KTTC
Dennis Hanson called the meeting to order at 8:05 A.M. Due to the lack of a quorum no
official action was taken at the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Doug Knott explained that Rochester Development Inc. (the developer of Broadway
Plaza) had changed architects since the Board last reviewed the project. The changes in
the design resulted in the need to for the developer to resubmit his incentive development
zoning application to the Plan Commission and the City Council. A public hearing on the
application is scheduled for the November 19, 2001 City Council meeting. The purpose
of the Advisory Board meeting is to give Board members an opportunity to provide the
Council with their comments on the design prior to Council action.
Following an introduction by Kevin Mullin, Melissa Sarko and Jack Gryzbek of Burt Hill
Architects reviewed the building plans with the Advisory Board with emphasis on the
exterior elevations, first and second floor plans, entrances and skyway location.
W
Downtown Development District
Advisory Board Minutes
November 15, 2001
Page 2 of 2
John Kruesel inquired about the location and design of the street level access to the
skyway system. The architects indicated that they had responded to staff's main
concerns regarding building access and would continue to work with the City, as the
design is refined.
Councilmember McConnell asked about a future skyway over Broadway. The architects
responded that provision for a future skyway was included in the design at the northwest
comer of the building. Doug Knott added that such a skyway would probably not be
constructed until development occurs to the north or west.
Councilmember McConnell also asked if escalators were included in the plans. The
response was no. The developer does not anticipate a level of pedestrian traffic sufficient
to warrant the cost and loss of space associated with an escalator. There will be a public
stair and an elevator.
Christine Schulze noted that CUDE recommended in favor of the preliminary application.
She stressed the need to continue refining the design for the public entrance to make it a
focal point for the building at street level.
In response to a question on building signage the architects indicated that building
signage has not been developed yet but that it would be low key. Signage for tenant
spaces would be the responsibility of the tenant and would be subject to the City's sign
ordinance.
Councilmember Hanson asked about access to the dock if the alley was closed for other
redevelopment projects. If the alley were closed north of dock service vehicles would
have to back into the alley from First Street SE.
Councilmember McConnell stressed the need to protect the remaining tenants in the
block from the impacts of construction activity while the project is being built. Doug
indicated that staff would work with the developer on this item.
Kevin Mullin stated that their goal was to demolish the existing buildings on the site this
winter and start construction in the spring of 2002. It will take approximately two years
to construct the building.
The consensus of the members present was to forward the project to the Council
with a recommendation to approve the preliminary incentive zoning application.
i
1 1/15/01 CUDE Design Review Subcommittee, for DDAB meeting
Broadway Plaza. Incentive Development Application
1 1 /9/01, Subcommittee Communication for 1 1 /14/01 P& Z Review
This set, plus a previous draft in electronic file form, forwarded by Doug
Knott, clearly indicate that the applicant is exploring means to comply with
the staff condition/modification that "The main public entrance, stair and
elevator shall be relocated to the corner of Broadway and 1 st Street SE."
The two schematic revisions also demonstrate that the modification can be
incoporated sucessfully in the building's first and second floors.
Additionally, the latest 1 1 " x 17" set increases vitality at street level,
meeting the staff condition/modification of "additional street frontage for
retail and commercial uses along 1 st Street SE," by shifting the apartment
reception to the east, visible from the sidewalk, and adding a public
coffee/tea area as an extension west of the apartment lobby entry.
With respect for the applicant's responsive design modifications addressing
conditions/modifications, and recognizing the schematic nature of revisions
at this stage, CUDE recommends approval of Rochester Development's
Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35, subject to staff
conditions/modifications.
More detailed review of corner detailing to invite and enhance public entry;
final pubic stair and elevator location; layout of the coffee/tea area and
integration with the public entry; streetscape details and other key program
elements can follow as the design proceeds.
Christine Schultze, for CUDE Design Review Subcommittee
11 /15/01, Subcommittee Notes Preliminary, to begin on toinq review
I. There is no retail drop-off area; Galleria's appears always full.
2. Surprised the electrical switchgear gets such prominent main floor
footage and frontage.
3. The loading dock turning radii appear tight. Does a truck out of position a
little preclude use of the parking ramp? Emergency egress?
4. Coffee and tea area off the lobby appear to work better.; not many toilet
rooms are planned - code issue.
5. Future skyway expansion surely takes a lot of prime footage and
frontage. Thought they would reroute through the storage areas to get to
11
Sterling Bank.
6. Skyway public toilets may be a security problem.
7. Pretty building; think they got here first, and that any future
development on the block should coordinate. However, once the building is
up, coordination will be more difficult yet. Does the TIF, respect the cost of
the skyway through the building, or just crossing the street?
8. The urban scale of this design better than the previous sale design and
will fit better into the urban skyline; like to see the top of the tower
lit to enhance night skyline.
9. The exterior materials need to be provided - particularly the metal panel -
it is a fine line between junky and qulity on these products and this is a large
portion of the exterior image.
10. The entry at the corner is very important. I don't particularly agree
with the way it flows however - the entry lobby should also be a space open
somewhat between levels to give the entrance a sense of direction and
orientation to conect to the skyway level above.
11. Streetscape level texture/lighting/signage/plantings/canopies, etc. are
critical to scale and quality for people.
12. Moving the skyway entrance to the corner is important. The
e-mail plans show this ... but with much wasted space, both inside
and out.
13. Like the revised plans that show a coffee/tea area on the corner and
the skyway entry just to the north of that. Coffee area should be a part of
the skyway lobby and not apart of the apartment lobby so that it becomes a
more inviting public space.
14. The entrance door off of Broadway seems to be just under the stairs
that come down from the second floor. Doesn't seem right, but may be
reading it wrong.
1 S. Like the three doors onto Broadway which makes it more pedestrian.
16. The second floor works well; could more retail be created and less
storage space?
17. Exterior: awnings/overhangs help in bringing down the massive scale of
the columns and windows. The detailing of the stone work, paving, planters,
street lights, street furniture,etc. will be important in creating a more
comfortable place for people to walk and lounge.
10112101, Summary Notes to Subcommittee following 10/10/01 Planning &
Zoning Commission hearing
Hopefully each of you saw the Post Bulletin article in yesterday's paper; if
you have any comments on article, please let me know. Briefly, here is my
summary to update the CUDE subcommittee.
The applicant agreed to additional architectural features and additional 93 /
details for canopies, awnings, lighting and streetscape, which we had
discussed in our CUDE subcommittee noon review/discussion of the proposal,
and which were clearly covered in staff recommended conditions &/or
modifications. However no materials boards, more detailed elevations or
street level details were available. In fact, no boards were presented, and
discussion relied upon the 8-1 /2" by 1 1 " drawing reductions in the packets.
The applicant did not agree to the following recommended condition &/or
modification: "Modifications to the first floor to provide additional street
frontage for retail and commercial uses along 1 st Street SE. The main
public entrance, stair and elevator shall be relocated to the corner of
Broadway and 1 st Street SE." In discussion, the applicant argued strongly
against acceptance of the condition/modification. The Commission
discussed options to resolve, directing questions to Doug Knott and the
applicant, but no progress was made.
At that time, given the lack of additional detail and no apparent meeting of
the minds between applicant and staff on occupancy of the first floor and
assurance of public vitality through a public entry (not an unknown and
possibly changing tenant), at the Broadway/First Street Southeast corner, I
spoke as a representative for CUDE. I briefly noted our noon review, general
support for the project, surprise that additional presentation materials were
not present and that CUDE strongly supports the contested condition, as
both points are critical urban design elements we believe are important to
the visual and economic vitality of the city, and which must be
accommodated in this preliminary design stage, or the opportunities cease to
exist. Additionally, but not noted to the Commission, the condition is
supported by the "Draft Development Framework Principles for Downtown," a
joint DDAB/CUDE effort. Given the differences and lack of additional detail, I
recommended the Commission consider continuing the hearing to permit
staff and applicant to meet and work through options, as had been
suggested by Doug.
I believe an excellent building can invigorate an important corner, which the
Woolworth Building remodel did not do. The city generally needs to retain,
add and improve corner activities and entries, which enliven intersections of
the city; mid -block, singular entries do not. Project costs, the change of
architects and shortness of time challenge the devek oer and the city in
their cooperative work to produce an excellent building - but the challenge
can be met.
Please advise me of questions and comments, Chrisgrie
ROCHESTER-OLAISTED PLANNING DEPAxi'MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MIN 55904-4744
00 U«„ 0, www, olmstedcounty.corr/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
fliiMslf��.�.�fi
f�NnNMiiifli�i�j7f
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 9, 2001
RE: Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35
by Rochester Development, Inc. to allow the development of
building that exceeds the permitted floor area ratio. The applicant
is proposing to develop a 26 story building to consist of long-term
and short-term stay housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness
center. The property is located north of 15t Street SE and east of
Broadway on three parcels known as the former Public Library,
the Christmas Shoppe, and the Open Table,
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Rochester Development, Inc.
7611 Little River Turnpike, #304 W
Annandale, VA 22003
Consultant: Burt Hill Kosar Rittelman Associates
Jack Grzybet, Project Manager
650 Smithfield Street, Suite 2600
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Development Review:
Doug Knott, City Administration
Rochester Public Works Dept.
RPU Water Division
RPU Operations Division
Rochester Fire Department
Rochester Park and Recreation Division
Planning Dept. Addressing Division
MNDOT
Planning Dept. Wetlands
1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Project Narrative
3. Site Plan and Elevations
4. Referral Comments (9 Letters)
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
wp
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAx 507/287-2275
-.�.�.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2 q6-
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9, 2001
Location of Property: The property is located north of 1 s` St. SE and east of
Broadway. This project includes the former Library,
Christmas Shoppe and Open Table.
Zoning:
The property is in the Central Development Core
(CDC) — Central Business District (CBD).
Summary of Proposed Development:
This item was continued at the October 10, 2001 CPZC meeting to allow the applicant to
work with the City on the location of the skyway entrance on Broadway. Revised first and
second story floor plans as well as colored building elevations have been submitted by the
applicant.
On December 14, 2000 the applicant submitted an application for an Incentive Development
preliminary plan on this property. The CPZC held a public hearing on the application on January
10, 2001. At that hearing the Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the
Incentive Development with conditions. The City Council held a public hearing on February 5,
2001. The City Council approved the application with 8 conditions. Since the approval, the
applicant has replaced architectural firms. The applicant submitted a letter requesting that the
original application be withdrawn and has submitted a new proposal for the project area.
The applicant is proposing to re -develop property within the Central Development Core Central
Business District (CDC-CBD). Within this zoning district, a floor area ratio of 6 is permitted. The
total site area for this development is 15,400 sq. ft, which would allow for 92,400 sq. feet of
development. The applicant is requesting approval for a floor area ratio of up to 23 (23 X 15,400
= 354,200 maximum sq. ft.).
This project proposes a mixed -use development to include retail, restaurant, fitness center and
multi -family residential uses within approximately 328,000 sq. ft. of space. The proposed building
would be 26 floors and approximately 342 feet to the top of the building, In addition, this project
proposes to include below grade valet parking, with a drop off lane along 1®` St. SE. Access to the
parking garage and the service/loading dock would be from the alley.
The 3-story building base is proposed to be comprised of a mixture of natural stone facing,
architectural pre -cast concrete and glass. Rising above the 3-story base, the exterior of the
building will be architectural pre -cast concrete and glass. Canopies will be located above the
doorways. Retail (2,550sq. ft.), lobby and loading space will be located on the first floor. The
second floor will include retail space (5,090 sq. ft.) and the skyway system. A skyway connection
is shown at the southeast corner of the building, connection with the 1 s` street parking ramp. The
proposal also identifies a possible future skywalk expansion along the west side of the building.
This skyway would continue north when redevelopment happens to the north. The public
entrance to the skyway system is shown fairly close to the southwest corner of the property
(Broadway and 1" Street). The third floor will include a fitness center, pool, management offices
and conference room.
Above the base three stories, the building will be setback 20' from the north and 11' from the east
property lines for the 4th to the 25th floors, and steps back additionally at the top. This part of the
project includes 146 for -lease housing units (1, 2 and 3 bedroom units) that will have shallow
balconies and large windows within living areas. The 261" floor has roof terraces at the corners
Page 3
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9, 2001
and is proposed to consist of two 4-bedroom units. Above the 26t' floor is area devoted to
mechanical equipment.
The previous building plans had the main public focal point at the corner of Broadway and 1s`
Street SE, with a large public open with a glass elevator and grand staircase. The proposed plans
now have the main public entrance to the skyway moved slightly to the north. The applicant is still
consulting with staff on the final location and design of the public entrance to the skyway system.
Staff feels that a final location and design will be agreed upon prior to the submittal of the final
plan.
Please see the attached narrative report provided by the applicant for additional details on the
project.
Incentive Development:
The Incentive Development provisions of the Land Development Manual allow for a higher
intensity development when certain actions are taken by the landowner to make the development
more attractive and publicly acceptable. These actions may include additional open space
amenities, traffic and pedestrian amenities and/or design features. The Incentive Development
approval procedure is a two step process consisting of a preliminary plan and a final development
plan. The preliminary plan is reviewed under a Type III, Phase II, procedure with a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Council. The final plan is
reviewed under the Type III, Phase III, procedure which requires a review before the Commission
and hearing before the Council. The Council does have the authority to waive the final plan.
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and
the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design.
Density bonuses are granted in exchange for the incorporation of features determined to be of
public benefit. Features to be considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651-62.659 of the
Ordinance. The sections applicable to this project are attached for your information.
Proposed Development:
Within the CBD-CDC zoning district, a floor area ratio of 6 is permitted. The total site area for this
development is 15,400 sq. ft, which would allow for 92,400 sq. feet of development. This project
proposes approximately 328,000 sq. ft. of space. The applicant is requesting approval for a floor
area ratio of up to 23 (23 X 15,400 = 354,200 maximum sq. ft.).
The bonus categories that apply in this case are:
Density Bonuses:
Section 62.656 Bonuses in the Central Development Core:
#1 Architectural Treatment: This development proposes to include high quality building
materials, with a pedestrian friendly base. Above the third floor the building will be set back
from the north and east property lines.
#3 Protection to Pedestrian Traffic: Extension of the skyway system is proposed with this
project, which will provide connection to a public parking ramp. Canopies and awnings are
proposed over the sidewalk. A passenger loading zone is proposed along is' St. SE.
Page 4
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9. 2001
#4 Streetscape Improvements: Incorporated into the site plan are improvements, within the
public right -of --way including, landscaping materials, paving patterns with varying materials
and exterior lighting. This development proposes to continue the character of the existing
streetscape pattern for Broadway through the project while upgrading this pattern by
integrating higher quality materials adjacent to this site.
Section 62.657 Bonuses in All Residential Development:
41 Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities: This project is located within % mile of an
elementary school, Y mile of a junior high and % mile of a neighborhood shopping or a
convenience retail use.
#3 Proximity to Bus Shelter: This project is proposed within X mile of an existing bus shelter.
#4 Site Planning: Residential units are designed to incorporate private outdoor spaces and
individual unit privacy.
Section 62.658 All Development:
#4 Street Improvements: This project will include improvements to 1s' St. SE. These
improvements include rebuilding the roadbed, realignment of the curb and gutter, new
sidewalks and street lighting.
#5 Utility Services: This project will include upgrading the watermain along 15t St. SE and
the electric service along the alley. Utility locations and connections will need to be reviewed
and approved by the City.
Criteria & Findings:
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and
the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design. Staff suggests the following findings:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Suitability of the Area: The proposed site is suitable as the location for an Incentive
Development. The proposed use should be compatible with the existing land uses in
the area.
b) Site Design Criteria:
1) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities exist adjacent to this project. Some utilities
will need to be modified (i.e. water and electric) to accommodate this development.
The applicant will need to coordinate these modifications or improvements with the
appropriate agencies.
2) Geologic Hazards: Not applicable.
3) Natural Features: Not applicable.
4) Traffic Generation Impact: The applicant will need to work with the City to resolve
issues related to the Walker Parking Study and the supply of and demand for parking,
prior to submitting the Final Development Plan application. This project proposes a
Page 5 / V
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9, 2001
pedestrian loading zone within the 15' St. SE right-of-way. In addition, off-street
parking and truck loading areas are proposed within the project. A construction
access management plan will need to be prepared for review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
5) Height Impacts: This project proposes 26 floors with a total building height of
approximately 342 feet. Due to the slender design of this building, shadows will be
minimized. The applicant has submitted shadow impact diagrams in the previous
submittal. The structure is not expected to destroy views from the primary exposures
of nearby residential dwelling units.
6) Setbacks: The provisions for the "Multi -Family Residential" use category within the
CDC-CBD require conformance with standards and setbacks applicable to multi-
family dwellings in the R-4 (High Density Residential) district. Through the Incentive
Development application, the applicant is requesting to exceed the floor area ratio
allowed in the CDC-CBD. In order to achieve the additional floor area on this
relatively small site, the building will not comply with those setbacks.
7) Internal Site Design: This pro�ect is designed to orient retail uses on the first two
floors toward Broadway and 1s St. SE. The main public street level access that
provides the connection to the skyway is located fairly close to the southwest corner
of the building (Broadway and 1 s' Street corner). The building is setback from the
north and east property lines above the first three floors.
8) Screening and Buffering: Residential units are designed to incorporate private
outdoor spaces and individual unit privacy.
9) Ordinance Requirements: Below grade parking proposed with this project does not
meet Ordinance requirements. The applicant will need to revised plans or seek a
variance to these standards.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above findings, the Planning staff recommends approval of this Incentive
Development Preliminary Development Plan, Subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. The Final Development Plan application shall include:
• Revised building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, colors and
type of glass;
• Additional details for the canopies and awnings, including materials, colors and
elevations;
• Details for exterior lighting, on the building and in the right-of-way;
• Additional details for the streetscape, including materials, plantings, colors and
elevations;
• A sign plan, if signs will be proposed;
• Revised utility plans to have only one sanitary sewer and storm sewer connection
to Broadway utility trunk lines utilizing a common trench;
• Modifications to the first floor loading docks and below grade parking to eliminate
conflict points and comply with Ordinance standards, unless a Variance is
approved.
Page 6
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9. 2001
2. The Walker Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available to
serve this project. The applicant shall coordinate with the City to resolve issues
related to the supply of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final
Development Plan application.
3. The applicant must abandoned the existing domestic and fire service connections as
identified in item 2 from RPU Water Division comments dated September 21, 2001.
4. The applicant shall provide the City with drainage and capacity calculations of the
surrounding stormwater system to address sheet draining from the significant surface
area of the building, and provide additional details regarding the street drainage
patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on ls` Street.
5. Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done concurrent
with this project at the Owner's expense.
6. The cost of any needed City utility and/or street modifications will be the responsibility
of the OwnenDeveloper. Any such work must be performed under a CitylOwner
Contract. Relocation of private utilities in the alley shall be coordinated with the City.
7. The alley adjacent to the project shall be reconstructed as concrete instead of
bituminous. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a construction access
management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City Engineer.
B. The applicant will need to modify the plans to comply with Ordinance regulations for
on -site parking design, or file for variances to be considered at a future date.
9. The applicant shall continue to work with Staff on the final location and design of the
public entrance to the skyway system from Broadway. Final location and design will
need to be resolved prior to the submittal of the final plan application.
10. It appears that a portion of the revolving door is within the right-of-way of ist Street SE.
The door will need to be moved outside of the right-of-way if the City doesn't grant a
revocable permit for it.
NOTE:
Any private construction work associated with this project, within a public street or alley
right-of-way will require an obstruction permit and a revocable permit for permanent
fixtures in the right-of-way.
Page 7
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9, 2001
EXCERPTS FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
62.630 CRITERIA FOR INCENTIVE DEVELOPMENTS:
In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application, the
Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
2) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Suitability of the Area: The Commission and Council shall find that the proposed site
is suitable as the location for an Incentive Development based on consideration of the
following factors:
1) The proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses in the area or the pattern
of zoning within 1,000 feet of the property boundaries.
2) The natural characteristics of the site under consideration, including topography and
soil characteristics, necessitate increased density to allow for economic development
of the site.
b) Site Design Criteria: The Commission and Council shall find that the preliminary
development plan design is consistent with the following guidelines:
1) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are
adequate to serve the proposed development.
2) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as
unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., has been identified and the development
of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the final
development plan.
3) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of
buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the
existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site.
4) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not
cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements
or the need for improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow
of adjacent streets have been identified where needed.
5) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and
placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development
in the following manner:
a) The structures will not deny adequate sunlight to surrounding properties;
b) The siting of the structures will not destroy views from the primary exposures of
adjacent residential dwellings;
Page 8
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9, 2001
6) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are
related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for
permitted uses in the underlying zoning district.
7) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary
site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the
buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
8) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are
adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding
residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility
areas such as refuse storage, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue
differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses.
9) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts
of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is
adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements.
BONUS DENSITY
62.656 Central Development Core: The criteria listed in this paragraph will be considered in
granting bonus floor area in the Central Development Core (CDC) District.
1) Architectural treatment that involves the restoration or enhancement of significant
historical, architectural or cultural features of existing buildings, or new construction which
is harmonious with existing development in that: a) it avoids abrupt changes in scale, or b)
it incorporates increased setbacks at floors above the second story.
2) Buildings adjacent to or across the street from public open spaces located to the north are
designed in such a manner so as to allow sunlight to enter such spaces over sixty (60%)
percent of the daylight hours for up to nine months of the year.
3) The design of the development incorporates features which provide protection to
pedestrian traffic from adverse climatic conditions. Such features include:
a) Skyway or subway connections to adjacent buildings across right-of-way;
b) Canopies or other exterior coverings over sidewalks;
c) Heated sidewalks;
d) Enclosed connections to public parking ramps, and
e) Provision of off-street or protected passenger loading zones.
4) Provision of streetscape improvements which enhance the visual appearance and create
a feeling of openness on the site as perceived at street level. Such amenities shall
include boulevard plantings, street lighting, sitting areas equipped with benches, or other
open space such as plazas or vest-pocket parks.
Page 9
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9. 2001
5) Making available space for small retail or business uses that have been displaced as a
result of redevelopment occurring within the Central Development Core district.
6) When the development does not abut an alley, the provision of other means for off-street
loading and deliveries.
62.657 All Residential Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for
granting bonus density in all residential developments districts.
1) Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities: The development is designed with a minimum
of two bedrooms per unit and meets three of the following locational criteria in relation to
neighborhood facilities,
a) it is within 1/4 mile of a nursery school
b) within 1/2 mile of an elementary school
c) within 3/4 mile of a junior high school
d) within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood playground
e) within 112 mile of a neighborhood shopping center or 1/4 mile of a convenience retail
use.
2) Dedication of land for public recreation use which is in excess of any ordinance
requirements for usable recreation space. Facilities to be considered include playlots,
neighborhood parks, community parks, special use parks, city squares or triangles,
parkways or trail systems providing access to major public facilities or along
environmental corridors.
3) Development within one -quarter mile of a bus shelter or the provision of a new bus shelter
along an existing transit route.
4) Installation of noise buffers where the development is exposed to traffic -generated or
industrially -generated noise exceeding the permitted residential noise level of this
ordinance. The buffer shall reduce the level of noise to a level no more than five decibels
above the permitted noise level.
5) Site Planning: Integrated design of the site, individual lots and floor plans so as to
provide 1) a varied streetscape (through varying garage and dwelling unit entrance
location, landscaped front yards designed as part of initial project, or building variations
that create identity through the use of features such as setback variation, archways,
chimneys or recessed areas) and 2) individual unit privacy, (through orientation of major
indoor areas to private outdoor spaces or window placement in such a manner so as not
to create sightlines into neighboring units or private outdoor areas).
6) Housing for Low Income Households: Aside from the other provisions of this section,
any unit constructed for low income families shall earn a bonus of one (1) additional
dwelling unit, up to the maximum density with bonus permitted. The units shall meet one
of the following three requirements:
Page 10
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9. 2001
a) They are provided under a contract with a governmental housing authority which
provides assurance that the units will be made available to low income families for at
least twenty-five (25) years;
b) The units are subsidized by either the federal, state or local government;
c) The development application is accompanied by covenant documents or other
adequate documents guaranteeing the use of those dwellings for low income families.
The documents shall not be accepted until approval by the City as to legal form and
effect, providing that the use restriction be for at least 25 years.
In no event shall this bonus be permitted where subsidized or guaranteed units
constitute more than thirty (30%) percent of a development, except where the
development consists of less than ten (10) dwelling units.
7) Storm Shelter: The providing of storm shelter space in accordance with the provisions of
Paragraph 62.266(3).
62.658 All Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for granting bonus
density in all developments:
1) Storm Water Management: The developer provides on -site or off -site
improvements to stormwater facilities that will minimize existing flooding, erosion or
siltation problems resulting from obsolete or non -existing stormwater facilities up or
downstream from the tract in question; or the developer provides improvements
such as over -sized retention basins, channel improvements, or recharge facilities
which reduce or eliminate existing flooding, erosion or siltation caused by urban
development either up or downstream. The City Council shall determine that the
existing problems are sufficient to grant the bonus, based upon the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
2) The development proposes to integrate the reuse of an existing structure which has
been vacant for 24 consecutive months.
3) Easements consistent with the flood control project are provided, or other bank
treatment or river beautification which will result in increased usage of the area
along existing streams for walking, sitting, or other means of passive recreation are
developed.
4) Street improvements normally provided by the City of Rochester are constructed,
dedicated or paid for by the developer. Examples include the provision of right-of-
way for arterial streets beyond that normally required to be dedicated, or the
construction or payment for turn lanes, signal lights, increased pavement depths,
etc.
5) Utility Service: The development of the site will lead to increased efficiency in the
existing public utility delivery system or the more efficient use of already existing
utilities. This means, a) that the necessary utilities already exist on the property to
be served, or b) the development of the property will provide a necessary link or
connection to complete the system or improve service.
Page 11
Rochester Development, Broadway Plaza
November 9, 2001
6) Integrated Planning: The proposed development involves the integrated
development of a site which is a minimum of one acre in size and located in an
established district.
7) Each four (4) percent increase in the landscape area ratio above the minimum
required shall be considered as meeting the criteria for bonus density/Floor area or
an increase in plant materials so as to exceed minimum requirements.
8) The proposed development minimizes access points by utilizing shared access
points with adjacent developments, resulting in a reduction in the number of
driveway openings on a collector or higher level street.
9) Parking lot landscaping for the purpose of screening residential areas and/or right-
of-way areas from concentration of vehicles.
/a�
To: Brent Svenby, Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
From: Douglas A. Knott
Date: October 2, 2001
Subject: Broadway Plaza Incentive Development Application
Attached are my comments on the Broadway Plaza incentive development application. The
current plans have not been reviewed with the Downtown Development District Advisory
Board. Review by the Advisory Board will occur as part of the tax increment negotiations. I
believe that it would also be useful to have CUDE's comments on the design prior to final
approval.
➢ At a minimum, renderings showing detailed exterior elevations and streetscape plans
should be required as a condition of final approval (with indication of building
materials and colors). A model or computer generated images showing the building
from critical views would be desirable.
➢ Detailed streetscaping plans and specifications will need to be submitted and
reviewed by the Public Works Department.
➢ The developer should submit additional information on any exterior lighting
proposed for the building.
➢ The report cites a parking study by Walker Parking Associates indicating that the
project creates a total demand for 94 parking spaces, 18 of which are to be provided
on -site (the previous submission had on -site parking for 37 vehicles). The
Development District Office believes that the parking analysis significantly
underestimates the actual parking demand. I suggest that approval be contingent
upon the resolution of questions regarding the number of spaces needed, how they
will be paid for, and their location. The developer should provide an indication of
how many of the apartment units are intended for extended stay occupants and how
many are intended for permanent residents.
➢ Canopies, awnings and balconies extending above the public right of way will require
approval by the city and MNDOT.
/06
The skyway route from the First Street Parking Ramp through Broadway Plaza
appears to accommodate future extensions of the skyway system. Bridge and
corridor widths are adequate. Broadway Plaza should be designed to support the
north end of the bridge without having to set columns in the First Street SE right-of-
way.
➢ The plans show a future skyway bridge crossing Broadway at the southwest corner of
the building (approximately 150 feet north of the Radisson to Galleria bridge). A
connection point at mid -block would be preferable in terms of spacing and would
provide greater flexibility in serving future development.
➢ Under Criteria for Incentive Developments i.b.)7.), Internal Site Design, the applicant
indicates that the comer of Broadway and First Street "is being developed in such a
way to highlight activity and interest". In actuality the comer provides access to
private tenant space. The main public street level access and the stair and elevator
tower that provide the connection to the skyway are relegated to the northwest comer
of the building. The main public entrance and the stair and elevator should be moved
to the Broadway/First Street corner as was the case in the previous design. The
revolving door shown on the plan is not desirable from a user standpoint.
➢ The ground level floor plan locates the valet parking office, the security office, and a
switchgear room along First Street frontage of the building. In order to create a more
pedestrian friendly environment these service and mechanical functions should be
moved to secondary locations leaving the building frontage for retail and commercial
use.
➢ Previous design discussions have emphasized the need to fit the building into its
surroundings. The design should include greater architectural emphasis on the
transition between the 3rd and 4th floors (between the base and the tower). This
could, for example, include repeating the cornice that is used in the upper levels of
the building.
➢ It is my understanding that on -site parking is not required by the zoning ordinance
but, if it is included, it must be designed to meet the ordinance requirements. I do
not believe that the double loaded stalls in the Broadway Plaza underground parking
are permitted in the land use manual. The parking serves a critical need. It is
intended as valet parking and I support a variance from the ordinance requirements.
➢ Based on discussions with the City Attorney's office and Planning Department staff I
don't think that the storm shelter provisions contained in the zoning ordinance are
enforceable any longer. This was an item of discussion on the previous application.
Development District staff has been working with Royal Management for over three years on
this project. We have had an independent architectural fuzn inspect the buildings currently
located on the project site. The architect has determined that the existing structures are in
need of substantial rehabilitation or clearance. In addition to cleaning up a dilapidated area
the project will extend the skyway system and encourage additional development in the
block.
/o i
The development of a residential base in the downtown area will help enliven the central
business district and the building occupants will support other downtown businesses.
Subject to the comments noted above I support approval of the incentive development
application submitted for the Broadway Plaza project.
C: Steve Kvenvold, Gary Neumann, Terry Spaeth
/D2
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ROCHESTER
September 24, 2001
Jennifer Garness, Planning
Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
V.00H.k STE•R. �.«�\.:\p
.01
�R'�Tf D.A000ST,a•�
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507)285-8256
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Preliminary Plat #00-35, Broadway Plaza
building, located north of 1" Street SE and East of Broadway, the formal Public Library,
Christmas Shoppe and Open Table sites.
With regard to the above noted general development plan, the fire department has no objection to
approval with the following comments:
1. Existing fire protection water supplies and Fire Department access requirements for this project are
acceptable as proposed.
2. Final Fire Department approval of this project will require full compliance with the building and fire
codes for a mixed residential and commercial use high-rise building.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Rochester Development, Inc. 7611 Little River Turnpike, Suite, 304W, Annandale, VA 22003
Burk Hill Kosar Rittelmann, Assoc. 650 Smithfield Street, Suite 2600, Pittsburgh, PA 15222
rpu
we pledge, ve deliver
September 21, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: RESUBMITTAL: Type III, Phase II, Incentive Development, Preliminary Plan
#00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. to develop a 26 story building to consist of long-term
and short-term stay housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center. The property is the former
Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe and the Open Table.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced Incentive Development Request is complete and our comments
follow:
1. We are currently working with the applicant's civil engineering firm on the alignment and
timing of the necessary water main relocation within 15` St. SE.
2. The existing domestic and fire service connections to the 2 buildings along North Broadway
that are no longer to be used must be abandoned properly per our requirements. The existing
service to the former Public Library will be abandoned as a part of the water main relocation.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly you��rs,���� 0644tt rs%n,•,�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Greg Torchia, Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates
Rochester Development, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
O%NNESO)R
AO y
F
IF
OF T PkN
October 2, 2001
Jennifer Gamess
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
District 6
2900 — 48" St. NW
Rochester, Minnesota 55901-5848
Re: Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Preliminary Plat
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Phone 280-2913
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the Type III, phase II Incentive
Development Preliminary Plat #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. Please be advised of the following:
• Extremely difficult to give a proper review, because we cannot see enough detail at the scale of the
layout.
• There will be no encroachment on MnDOT right of way and this includes spread footings.
• Is there a traffic impact report for us to review?
• Alley on the east side of the building should be one way.
• Cannot determine traffic pattern to basement parking.
• Will need a limited use permit from MnDOT right of way section for the planters on the right of way.
Will there be lighting on the right of way?
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions please contact Fred
Sandal, Principal Planner at 507/285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement, Plan and Plat Review Coordinator,
507/281-7777.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Maul
Planning Director
c: Tony Hanes
Terry Ward
Mark Trogstad-Isaacson
File
Fred Sandal
Debbie Persoon-Bement
File An Equal Opportunity Employer
APPLICATION
MATERIALS
10
4b
ROCHESTER DEVELOPMENT, INC.
September 11, 2001
Ms. Mitzi Baker, Planner
C/o Ivls. Theresa Fogarty
Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive, SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
RE: BROADWAY PLAZA
Dear Dos. Baker:
The architectural firm on our Project has been recently replaced with the architectural firm
of Burt hill Kossar & Rittelmann Associates. As a consequence of this change, the
Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 for the Project that was previously
submitted to your office on December 14, 2000 is hereby withdrawn.
We axe corrimitted to developing the Broadway Plazn Project at the earliest citric and to this
end you should be receiving shortly under separate cover from Burt Mill a revised Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan for our Project.
Kindly accept and process this application at the earliest tirne and thank you send your staff
for all of yotut er�ucd assistance for Broadway Plaza.
,i1-A;I v-- i
mad A. Baker
President
r 6 1 1 I. i T T L 1: R I V U. R T U R N P I K F, S U I T r. ] V 4 W"
ANNANDALti, VA 220fi,
PH0NI, 7111.916-6191 PAX 003.916-9799
BROADWAYPL%
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission �� ✓
September 13, 2001
Rochester Development, Inc., owner
Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates, architecture, site and civil engineering
Broadway Plaza Project Description
Development Program:
Broadway Plaza is a 328,000 SF mixed -use project consisting of high -quality residential
apartments (for long-term and short-term tenants), retail space adjacent to a continuation
of the city skyway system, a street -level restaurant, and a fitness center. The project is
located on the comer of Broadway and First Street SE on the three parcels known as the
former Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe, and the Open Table. The project site area
is owned by the developer and is 110' x 140' (15,400 SF) in size.
The building is a 26-story structure (plus basement and mechanical penthouses). The
basement contains a limited number of underground valet parking spaces. The first floor
contains building entrances, apartment lobby, retaiUrestaurant space, and building
support/service space (loading docks, mechanical, etc.) The second floor contains the
public skyway extension, retail shops, access to the apartment elevator bank and building
service/support spaces. The third floor consists of the fitness center, function room,
management offices, and building service/support spaces. These floors (basement, first,
second and third) are built to the maximum lot size.
The residential tower (floors 4-26) is set -back from the base at the north and east sides of
the building in accordance with zoning regulations and to ensure proper daylighting to
apartments if future development ensues on adjacent parcels of land. The residential
tower contains 146 units consisting of a mixture of 24 one -bedroom units, 120 two -
bedroom units and 2 four -bedroom units. Within each of these categories of units there
are a variety of options: such as additional bedroom, office or den and range of size and
layout. The intent is to provide a range of options that address the differing resident
needs.
Summary of key program elements:
• Below -grade enclosed valet parking garage for 18 cars
• 3,200 NSF of street level retaiUrestaurant lease space
• 4,150 NSF of skyway level retail lease space
• 2,500 NSF of dedicated skyway access (not including skyway connection across
First Street SE)
• 5,200 NSF of third floor Pool/Fitness Center
• 146 residential units
The parking plan is supported by a Parking Study prepared by Walker Parking
Consultants. The Study identifies the need for 94 parking spaces, of which 18 parking
spaces will be provided under ground in the building. These 18 spaces maximize the
usable area of the basement minus core and structural elements and mandatory
mechanical rooms. Rochester Development, Inc. will work with the city to resolve issues
related to the supply of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final
Development Plan.
N:1010240ftorAincentive.sub.doc Page 1 of 12
BROADWAY PL a //
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission
September 13, 2001
Retail/Restaurant/Office uses occupy all of the space on the street and Skyway levels that
are not required for the housing component, the lobby or support functions. These areas
are easily accessed from both the street and the Skyway. The intent is to provide a
variety of retail spaces focusing on services and food retailing.
The pooVfitness center is located on the third floor of the building and is intended for use
by the apartment residents; however further study is underway to establish the base
building usage and any excess capacity available for public use.
Building Materials:
The 3-story building base will contain a mixture of natural stone facing, architectural pre-
cast concrete and glass. The building base will be finely detailed and will draw attention
to the entrances of the building. Rising above the base, the materials for the tower will be
simplified to architectural pre -cast concrete and glass. Each apartment includes a shallow
French balcony and the 26th floor incorporates roof terraces at the corners. These design
features are intended to enhance the building livability from both the inside and outside.
The building will be crowned in such a way as to acknowledge its prominent position in
the Rochester skyline and will be emphasized by its form and by lighting.
Urban Design:
On an urban scale, Rochester Development, Inc. and Burt Hill, have addressed the critical
aspects of a development that works to strengthen the character of a healthy downtown
environment. Broadway Plaza addresses the goals of a pedestrian urban center,
implementing uses consistent with the needs and character of Rochester.
Focused design attention addresses:
• the potential of future development on this block and adjacent blocks
• the image of the building and its role in the skyline of Rochester
• the critical urban nature of a building meeting the street while accommodating a
pedestrian scale
• the provisions of a pedestrian focused environment, both on the street and above
the street
• the expression of a long-term, high quality residential building making a
commitment to the future growth in Rochester
The streetscape development of patterned paving, trees, plantings and seating areas will
enhance the environment for pedestrian movements between the Mayo Clinic, the Civic
Center, the CBD and the River. The tall, slim profile of the building provides visual
identity to the project while maximizing the sunlight available to adjacent areas, making
land available on the remainder of the block for future, and maintaining views from
adjacent buildings.
An entrance to the apartment lobby will be located on First Street SE adjacent to a new
vehicular drop-off. This entrance will be marked by a generous canopy that will provide
shelter from precipitation. Valet service will be provided at this entrance.
NAO I 02400%corNncentive.sub. doc Page 2 of 12
BROADWAY PLO •
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application • Preliminary Submission
September 13, 2001
Loading docks and entrance to below -ground valet -parking will be located off of the
alley at the east side of the site. This location will have the least impact on vehicular and
pedestrian traffic along Broadway and First Street SE.
The project provides a public entrance on Broadway at the North-West comer of the site.
This entrance is recessed and will be marked by a canopy to provide easy identification
and shelter. This street level lobby will contain a dedicated elevator and grand stair that
will provide access to the second level Skyway system. This public pedestrian corridor
will wrap the entire comer of the building, along Broadway and First Street SE providing
a continually active farrade and will support retail development at this level. As a part of
this project there will be a Skyway connection across First Street SE from Broadway
Plaza to the parking ramp located at First Street SE and First Avenue SE. The location of
the interior pedestrian through -way allows for a future Skyway connection across
Broadway or continued expansion north for any future development that is made on
adjacent property.
A separate entrance will be provided at the comer of Broadway and First Street SE for a
proposed restaurant tenant. This corner is cut back to allow for a natural protected
overhang and to provide friendlier pedestrian access around the comer of the building.
The openness of this corner will also allow for outdoor dining in appropriate conditions
and will help to make an impact at this prominent downtown corner. This type of visible
activity, which is outward facing, will enhance the entire downtown environment
A healthy and vibrant urban environment invites people to live and shop downtown.
Broadway Plaza will invite people downtown, but even more critically, it will provide a
steady stream of residents to the area. The short-term and long-term stay residents will
certainly enrich and enliven the downtown and help assure the continued economic
success of the existing Central Business District.
Broadway Plaza works to incorporate critical aspects and concerns of the City of
Rochester that are of public benefit. This project goes beyond the minimum expectations
for housing and establishes a high standard of expectation for development downtown. It
will create a landmark building that is consistent with the character and established urban
form of the City.
Incentive Development:
The purpose of policies set out in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, is "to encourage innovation in land development by removing
regulatory barriers to the consideration of new or unique ideas which are consistent with
the purposes and policies referenced and to create a system of land use regulation that is
intent on finding equitable solutions to the land use conflicts which routinely arise as
development occurs, so as to provide for the orderly development of land within
Rochester and to conserve the value of land and buildings." (§60.111) Broadway Plaza
will re -develop the former library block with public space amenities and a vibrant
streetscape environment.
Within the CBD-CDC zoning district, a floor area ration of 6 is permitted. The total site
area for this project is 15,400 SF which would allow for 92,400 SF of development. This
NA010240ftorAincentive.sub.doc Page 3 of 12
BROABWAYPLM • // 11
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission
September 13, 2001
project proposes 328,000 SF of development. Rochester Development, Inc. is requesting
approval for a floor area ratio increase of up to 23 (23 x 15,400 = 354,200 maximum SF)
The applicable bonus categories from sections 62.630 Criteria for Incentive
Development, 62.656 Bonuses in the CBC, 62.657 Bonuses in all Residential
Development and 62.658 All Construction follow, with project specific information in
italics.
62.630 CRITERIA FOR INCENTIVE DEVELOPMENTS
1. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CRITERIA
a.) SUITABILITY OF THE AREA: The commission and Council shall find
that the proposed site is suitable as the location for an Incentive
Development based on consideration of the following factors:
1.) Compatible use: Broadway Plaza is a mixed -use housing/retail
development that is compatible with other retail and housing uses
within 1,000 feet of the property and meets the Central Development
Core goals. The high density housing development is supported by two
floors of retalUoffice with connections to the Skyway system.
2.) The natural characteristics of the site: The existing site is a portion
of an urban block with vacant structures that will be demolished and
replaced with this development. Broadway Plaza will continue the
streetscape fabric and pattern of retail /Skyway experience.
b.) SITE DESIGN CRITERIA: The Commission and Council shall find
that the preliminary development plan design is consistent with the
following guidelines:
1.) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing and planned utilities
have been coordinated with the City of Rochester and applicable
utility organizations.
a. Water: A new 12 " water main will installed along First
Street SE to replace the existing main. 8" water connection
to be building will be teed from this new water main.
b. Sanitary & Storm: New sanitary and storm connections will
be main made along Broadway into the existing 27" sanitary
sewer main and the 37" storm main. 8" Storm connections
will be wyed. 8" Sanitary connections will be provided via
manhole installation.
c. Gas: Gas service will connect into the existing 4" main
along the alley.
d. Electric: The existing underground electric within the alley
will be relocated to the eastern side of the alley and
transformers (including an existing transformer) will be pad
mounted the east side of the Broadway Plaza site.
NAO1 02400%corN neentive.sub. doc Page 4 of 12
BROADWAY PL16 « ( �j
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission
September 13, 2001
2.) Geoloeic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic
hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., has
been identified and the development of these areas has been taken
into account of will be addressed in the final development plan.
Non Applicable
3.) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction,
the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to
the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing
desirable vegetation of the site. Non Applicable.
4.) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the
development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be
exceeded, and conceptual improvements or the need for
improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic
flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. The
Parking and Traffic Study previously completed by Walker Parking
Consultants, indicates the proposed project will require 94 parking
spaces. There are currently 18 valet garage parking spaces under the
building with access from the alley. Rochester Development Inc. will
work with the City to resolve issues related to the supply of and
demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final Development Plan
application. There is a passenger loading zone designed along First
Street SE and a truck service area designed along the alley.
5.) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction,
the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible
with the surrounding development in the following manner:
a.) Sunlight access: The structures will not deny adequate
sunlight to surrounding properties: Because of the small
footprint and relative slender building size, shadows will be
minimized. The total building will be 342 feet. Shadow impact
diagrams had been previously submitted to confirm the
minimization of shadows and are still applicable as the building
mass has not changed.
b.) View Corridors: The siting of the structures will not destroy
views from the primary exposures of adjacent residential
dwellings: There are no nearby existing buildings that will have
any significant views changed.
6.) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed
setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner
consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying
zoning district. Through this Incentive Development application,
Rochester Management Inc. is requesting to exceed the, floor area ratio
NA010240ftorAIncentive.sub.doc Page 5 of 12
BROADWAY PL •
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission
September 13, 2001
allowed in the CDC-CBD in order to achieve additional floor area on
this small site. The building will not comply with the permitted height
limitations, other required setbacks are in compliance.
7.) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new
construction, the preliminary site layout indicated adequate
building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to
open spaces street frontages or other focal points. The pubic
entrances (to skyway, retail and apartments) are located on the two
main pedestrian and vehicular ways: Broadway and First Avenue SE.
The comer is being developed in such a way as to highlight activity
and interest. All services and the garage entrance will be accessed
from the alley.
8.) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and
bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of
residents in the development or surrounding residential areas
from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas,
utility areas such as refuse storage, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle
access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between
adjacent land uses. The residential units are designed to incorporate
French balconies and individual unit privacy. The residential tower
begins at the 4`h floor to further separate it from street level activity.
All building service oriented functions (including refuse storage) will
be accessed from the alley to avoid overlap with residential or public
functions.
9.) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes
adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in
the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to
meet ordinance requirements. Item 4: The Parking and Traffic
Study previously completed by Walker Parking Consultants, indicates
the proposed project will require 94 parking spaces. There are
currently 18 valet garage parking spaces under the building with
access from the alley. Rochester Development Inc. will work with the
City to resolve issues related to the supply of and demand for parking,
prior to submitting the Final Development Plan application. There is
a passenger loading zone designed along First Street SE and a truck
service area designed along the alley. The streetscape incorporates the
use of street trees in the character of the surrounding environment.
62.656: CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT CORE: The criteria listed in this
paragraph will be considered in granting bonus floor area in the Central
Development Core (CDC) District.
NA010240ftonUncentive.sub.doc Page 6 of 12
BROADWAY PL& a / //)
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application • Preliminary Submission "�
September 13, 2001
1)Architectural Treatment that involves the restoration or
enhancement of significant historical, architectural or cultural
features of existing buildings, or new construction which is
harmonious with existing development in that: a) it avoids
abrupt changes in scale, or b) it incorporates increased
setbacks at floors above the second story. In order to maintain a
sense of scale, the building will be organized such that it has a
pedestrian friendly base. It will also incorporate setbacks above
the third floor.
2)Buildings adjacent to or across from public open spaces
located to the north are designed in such a manner so as to
allow sunlight to enter such spaces over sixty (60%) percent of
the daylight hours for up to nine months of the year. Not
applicable.
3)The design of the development incorporates features, which
provide protection to pedestrian traffic from adverse climatic
conditions. Such features include:
a) Skyway or subway connection to adjacent buildings
across right-of-way. The project provides a skyway bridge
connection to the parking ramp located at First Street SE
and First Avenue SE; which ties in to the city Skyway
system. A future bridge connection (not included as part of
the project) over Broadway is allowed for in the planning of
this project and will help to complete the Skyway "loop "in
this part of the city.
b) Canopies or other exterior coverings over sidewalks.
Canopies and awnings along First Street SE and Broadway
have been incorporated into the design. All doors have been
recessed to avoid pedestrian conflicts.
c) Heated sidewalks. Heated sidewalks will be
incorporated as budget allows.
d) Enclosed connections to public parking ramps. The
project provides skyway bridge connection to parking ramp
at First Street SE and First Avenue SE.
e) Provision of off-street or protected passenger loading
zones. A passenger loading zone along First Street SE has
been designed to be centered on the building entrance
canopy.
4)Provision of streetscape improvements which enhance the
visual appearance and create a feeling of openness on the site
N:\0102400\corr\Incentive.sub.doc Page 7 of 12
BROADWAY PLIft •
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission /aV
September 13, 2001
as perceived at street level. Such amenities shall include
boulevard plantings, street lighting, sitting areas equipped with
benches, or other open space such as plazas or vest-pocket
parks. Integral to the design of the building is the elegant fabric of
the streetscape. This will be achieved by carrying materials from
the building to the adjacent walks and decorative paving
announcing building entrances. The current pattern and character
along Broadway will be continued for this project with decorative
paving, street trees and lighting along both Broadway and First
Street SE. First Street SE will be improved to include roadbed
construction, realignment of the curb and gutter as well as new
walks and street trees and lighting. Broadway will include new
curb and gutter, walks and street trees and lighting. The alley is
designed with a concrete walk/service area under the building
overhang.
5)Making available space for small retail or business uses that
have been displaced as a result or redevelopment occurring
within the Central Development core district. The project
continues the existing pattern of retail / business space along the
Broadway street frontage. There is additional space along the
skyway circulation path on the second floor, reinforcing the
pattern of two level retail space. The retail will be supported both
by the residents of the building and pedestrian traffic at street level
and the skyway level.
6) When development does not abut an alley, the provisions of
other means for off-street loading and deliverables. Not
applicable.
62.657: ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: The criteria in this
paragraph may be considered for granting bonus density in all residential
development districts.
2) Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities.
a) within a 'Amile of a nursery school. None within I/, mile.
b) within 1/2 mile of an elementary school Yes.
c) within 3/ mile of a junior high school. Yes.
d) within 1/2 mile of a neighborhood shopping center or 1/a
mile of a retail use. Yes.
3) Dedication of land for public recreation used which is in excess
on any ordinance requirements for usable recreation space.
Not applicable.
NA01024001corAincentive.sub.doc Page 8 of 12
BROADWAY PL • r I
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission l/ 1
September 13. 2001
4) Development within one -quarter mile of a bus shelter or
provision of a new bus shelter along an existing transit route.
The building provides awnings and canopies and is within 114 mile
to a bus shelter.
5) Installation of noise buffers where the development is exposed
to traffic -generated or industrially -generated noise exceeding
the permitted residential level of this ordinance. Not
applicable.
6) Site Planning. Integrated design of the site, individual lots and
floor plans so as to provide:
a) A Varied Streetscape. Not applicable.
b) Individual Unit Privacy. All units have private views and
orientation of the main living area provides glazing and
privacy.
7) Housing for Low Income Households. Not applicable.
8) Storm Shelter. The providing of storm shelter in accordance
with the provisions of Paragraph 62.266(3). There are no
formal provisions for a Storm Shelter at this time; however,
requirements for a storm shelter will be reviewed and incorporated
into the below grade parking garage if possible.
62.658: ALL DEVELOPMENT: The criteria in this paragraph may be
considered for granting bonus density in all developments:
1) Storm Water Management. Currently the building storm system
is designed to properly convey storm water collected by the
building to the existing conveyance system along Broadway. Burt
Hill is coordinating with the City and State drainage and capacity
calculations to determine final storm system design.
2) The development proposes to integrate the reuse of an existing
structure which has been vacant for 24 consecutive hours. Not
applicable.
3) Easements consistent with flood control. Are provided, or
other bank treatment or river beautification which will result
in increased usage of the area along existing streams for
walking, sitting, or other means of passive recreation are
developed. Not applicable.
NA010240ftorAIncentive.sub.doc Page 9 of 12
BROADWAYPL4b a
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application • Preliminary Submission J �'
September 13, 2001 / d
4) Street improvements normally provided by the City of
Rochester are constructed, dedicated or paid for by the
developer. Examples include the provision of right-of-way for
arterial streets beyond that normally required to be dedicated,
or the construction or payment for turn lanes, signal lights,
increased pavement depths, etc. This project will improve First
Street SE as part of the project and upgrade adjacent sidewalks
along all three sides. The First Street SE roadway improvements
include the passenger drop off lane and adjacent water main
installation work as well as the alley reconstruction.
5) The development of the site will lead to increased effciency in
the existing public utility delivery system or the more efficient
use of already existing utilities. The project will upgrade both
the water main along First Street SE and the electric service along
the alley.
6) The proposed development involves the integrated
development of a site, which is a minimum of one acre in size
and located in an established district. Not applicable.
7) Each four (4) percent increase in the landscape area ratio
above the minimum required shall be considered as meeting
the criteria for bonus density/floor area or an increase in plant
materials so as to exceed minimum requirements. Not
applicable.
S) The proposed development minimizes access points by utilizing
shared access points with adjacent developments, resulting in a
reduction in the number of driveway openings on a collector or
higher level street. The pedestrian access is via Broadway and
First Street SE walks. The alley is utilized by the service functions
as well as the garage entrance similar to buildings fronting along
Broadway.
9) Parking Lot Landscaping for the purpose of screening
residential areas and/or right-of-way areas from the
concentration of vehicles. Not applicable.
NA010240ftorAincentive.sub.doc Page 10 of 12
BROADWAY PLJ& . i
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission
September 13, 2001 f
Occupancy Groups:
A3 The restaurant portion of the building is classified as "Group A, Division 3
Occupancy" because the dining area is less than 300 occupants but greater than 50.
(UBS 303.1.1)
B The retail, skyway, meeting rooms, and health club portions of the building are
classified as "Group B Occupancies" (UBC 304.1)
Rl The housing portions of the building area classified as "Group R, Division 1
Occupancy" which covers Hotels and Apartment Houses. (UBC 310.1)
S3 The parking garage is classified as "Group S, Division 3 Occupancy", enclosed
parking garages. (UBC 311.1)
Area Summary by Floor and Occupancy Type:
Floor Level
A3
B
RI
S3
Floor Areal
Gross Area=
Basement
0
0
0
0
0
14,700
1
3,322
720
5,0654
0
9,107
13,145
2
0
11,320
2,5105
0
13,830
15,300
3
0
12,696'
0
0
12,696
15,300
4
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
5
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
6
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
7
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
8
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
9
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
10
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
11
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
12
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
13
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
14
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
15
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
16
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
17
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
Floor Area is a sum of the gross horizontal floor area measured from the outside face of wall,
not including any interior parking spaces, loading spaces, any space where the floor to ceiling
height is less than 6'-0", any space devoted to mechanical equipment, terraces, breezeways or
screened porches, or basement or other subterranean area not intended for human habitation or
service to the public.
Z Gross Area is a sum of horizontal floor area measure from the outside face of wall and includes
all portions of the building not included in the "floor area" calculations.
3 Basement level indoor parking deleted from floor total (13,473 SF); Mechanical spaces deleted
from floor total (1,227 SF)
Off-street loading and access to indoor parking deleted from floor total (2.683 SF); Mechanical
and Electrical spaces deleted from floor total (1,355 SF)
5 Mechanical and Electrical spaces deleted from floor total (1,470 SF)
6 Mechanical and Electrical spaces deleted from floor total (2,604 SF)
NA0102400\corNncentive.sub.doc Page 11 of 12
Ob lb
BROADWAYPL
Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Application - Preliminary Submission p4
September 13, 2001
18
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
19
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
20
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
21
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
22
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
23
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
24
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
25
0
0
10,985
0
10,985
11,225
26
0
0
10,145
0
10,145
10,385
27 (Mech.)
0
0
0
0
0
6,394
28 Mech.
0
0
0
0
0
1,640
29 (Mech.)
0
0
0
0
0
1,640
TOTAL
3,322
24,736
259,390
0
287,448
325,454
NA0102400\corNncentive.sub.doc Page 12 of 12
MINUTES OF THE
OCTOBER 10, 2001
CITY PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
NoJeM&C (0 CPte- MlWP11 5
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION:
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend 31dprovalf Vacation Petition #01-11 by Joseph and
Wendy Postier and Western Wallsvfnc. Mr. Sfaver seconded the motion. The motion
carried 7-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
long-term and short-term stay housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center. The
property is located north 151 Street SE and east of Broadway on three parcels known as
the former Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe and the Open Table A similar request
was submitted in December. 2000 and withdrawn by the applicant in September, 2001.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated October 5, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby stated that the developer had concerns with regard to providing more retail space
along 151 Street and also with the request to move the main entrance to the building at the
corner of Broadway and I" Street.
Ms. Wiesner asked if there was a height limitation in the CDC.
Mr. Svenby responded no.
Ms. Petersson asked how many parking spaces the applicant was providing.
Mr. Svenby responded 18. He indicated that, as designed, they do not meet the Ordinance
requirements. Therefore, the applicant will either need to revise those spaces to meet the
standards of the Ordinance or file for a variance. He stated that the applicant did a parking
study, as well as the City. He stated that Doug Knott, from City Administration, was present to
answer any questions regarding parking concerns.
Mr. Slaver asked why staff was recommending that the entrance be moved to the corner of 1"
Street and Broadway.
Mr. Svenby responded that one criteria for an incentive development is granting bonuses in
exchange for incorporating features determined to be a public benefit. He stated that staff felt
that it seemed to be more of a public benefit to have the main focal point on the corner of 15t
Street and Broadway.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Conunission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Mr. Staver stated that it seemed conflicting that one of the recommendations talked about, in the
future if there were a skyway link across Broadway, the recommendation was to move it further
to the north so that it was more at a mid block point. If this were to occur, it would make sense
to have the main entrance to be on the northwest corner of the property.
Mr. Svenby stated that the skyway connection would be on the second story. With possible
future development to the north, the skyway connection makes sense to be moved
approximately 150 feet to the north across Broadway.
Mr. Doug Knott, of City Administration, addressed the Commission. He explained that there is
not necessarily a specific sort of direct relationship with where the building entrance is and
where the skyway may be located. He stated that, if the main building entrance to the public
were at the corner, it would enliven that space. If it is designed as currently proposed, it could
end up being a business that is closed evenings and weekends and have a corner that looks
dead. If the main public entrance is located there, there is a space that will be lighted during the
skyway hours.
Mr. Knott explained that part of the concern of putting the entrance underneath the skyway is
that it becomes darker and hides the entrance. If it is at the corner, people will walk by the
storefronts on the skyway level to get over to the skyway location.
Ms. Rivas questioned the ability to have two entrances. She stated that she did not feel
comfortable recommending changing the entrance without more input from the developer and
architect.
Ms. Rivas stated that MnDOT stated that "There will be no encroachment on MnDOT right of
way and this includes spread footings." She questioned if the awning would be in the right of
way.
Mr. Svenby responded that the awning would hang over the right of way. He explained that he
did not think it would be an issue as MnDOT referred to other retail businesses along Broadway
having canopies hanging into the right-of-way.
Mr. Wheeler stated that it was important to recognize that 1st Street is bounded on one end by
the Gonda Building (which is a major entrance to the clinic) and by the Civic Center. He
explained that there isn't any other street like it. Therefore, that is one reason to focus retail and
public attention to the corner.
Mr. Mike Manley, a construction manager for Rochester Development, addressed the
Commission. He introduced Jack Grzybet (Project Manager) and Melissa Sarco (Project
Architect).
Mr. Jack Grzybet, of Burt Hill Kosar Rittelman Associates, addressed the Commission. He
stated that he was confused with the recommendation by MnDOT, as he had spoken with them
twice and received two different reports. He stated that the right-of-way representative he
spoke with told him that it wouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Grzybet stated that he had two objections to staff's recommendations.
1) The addition of more retail on Vt Street.
Page 7
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
He explained that there is not enough square footage to add more retail on 1" Street.
Since the drawings were submitted in their preliminary stage, they have met with the Fire
Marshall who approves of the idea of having a quick entrance off of Vt Street to the fire
command center. He stated that they already squeezed the valet and security offices.
He stated that RPU wants transformers at the easterly side of the property, which are
related to the switchgear.
2) Moving the public entrance.
He explained that he was against it for aesthetic reasons as well as they wouldn't know
how to exit their skyway if there wasn't a stairway at that end of the building.
He explained that they do not have a lot of square footage to work with. He explained
that the entrance was looked upon as being a residential entrance.
He stated that development is moving from the south to the north. He explained that if
the project gets completed with no development immediately after it, they are at a dead
end with the skywalk. Therefore, they had the idea to have the entrance and make it its
own massing at that end of the building.
Ms. Rivas asked if the entrance would enter into a retail space.
Mr. Grzybet responded yes.
Ms. Rivas stated that ground level retail spaces are turning into office spaces in downtown. She
explained that no one wants another office located there. She indicated that there should be
some secondary main entrance to the retail space.
Mr. Grzybet stated that there is no space left. He stated that he believes they can prove
through the final plan that there is not a lot of room to work with.
Mr. Doug Knott stated that putting the entrance at the southwest corner stemmed from a
substantial amount of discussion at the CUDE Committee and the Downtown Development.
They recognized that 1" Street is the link between downtown and the Civic Center. Having the
entrance at the corner makes easy access from someone crossing Broadway from the Galleria.
Mr. Knott stated that the previous plans that were approved did have the entrance and stairway
at the corner. He stated that the City Council pushed to put in an escalator at the same
location.
Mr. Knott stated that he was willing to meet with the applicant, consultants, and Fire Marshall.
Ms. Petersson asked how the Commission should phrase their recommendation.
Mr. Svenby responded that the Commission needed to make a recommendation to the City
Council. He explained that the Commission could make a recommendation to direct the
applicant to meet with city staff prior to the project moving forward to the City Council to talk
about the issues raised.
Discussion ensued regarding where the skyway would be located.
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Ms. Melissa Sarco addressed the Commission. She stated that she researched Code and
found that the stair towers are compliant.
Mr. Burke stated that the duplication of stairways is an issue as far as locating the entrance.
Mr. Grzybet stated that the main reasons for having the entrance located where proposed is due
to aesthetics and Code. He explained that they developed the proposed plan based on how it
would look from the street.
Ms. Wiesner asked if heated sidewalks would be utilized.
Mr. Grzybet responded that it is not being considered at this time.
Mr. Knott stated that there is no off street parking requirement in the CDC zoning district. He
explained that parking is the primary responsibility of the City. He stated that they are currently
running close to capacity. Therefore, he discussed adding additional levels onto a current
parking ramp and creating an additional parking ramp.
Ms. Petersson expressed concern for the occupants of the building not having close enough
parking.
Mr. Staver asked if the potential parking ramp would coincide with the proposed project.
Mr. Knott responded yes.
Ms. Christine Schultze, of 503 8�' Avenue SW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. She
explained that she was present on behalf of CUDE. She expressed dissatisfaction at not seeing
detailed information being presented to the Commission and audience. She stated that CUDE
was generally supportive of the plan, based on the staff report and conditions recommended.
However, given the conversation of where the entrance should be located, she suggested that
the Commission continue the item with a recommendation that a meeting occur to discuss the
first and second floor.
Ms. Schultze stated that Mr. Wheeler's description of the intersection, and its importance within
the City, has been one of the continuing conversations when the proposed development has
been considered.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Staver asked how much staff time would be needed to figure out the issues brought forward.
Mr. Knott responded two weeks. He explained that he would make himself available
immediately.
Ms. Petersson stated that she expected to see more materials and elevations presented by the
applicant. She indicated that the drawings in the staff report were hard to read, due to the size.
Mr. Staver agreed with Ms. Petersson.
Discussion ensued regarding extending the 60-day rule to 120 days.
Page
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes J
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Discussion ensued regarding what meeting to continue the item to.
Mr. Staver moved to continue Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Preliminary Plan
#00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. to November 14, 2001 to allow time for
discussions regarding parking, aesthetics, and entrance to be discussed. Also, for
larger detailed drawings to be presented to the Commission. Ms. Rivas seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Brent enby presented the staff report, dated October 4, 2001, to the C mission. The
staff report is n file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Wiesner stat that she would not participate in the discussion a Commissioner, but
would sit in the au ce and participate as an interested party.
Ms. Lisa Wiesner, of 31 East River Road NE, Rochester addressed the Commission.
She explained that she di of participate as a Commissio r as she believes she will have a
request regarding upzoning i the near future.
Ms. Wiesner asked that, if the R- and R-2 zoning 59tricts are both considered low density
residential, why would staff require general deveropment plan for an upzoning.
Mr. Svenby responded that the Ordinan a curp6ntly does not require a general development
plan for the R-1 zoning district. However, ' ' required for the R-1 x. He questioned why the R-
1 x and R-2 zoning districts should be trea^ differently.
Ms. Wiesner explained that she
for the R-1x zoning district.
development plan should be needed
Mr. Svenby responded that the x zoning district lows a number of different uses. For
example, manufactured home rks. When the Ordin nce was revised a couple of years ago,
the Council expressed concer regarding making adjac in property owners aware of potential
development. Therefore, th added the requirement of eneral development plans in certain
zoning districts.
Mr. Svenby explained th t the criteria that are used when\reving generaldevelopment plans,
include if there are ade uate public facilities to serve anyI uses on the zoning districts.
Ms. Wiesner asked fit was being used more to protect what may t�going in there and not
based on the dens'
Mr. Svenby responded yes.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the pub]
ring.
Mr. Staver rooved to recommend approval of City Initiated Text Antendme t #01-11 to
amend .Se ion 51.211 of the'kochester Zonma Ordinance an and Develohment Manual
Draft Minutes of the City Planning & Zoning Commission
Date of Hearing: November 14, 2001
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Ms. Rivas moved to suspend Robert's Rules of Order for Type III, Phase ll. Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. Mr. Burke
seconded the motion. The motion carried 8=0
Ms. Rivas moved to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The
motion carried 8-0.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 9, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby pointed out that Conditions 9 and 10, listed in the staff report, were added from the
previous meeting.
Mr. Jack Gryzbet, Project Manager of Burt Hill Kosar Rittelman Associates, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he had no objections to the staff -recommended conditions. He
indicated that they brought additional graphical information for the Commission's review,
including a PowerPoint presentation, which would be made by Ms. Melissa Sarco.
The presentation included an overview of the project. The slides included:
➢ site plan
➢ basement plan
➢ 15t floor plan
➢ 2"d floor plan
➢ 3rd floor plan
➢ 4'" through 15d' floor plan
➢ 16"' through 22nd floor plan
➢ 23 d through 25th floor plan
➢ 26d' floor plan
➢ units floor plan
➢ building elevations
➢ perspective views of the building from Broadway and First Street
➢ view of skyway from lobby
➢ view of apartment lobby
➢ view of corner of Broadway and First Street
Mr. Brede questioned how the number of parking spaces was figured for the basement.
Page 1 of 4
Ms. Sarco responded that they put as many parking stalls as possible in the basement.
Mr. Brede asked if there was a ratio to for the number of apartments and how many parking
spaces would be provided.
Mr. Svenby responded that uses in the Central Development Core -Central Business Districted
do not have parking requirements.
Ms. Petersson asked if there would be security at the revolving door.
Ms. Sarco stated that there would be security cameras and that there would be staff there 24
hours a day.
Discussion ensued regarding stairways.
Ms. Wiesner asked if there were vertical poles on the top of the building or antennas.
Ms. Sarco responded vertical poles.
Ms. Petersson asked if the building's color scheme could be darker to match other buildings
downtown.
Ms. Sarco explained that they had not gone through a color pallet yet. However, it was her
understanding that the building would be buff color.
Mr. Brede asked if trucks would drive right inside the loading dock.
Ms. Sarco explained that the loading dock would be angled to accommodate the truck's
entrance.
Ms. Wiesner questioned what would happen if a tall building were built next to the proposed
project.
Ms. Sarco explained that the bottom of building would be flush, but that there would be a
setback requirement between the towers.
Mr. Doug Knott stated that the City currently owns the building next to the proposed project. He
explained that they could make a condition of sale that there be a 60-foot setback between the
towers.
Ms. Rivas asked where signage would be located.
Ms. Sarco explained that they had not discussed signage in detail, but that it would be done in
good taste.
Mr. Grzybet stated that they would not have flashy designs. He explained that Royal
Management would need to monitor and control signage.
Ms. Wiesner asked how the skyway would be designed.
Page 2 of 4
Mr. Knott stated that the skyway would be pretty much the same as the current designs of the
skyway.
Ms. Wiesner suggested that the building should be a lighter color to blend with the skyway.
Ms. Wiesner asked that Royal Management please make sure that signage is done in a tasteful
manner.
Mr. Svenby stated that Christine Schultze, a representative of CUDE, addressed the
Commission at their meeting on October 10, 2001. He gave the Commission an e-mail from
her, which is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. In that e-mail, Ms.
Schultze indicates that CUDE is comfortable with the project moving forward at this time.
Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant would be making a presentation to the Downtown
Development Committee tomorrow. He further stated that the item would go before the City
Council on Monday, November 19, 2001.
Mr. Staver asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the staff -recommended
conditions.
Ms. Sarco responded yes.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Staver;moved to recommend approval of.Type Ill, Phase ll Incentive Development
Preliminary Plan k0-35 by Rochester; Development, Inc. based on staff -recommended
findings and conditions Mr Brede seconded the motion The motion carried 8=0
CONDITIONS f '`
1.' The Final Development Plan application all include'
.F"'� 'i` `sr : - ti ' P t41r ty, �f Pr ♦ r .a ' S'suC r r :: 1Fs
• Revised building elevations that iterials, colors
type;?. e ;
Additional details for the canopies and awnings; inciud�ng materials, colors an
elevations, t f R r ti r 4k , F ; v ' Y
• Details for eictenor lighting; on the building and in the nght of -way,
• Additional details for the stroetscape, including jmaterials, plantings, colors and
xr, f 1 f t 5 x
• A sign plan, feigns will beylirogosed, -
• ,Revised utility plans to have only one sanitary sewer and storm sewer connection
to Bro'adWay utility Afdijik Imegr u'tilizmg a common trench;,y4 t a t
Modifications to the first oor loadin docks and below rade arkin to eliminate'
z conflict,points aid`com IXwrth`Ordlnance'standards unless Variance �s A
z : `pl *111f+3' z u• r - t "tE 4 ` .4 v,e4Y�t
a Quad '2fi` �`^€.,..
< c.* Wyk
2.r The Walker Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available
to serve this project yThe applicant shall coordinate with the.Cityto resolve issues
related.to,the supply,of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Finai;
Develo`ment'Plan application.,'
=`
Page 3 of 4
s. The applicant must abandoned the existing domestic and fire service
connections as identified in item 2 from RPU Water Division comments dated
September 21, 2001.
4. The applicant shall provide the City with drainage and capacity calculations of
the surrounding stormwater system to address sheet draining from the
significant surface area of the building; and provide additional details
regarding the street drainage patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on 15t
Street.'
s. Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done
concurrent with this project at the Owner's expense:
6. The cost of any needed City utility and/or street modifications will be the
responsibility of the Owner/Developer. Any such work must be performed
under'a City/Owner Contract. Relocation of private utilities in the alleyshall
be coordinated with tfie City. ,;-
7. The alley adjacent to the project shall be reconstructed as concrete instead of
bituminous: Prior to the issuance of building permits, a construction access
..... .. ......... e�..4. ..1.�.. e.1.�11 tis ...e�...�.earl i.. w//.v�...i.,.....:...�1 L.'./4hn/`14v: ...
Engineer..; {
a. The applicant will need to modify the plans to comply with Ordinance
regulations for on site parking design, or file for variances to be considered at
9 'The applicant"shall continue to work with Staff on the final location and design
... ,
of t�he`public entrance to the skyway system from Broadway, Final location .
and design will. need to be'resolved pnor to the;submittal of the,;final plan..,
application , '
an 14 .�nne�re 4h �43 ne„Finn :.i 46e �ev�lvinn ei/�r/n ic'u/74h1n4{n �7nhf_n%/uwni49t
VYi'iVY VV VVV/, //Y �iY \V V�i //•V��iV VYiJ/Y�i V y S
City doesn't giairif a revocable permit for it
Page 4 of 4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING S�
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
-2
M DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan # 83 "The Arboretum".
PREPARED BY:
t of Special Zoning District 111, Ordinance #2247, The area subject to revision contains
Jeff Ellerbusch,
24.5 acres of land located along the east side of West Circle Drive between Northwest
Senior Planner
Plaza Shopping Center and the Douglas Bicycle Trail Bridge.
November 14, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On October 24, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this amendment to the General Development
Plan filed by the owner of the subject property - IBM Mid -America Employees Credit Union.
The applicants agreed with the staff conditions. A subsequent meeting with the Public Works Director, Park Department
Assistant Director, planning staff and representatives of the owner was held on November 71h to clarify the public road
design requirements. Based on the need for turning lanes and a center landscaped median, the right of way width for the
public street from Circle Drive to the first intersection may need to be a 100 feet wide and the next roadway section to the
next intersection needs an 80 foot right of way. All other public street right of ways need the typical 66 foot wide right of
way. The representatives agreed to reflect the needed right of way widths on the revised GDP map to be submitted as a
condition of approval.
The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve the amendment to General Development Plan #155 with the staff -recommended
fi-dings and conditions. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
editions:
1. A revised GDP map to scale should be provided to the City that shows the minimum 66-foot wide right of way lines for the
future public streets in the development, in addition to the pavement surface as presently shown on the plan. The revised
plan should also show the required 480 foot long turn lanes on Circle Drive.
2. Results of a wetland investigation of the entire site should be submitted for consideration as soon as possible. Special
District final development plans should not be submitted for approval until all wetland issues are completed.
3. Storm Water Management conforming to general ordinance, special shoreland requirements, and designed to not add any
runoff to or through the Northern Hills Prairie park must be provided. A Storm Water Management fee will apply to all new
impervious surface that does not drain to an on -site detention facility. These matters shall be completed prior to submittal
of a plat for this property.
4. The applicant(s) should meet with the Park & Rec Department to clarify questions concerning potential City
costs for street construction on or adjacent to parkland, the amount of parkland being used for roads and any
land swaps that may serve both parties. This should be accomplished as soon as possible.
5. Prior to final plat submittal for any portion of this property, the applicant(s) shall enter into a development
agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant(s) relating to, but not limited to, right-of-
way dedication and required platting, the extension of public utilities, Transportation Improyement District (TID)
charges, storm water management, park land transfers and maximum park shares in the cost of utility and road
improvements, the timing of traffic improvements and the limitations on development until certain
improvements are made, applicable charges or contributions for public infrastructure on and off site, and
pedestrian amenity improvements.
IUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Page 2 �✓
RCA
November 14, 2001
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 18, 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 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 October 18, 2001
2. Minutes of the October 24, 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,
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
6.HGA-Rochester (Hal Henderson); HGA-Minneapolis (Bill Blanski & Vicki Hooper)
November 19, 2001 in the Counci d
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPH ., MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CUV„1, OF www, olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jeff Ellerbusch, Senior Planner?�
DATE: October 18, 2001
®irao 4in��
O....yagw-aggA
��t6�Ig71puffs, J
w+�n►n,�'��nrp�J
,r
RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #83, known as The
Arboretum, part of the "Arboretum Special District" — Ord. # 2247.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: IBM Mid America Employees Credit Union
Paul Horgan; Steve Spohn
4001 West River Parkway NW
Rochester, MN 55901
United Properties
Mark Nelson ; Brian Carey
3500 West 80th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55431
City of Rochester Park & Recreation Department
Consultants: HGA
Hal Henderson
202 First Avenue SW
Rochester, MN 55902
HGA
Bill Blanski; Vicki Hooper
701 Washington Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Size and Location: The area included in this proposed amendment totals
some 24.5 acres.
The land subject to the amendment is the portion of
the approved GDP designated for "commercial' land
use in the northwest part of the plan. It is located
along West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) between the
Northwest Plaza Shopping Center on the north and
the Douglas Bike Trail on the south. The present end
of Nottingham Drive NW abuts the east line of the
site.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/265-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
� FAX 5071287-2275
'Ucl
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19, 2001
l�O
Development History: The Arboretum Special (zoning) District was
established in May of 1982 and it included
undeveloped real estate then owned by a single entity
known as Cordul Establishment. The special district
boundaries extend from Circle Drive on the north and
west to 416' Street on the south and westerly of 31"
Avenue and TH 52. The special district regulations
incorporated the adoption of a "General Development
Plan" which designated the general land uses
envisioned, the development intensities, and the
major street pattern. The underlying zoning of the
special district is the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) zone.
The special district regulations allow, as permitted
uses, all development in conformance with the
standards of the R-1 district and established a site
plan review process for all other non-R-1
development within the district.
The general development plan for this area has been
officially amended six times since its original adoption
in 1982, the last time in January of 1998. All the
development that has been completed in this area —
from Northwest Plaza, to Carriage Homes
Townhouses, to the homes in Arborglen and
Lincolnshire subdivisions, to the recently completed
Carpet One store on the highway frontage road have
all been developed in compliance with the adopted
GDP. The Arboretum GDP has two remaining
residential areas to develop — the "Bishop" 86-unit
multifamily area at the far southwest corner of the
GDP and the remaining 61 lots in the Lincolnshire
plats south of Nottingham Drive NW. There are two
remaining undeveloped "commercial " areas — the
undeveloped frontage along 41st Street NW at the
south end of the GDP and the commercial area
subject of this amendment.
Proposed Amendment: The modification to the GDP involves a slight
realignment of the extension of Nottingham Drive NW
(48t" Street) and its point of intersection with West
Circle Drive. A new public street connection to the
existing Northwest Plaza Shopping Center is
proposed. Because the new owners (IBM CLI) now
have a more definitive development plan for this
"commercial" area, the private road system
envisioned is also shown on the amended plan
documents.
The use of the area is now shown on the GDP to be
up to 240,000 square feet of commercial floor area in
four separate buildings. The buildings are proposed
as follows: Building 1-120,000 sf./ 3-5 levels; Building
2 - 90,000 sf./ 3 levels; Building 3 - 30,000 sf./ one
Page 3
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19, 2001
level and Building 4 - 6,000 sf./ one level with drive -up
facilities. The plan submittals do not specify the type
of commercial uses, but parking (1,107 spaces
maximum) is provided at a rate required for retail
shopping centers. The plan indicates that the
ultimate parking plan would incorporate a 3 level
parking structure.
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
designates this property as suitable for "low density
residential" types of development. This designation
reflects the underlying zoning of R-1, not the
approved land use of the special district.
Zoning: The property is currently zoned SD-1 (Special District
Ordinance # 2247) on the City of Rochester Zoning
Map.
Small portions of the property are subject to
shoreland overlay zoning regulations, that is, any
portion of the property within 300 feet of the normal
high water mark of King's Run. The amendment
shows that there will be minimal encroachment in the
shoreland area at all with any of the private
development. All proposed development is well
beyond the shore impact zone and setback areas.
The only real encroachment through the shoreland
will be for the public street connection to the
Northwest Plaza Shopping Center. Shoreland
regulations will require that the existing trees and
other vegetation in the shoreland must be maintained
to achieve maximum screening.
Streets: The major modification to the plan by this amendment
is a change in the alignment of the westerly extension
of Nottingham Drive (formerly 48th St. NW) to Circle
Drive. The existing plan extended the road straight
west from its present end to Circle Drive. The
proposed amendment extends Nottingham Drive NW
approximately 220 feet to an intersection with a new
public street that extends westerly and intersects with
Circle Drive approximately 490 feet northerly of the
original intersection location. This same new public
street extends northerly, crossing King's Run,
connecting to the Northwest Plaza shopping Center.
These new public streets would be of the same
design as the existing Nottingham Drive NW — 39.34
feet in width from back of curb to back of curb and on
a 66-foot wide right-of-way.
The modification in the intersection point with Circle
Drive and the provision of public roadway to the
Northwest Plaza are being made in response to
studied changes in access planning along the Circle
Drive corridor. Plans for Circle Drive modifications
Page 4
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19, 2001
/y0
now include the realignment of the existing 55'" Street
NW / Northwest Plaza intersection southerly to the
location of the new intersection as shown in this
amendment. These modifications are being planned
to provide better signal progression (more distance
between stoplights) to help maintain reasonable
corridor speeds. The existing access into Northwest
Plaza will be reduced to at most a right turn in and
out. Connection through this GDP will get the
shopping center access to the stoplight intersection
for motorists continuing south on Circle Drive or west
on 55th Street NW. These changes will not be
considered for approximately 5 years. In the interim,
this GDP will be allowed to take access at the un-
signalized intersection / median opening on Circle
Drive for the first phase of the development (120,000
square foot building).
Internal private roads, shown at approximately 24 feet
in width, connect between the north and south sides
of the public street and provide direct access to the
parking areas supporting the four planned buildings.
The road access to Circle Drive (CSAH22) requires a
permit from the Olmsted County Public Works
Department. Right and left concrete turn lanes 480
feet in length in either direction from the intersection
will be required to be constructed at the owners
expense as part of the access permit. Access control
will be required along the remainder of the Circle
Drive frontage.
Sidewalks/Trails: Sidewalk(s) will be required on both sides of the
public roadways in the development.
There is an existing pedestrian trail along the frontage
of this property. The plan shows that the trail will be
continued easterly from its present end onto the City
owned parkland, crossing the new road connection to
Northwest Plaza, and continuing into the future
Lincolnshire Park. The GDP shows that this trail will
continue easterly following the Kings Run corridor and
eventually connect with the West Frontage Road for
TH 52 at the new Carpet One site.
Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies existing
topography but not the proposed grades. The
narrative says that a McGhie and Betts report
suggests that storm water will be directed northerly
toward King's Run or southeasterly to Nottingham
Drive tying into the existing storm sewer system. The
park Department noted that no drainage should be
directed to the Northern Hills Prairie because it would
affect the prairie soil conditions.
Page 5
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19. 2001
/Yl
There is no FEMA identified floodplain along King's
Run, it is an unstudied area. However, a private flood
study was conducted at the time that Northwest Plaza
Shopping Center was proposed. A 100 year
floodplain line was established along the creek. The
very northerly portion of this site is in the floodplain as
defined back in 1992. No part of the planned
development will be located within the floodplain
boundary, other than the future public street that will
connect to the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center.
Storm water management must be provided on site
and a Storm Water Management Fee must be paid
for all impervious surface drainage not directed to an
on -site facility. No storm water detention areas are
shown on the plan document.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted or developed.
Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. Soils
maps indicate a hydric soil type (176-Garvin Silty
Clay Loam) on a portion of the site extending
northeasterly from Circle Drive I Douglas Trail
intersection. The property owner is responsible for
identifying wetlands on the property and submitting
the information as part of this application.
Public Utilities: This area is within the Main Level Water Service Area
and can be provided with water from main extensions
at the present end of Nottingham Drive NW or from
mains along the east side of Circle Drive betweeri
buildings 1 & 2. Static water pressures of between 55
and 62 PSI (pounds per square inch) are available
depending upon final grades.
Sanitary sewer at the end of Nottingham Drive NW
will be extended into this site.
RPU electrical service is in place in the Circle Drive
right-of-way adjacent to this site.
Parkland Dedication: No additional parkland is required in the development.
The City has already acquired approximately 25 acres
of land north of Nottingham Drive to King's Run to be
known as Lincolnshire Park and developed in the
future for active recreation with athletic fields, a
seasonal ice rink, playground areas, trails and a 75
car parking lot. The existing parkland south of
Nottingham Drive is passive open space now known
as the Northern Hills Prairie.
Page 6
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19, 2001
/y02
The previous GDP layout required that the City assist
in the construction of only 125 feet of new road along
their parkland adjacent to the extension of
Nottingham Drive. The new public road in this plan
extending to the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center
abuts or in some locations actually encroaches onto
the existing undeveloped City Owned parkland. The
Park and Recreation Department commented that the
road construction responsibilities need to be
addressed and that the actual roadway alignment
should be revised to reduce the encroachment on
park property. It appears that some minor land
swaps may need to be made in the future to keep
public and private land on only one side of the future
public roads.
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works (see attached)
2. Rochester Park 8 Recreation (see attached)
3. Olmsted County Public Works (see attached)
4. Senior Transportation Planner (see attached)
5. GIS Addressing (see attached)
All other agencies responding had no additional
unique comments not already made part of the report
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Copy of the Approved General Development Plan
3. Copy of Portion of GDP as Proposed to be
Amended
4. Larger Scale GDP Map Amendment
5. Applicant's Narrative (3 pages)
Summary Comments:
The proposed street pattern shown in this GDP amendment was designed through a collaborative
effort between the then owner(s) of the property and the City and County Transportation officials.
The proposed uncontrolled access opening into the site from Circle Drive has the capacity to
provide safe access to building Number 1 in the first phase. The Circle Drive Corridor Study
included the potential land uses proposed on this property and the revised street pattern in its
analysis. The street layout will benefit the commercial development already in the area and the
residential subdivisions on Nottingham Drive will experience less unrestricted traffic by removing
the previous direct connection to Circle Drive. The plan amendment as submitted depicts only the
paved surface area of the proposed public streets, not the right of way width as normally provided.
That's why the streets may appear quite narrow. The plan should be updated to show the street
right-of-ways also as typically provided.
The special zoning district regulations require a project development plan and final site plan
approval before development can begin. The applicant's have filed a project development plan
that only includes the 120,000 square foot building of Phase I (this plan is being considered
concurrently with this GDP amendment). Timing of final plan approvals under the special district
regulations will insure that adequate transportation facilities are available when additional
commercial square footage is constructed. The City, County and property owner will be working
on development agreements which will spell out when public street improvements and traffic
i
Page 7
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19, 2001
signal relocations will be made within and adjacent to this project and how the construction will be
financed.
The proposed intensity of the commercial development is of a relatively low intensity with a floor
area ratio of 0.23 (permitted FAR in the B-4 Zone is 0.50). There is also a very high percentage of
landscape area in the development, approximately 62%, because of the compact footprints of the
buildings and the structured parking.
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan. 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 proposed land uses within the GDP are consistent with the land use
designation of "commercial' as so designated on the presently adopted
special district 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 property lies truly "adjacent" to highway right-of-way and existing and
future parkland. The proposed development of low intensity commercial
use coupled excessive amounts of open -space is compatible with the use
of adjacent properties, if acceptable arrangements for cooperative
construction of future public road facilities can be made with the City and
the Park and Recreation Department. Access and circulation as proposed
will assist the overall traffic patterns in the area based on the long range
transportation improvement plans.
Criteria 3. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
This criterion is not applicable in this case since there is no housing
proposed by this amendment.
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 plan amendment makes provisions for the most recent transportation
planning efforts. Upon completion of a development agreement with the
City for the timing of specific private and public roadway improvements
based on the phasing of the development, the proposed use and projected
Page 8
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19, 2001
background traffic will be compatible with the existing and future uses in
the area.
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.
Recommended turning lane improvements on Circle Drive required
by Olmsted County and the limitation on development to the first
phase at the un-signalized intersection will permit the existing
street system to safely accommodate trips from the planned use
without creating hazards, stacking problems or traffic flow
disruptions. Future traffic improvements to relocate the 55"' Street
NW/ Circle Drive intersection to the point proposed in this plan
amendment and the new roadway connection to the shopping
center will relieve any capacity constraints on the system.
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 development will occur and no
further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been
evidenced.
All utilities necessary for development are immediately available to
the property subject to this amendment without need for any
modifications.
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.
Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways.
Sidewalk connections along the new public street to the north into
Northwest Plaza will improve the existing pedestrian system in the
area that has no way across King's Run at the present time.
Storm Water Management must be provided for this development.
A Voluntary Storm Water Management fee will apply to any areas of
Page 9 - • 1 r i'
General Development Plan #83 Amendment 1
October 19, 2001
this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to an approved
private detention facility. Drainage patterns as recommended will
insure the existing Northern Hills Prairie park will be protected from
impact of development.
Investigation of potential "wetlands" must be completed for this
development can proceed to approval stage under the special
district requirements.
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.
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 approved detention
facility. Drainage, erosion and construction in this area can be handled
through normal engineering practices. As recommended, drainage can be
directed away from Northern Hills Prairie to maintain its soil moisture.
Drainage directed to the public water of King's Run can be stored and
filtered as recommended in the shoreland regulations before entering the
stream.
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.
This criterion is not applicable to this amendment because it has no
residential development.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria for
findings of approval for a GDP:
1. A revised GDP map to scale should be provided to the City that shows the minimum 66-foot
wide right of way lines for the future public streets in the development, in addition to the
pavement surface as presently shown on the plan. The revised plan should also show the
required 480 foot long turn lanes on Circle Drive.
2. Results of a wetland investigation of the entire site should be submitted for consideration as
soon as possible. Special District final development plans should not be submitted for
approval until all wetland issues are completed.
3. Storm Water Management conforming to general ordinance, special shoreland requirements,
and designed to not add any runoff to or through the Northern Hills Prairie park must be
provided. A Storm Water Management fee will apply to all new impervious surface that does not
Page 10
General Development Plan #83 Amendment
October 19. 2001
drain to an on -site detention facility. These matters shall be completed prior to submittal of a
plat for this property.
4. The applicant(s) should meet with the Park & Rec Department to clarify questions
concerning potential City costs for street construction on or adjacent to parkland, the
amount of parkland being used for roads and any land swaps that may serve both
parties. This should be accomplished as soon as possible.
5. Prior to final plat submittal for any portion of this property, the applicant(s) shall enter
into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the
applicant(s) relating to, but not limited to, right-of-way dedication and required platting,
the extension of public utilities, Transportation Improvement District (TID) charges,
storm water management, park land transfers and maximum park shares in the cost of
utility and road improvements, the timing of traffic improvements and the limitations
on development until certain improvements are made, applicable charges or
contributions for public infrastructure on and off site, and pedestrian amenity
improvements.
xocxEsrEx v"
Minnesota
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
TO: Consolidated PlanningDepartment WORKS
p 201 4 Street SE Room 108
2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-3740
Rochester, MN 55904 507-287-7800
FAX - 507-281-6216
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/15/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for and AMENDMENT to
GDP#83 known as the Arboretum. The following are Public Works comments on this request:
1. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement
with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to,
Right -Of -Way Dedication, the extension of public utilities, Transportation Improvement
District (TID) charges, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and applicable charges/contributions for
public infrastructure, including the construction of the proposed "Future Public Street"
along the south property line.
2. Development of this property will require Platting
3. Grading and Drainage Plan Approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal, OR, prior
to construction on site, if any development is approved prior to platting.
4. Storm Water Management must be provided, and a Storm Water Management fee will
apply for all new impervious surface of any areas of this property that do no drain to an
on -site detention facility.
5. Dedication of Controlled Access is required along the entire frontage of West Circle
Drive NW, with the exception of any approved road access.
6. A City -Owner Contract will be required for the public road and the extension of public
infrastructure to serve this development. If a City -Owner Contract is necessary,
execution is required prior to construction of the public utilities.
7. There is an existing Pedestrian path along the frontage West Circle Dr NW. The Owner
will be obligated to construct pedestrian facilities along both frontages of all new public
roadways within this development.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development
Agreement, and will include:
J9173 NW Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (SAC) @ $392.54 per developable acre + 7.5% interest
from 5/16/94 to the date of payment (10 year max.)
J9265 Water Tower NW Service Area (WAC) @ $1154.67 per acre + 7.5% interest from
4/15/96 until the date of payment (10 year max.)
••r Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection Charge for the 19`h St NW frontage @ $73.13 per
foot of frontage.
Stormwater Management — TBD, for any areas that do not drain toward privately constructed
on -site detention facilities
Potential Transportation Improvement District (TID) Charges
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\0LKB022\GDP 83 Amendment (The Arboretum).doc
Recm, '&
}
so�nesce�, tin
October 12, 2001
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Amendment to Arboretum GDP
Roadway Alignment
/0 /
The ± 25 acre parcel located east of the proposed amendment area and north of
Nottingham Drive is City of Rochester park land known as Lincolnshire Park which will be
developed as a neighborhood park with athletic fields, ice rink, landscaping, playground
areas and trails. Development of the park has begun and will continue once Nottingham
Drive is extended. A ± 75 car parking lot will be constructed on the west side of the park
with access probably coming from the proposed public road running north of Nottingham
Drive. The proposed alignment of the public roads should more closely follow the
established property line. An excessive amount of park property appears to be used for
roads under this proposal.
The public street construction costs are a concern. The existing GDP would have the
Park Department paying for ''/: of approximately 125' of street that would run adjacent to
Park property. The 25 acre parcel was acquired with the knowledge that the park funded
street costs would be minimal. If the applicant is paying for the streets adjacent to the park
property, then this is not a concern.
The 7 acre parcel located east of the private drive running south Nottingham Drive is
City owned park land referred to as the Northern Hills Prairie. The prairie will be preserved
and maintained as a natural prairie, Drainage and surface run off from the proposed
development areas should not be directed towards the prairie.
OADSTOTM0011DEDICATIONINW 2898V+RBORTEUM REVISED GDP.DOC
l'Hy
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
August 27, 2001
Jennifer Garness
Consolidated Planning Department
Dear Jennifer:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Amendment to General Development Plan
#83, known as The Arboretum and has the following comments:
• Access permit will be required from Olmsted County Public Works
Department.
• Right and left concrete turn lanes 480 ft in length will be required as
part of access permit.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
tlengmdoMplemane.doa
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507) 285-8232
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Charles Reiter / Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: October 19, 2001
RE: Traffic Analysis for General Development Plan #83 - IBM MidAmerica Credit Union
Campus Development
The development proposes the ultimate
construction of 246,000 square feet of office
space and a 6,000 square foot banking
service center with 6 drive-thru windows. It
has been indicated that the development
will be done in phases, with Phase I
consisting of Building 1 as labeled on the
GDP (120,000 square foot office building),
Phase If likely to consist of Building 2 on the
GDP (90,000 square foot office building)
and Phase III to consist of the remaining
buildings including the service center.
Access to the site will be provided initially
through an intersection on West Circle
Drive, with connections eventually
developed to Nottingham Drive and to
Northwest Plaza Shopping Center. The
Nottingham Drive connection to Circle Drive
has been a part of the Arboretum General
Development Plan since its inception, and
previously had been planned as a direct
route out to West Circle Drive. The
proposed site plan modifies that routing so
that neighborhood travel to West Circle
Drive will be routed through a proposed
intersection as a secondary connection so
as to minimize the directness of Nottingham
Drive as a route to/from West Circle Drive.
The connection to Northwest Plaza is a new
addition to the Special District plan, which
has been added based on the
recommendation of staff resulting from a
study of future West Circle Drive traffic
conditions, which will be described in
greater detail below.
From a traffic operations standpoint, the
major issue relative to the site is its access
to West Circle Drive and how that access
will be managed over time as traffic from
the site and on West Circle Drive continue
to grow. In addition to considering how the
access intersection for the site will work,
another important consideration is to
understand how this intersection fits into the
overall traffic management strategy for
West Circle Drive now and in the future.
The Rochester — Olmsted Council of
Governments is funding a study to evaluate
and understand long-term traffic operations
on the entire Circle Drive system. A major
focus of this study is to identify what
combination of access locations, signal
spacing, and supporting local road systems
need to be put in place in order for West
Circle Drive to operate as expressway -type
facility well into the future. The operating
goals for Circle Drive that have been
identified by ROCOG include maintaining
average operating speeds of 35-45 MPH
with traffic progression (which refers to the
ability to minimize traffic stops through
successive signals) on the mainline and
acceptable levels of traffic delay at
intersections for motorists on the side
streets. The study to date has evaluated
existing operations (which are generally
pretty good except at the TH 52 and TH 14
West interchanges) and future operations
based on projected 2025 traffic levels and a
minimum level of improvements such as the
introduction of left and right turn lanes at all
access points along the corridor.
The results from the analysis of future
conditions suggests that operating
conditions along West Circle from the East
Frontage Road will deteriorate significantly
in the future between the East Frontage
Road of TH 52 and where the Douglas Trail
crosses, falling far below 40 MPH average
travel speeds with little if any traffic
progression. Attachments 1 and 2 highlight
some of the results of this initial analysis,
which suggest future average travel speeds
will be on the order of 15-19 MPH and
progression will be 50% below the target
established for the corridor. Among the
main factors contributing to the poor
operations include the number of traffic
signals that would be needed if all existing
median openings are retained, and the
volumes of traffic projected to be on this
four lane corridor. The study finds that
every median opening, if retained, will
require a traffic signal in the future, and
absent some major system improvements,
a third eastbound through lane will likely be
needed from the current 551h St intersection
eastward to the TH 52 interchange.
The introduction of a 3 d lane by itself will
not greatly improve operations due to the
number of traffic signals anticipated and the
irregular spacing of those signals. As a
result, the current phase of the Circle Drive
study is looking at alternative roadway
alignments that could help to minimize the
number of signals that would need to be
installed, as well as to increase the spacing
between signalized intersections in the
future.
Attachments 3 and 4 illustrate some of the
concepts for this section of the Circle Drive
system that are being considered in the
next phase of study. They include hiV cost
options such as reconfiguring the 55 St at
some point in the future to operate as a
single point diamond interchange (See
Attachment 5 for an illustration of the
proposed single point diamond interchange
at 19'h St NW) and lower cost options such
as combining adjacent access points to
reduce the number of median openings.
One such access combination illustrated in
Attachments 3 and 4 is the elimination of
the median opening at 551h St NW,
converting that intersection to right -in, right -
out operation on the south side, and
construction of a new connection of 55'" St
to align with the proposed access on the
IBM Credit Union property, which would
become a signalized intersection in the
future. These connections and alignments
are highlighted on Attachment 6. The
proposed street connection through the IBM
Credit Union site would maintain signalized
access for Northwest Plaza as well as serve
the Lincolnshire area. In addition to
improving signal spacing and eliminating
the need for one additional signal, it would
also provide benefits to the North Park area
by eliminating the flow of all traffic from the
55'h St area past Fairway Drive, which
should reduce the congestion and traffic
conflict occurring at that location which will
worsen in the future with additional
development west of North Park.
The transition to the future condition where
the traffic signal is moved and a new 55"' St
link to Circle Drive is constructed will not
happen immediately. With the phasing
being discussed for the IBM Credit Union
site, we expect that an unsignalized access
can operate safely for a period of 3-5 years
with the current signalized intersection at
55'h St maintained. Based on our analysis of
operations, it appears that the traffic
generated by Building 1 and 2 along with
traffic from Nottingham Drive could be
handled through an unsignalized
intersection for this period of time while
plans where developed and funding
secured to complete the connection
between the IBM site and Northwest Plaza
as well as the rerouting of 55"' St on the
north side of West Circle Drive to the new
intersection.
It does appear from our analysis that certain
combinations of site development and
Nottingham Drive traffic will result in
significant levels of delay at the new
intersection for outbound left turns and
should be accompanied at a minimum by
the construction of the link to Northwest
Table 1
Plaza so that access to the existing signal
would be available for outbound left turns if
the relocation of the signal has not been
accomplished. Table 1 summarizes our
findings in regards to the expected Level of
Service at the proposed access point to
West Circle Drive under various scenarios.
The table highlights that the outbound left
turn from the site will experience increasing
delay as additional traffic is added to the
intersection, with significant queues and
high levels of delay beginning to surface
under various combinations of multiple
buildings and connection of Nottingham
Drive,
PM Peak Hour Operational Analysis — Proposed IBM Access Intersection
Development
Year
Inbound Left
Outbound
Outbound
Scenarios
(West to
Right Tum
Left Turn
South
Building 1
2002
A
B
B
2006
A/B
B
C
Building 1& 2
2006
B
B
C
(without Nottingham
connection
Building 1& 2
2006
B
C
D
(with Nottingham
Estimated longest
connection)
Peak Hr Queue
3-4 vehicles
Building 1 and
2006
B
C
D
Service Center
Estimated longest
(without Nottingham
Peak Hr Queue
connection)
1
-3 vehicles
Building 1 and
2006
B
C
F
Service Center
Estimated longest
(with Nottingham
Peak Hr Queue
connection
8 vehicles
Staff is proposing that within the Development Agreement to spell out phasing options and the
associated improvements that will be required under various combinations of development in
order to insure that adequate road infrastructure is in place to handle expected access traffic.
This will include timing for the connection to Northwest Plaza as well as the connection of
Nottingham Drive to the street system in the proposed GDP.
• •• • M V\ \ I I I V\ 1 1 i
h
N
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MI■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
ssa�ays.:;eu;:fo s�2e;urr,;�,
-.4z
LZ/LZ16E
Mhi a.M11JPJEL
MN Oily W196
9£19Z/6E
MN atVW19Z
F8 a6ez l:j3 ZJ L/91ZS HI
L,G!L
8N i5
ziQE/S£
��6!i4)6°%
k;
8SZSH1
L ells/S£
1LL/6Wfi 1sy
w P�aSeNmjM
V
E£11-£/6* byZ4/SE
® tu3 Fein-leM
yeob nealeWj
bZ/ZZ/5£
•
■
w,
w
N
O ?
•
W
e
■
^
�
E
N
[7
•
■
'c
■
� G
■ V
■
O
Attachment 1 illustrates the change in average operating speeds
expected to occur along each section of Circle Drive in the vicinity of
the site as traffic grows and development occurs. The first number in
each group of three values is today's estimated operating speed; the 2nd
number is expected operating speed with only minimal improvements at
h median opening (single left and right turn lanes) while the third
number is the operating speed with improvements such as dual left turn
lanes or the addition of a third through lane.
r\ 1 1 U%.l 111 IG.11 1 6-
V
1
I
�
�
W
N
K*
ti
O
�
W
�VCIN
yam(^~
cd
tko
j�
O
O
r�
•}o1
1�
O
V1
V1
W
�I
J
o " �
Q^-m
IN
®f�i"I4
Yi
A'
f Sllf
m } G 6 F ;5
0 Attachment 3
c
0
E
0
0
.a
i,W :
w
N
Ln
C
0
Q
W
u
L
Q)
V
c
'Q
0
JZ-
Ln
0
0
U
C
i
C
LL!
0
z
(3)
N
fa
C
0)
m
® 1 HTTncnmenT*
C
Attachment 6 l .
��19 �"""•MHlneter.i�
551h St would
be rerouted
along this
alignment to
new signalized
intersection
This intersection 4
would be signalized
in the future
0r
IBM Mid America
Employees federal Credit Union
}
r /
Median would do
closed at th
intersection with
right -in, right -
out on south side
New connection between
Northwest Plaza and
IBM Campus would
provide access to signal
for outbound left t s
R
---
....r a �,
/5
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507) 285-8232
Fax: (507) 287-2275
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: October 12, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC: Lyle Felsch
RE: THE ARBORETUM AMENDED GDP # 83
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 GIS/E911 Addressing Staff.
2. Supplementary Address Signage and the incurred costs maybe 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.
4e IVr ," IPPJP RARY Ik'1'IRM-I 111 FS 01,K HH' 21'11F A RD0107'7 IN Ap ff,N tlr rll"=x3.I:Xx
LOCATION MAP
Legend
IBM Mid America Credit Union Property
n
IBM Kid America
Employees Federal Credit Union ... . ....... .
OCT 2 2001
Wig Gr& Dw Mai& pin
41LM r%F-V. PLA41
I �.,,m. . . .
�! �." tea_ _� +....x• ti"ii''. �'.'�: .•i.�'-• •�", ' � ,�_
ems" :� j: '�•S ^__-;' _ _ - _'' ; ; .
PLAIN100 YEAR
i
f' y NEB' R-060PLAIN
Al
,
—
v 2.a��,.:.
• • ,v .
m
1
l
N6,000 sf of
building
area/24.5 aaes
= FM of .23
ne
�O
R
MA
A r c h it e c l u re I En 9 in ee r In, I Planning
��7
TO:
M e m o r a n d u m
Brent Svenby, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Vicki Hooper
DATE: September 25, 2001 (revised 9/28/01)
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 758-4346
SUBJECT: IBM Credit Union
West Circle Drive Development, Rochester, Minnesota
Project Development Plan Submittal — Master Plan
HGA Commission Number: 1692-015-00
Following is a verbal summary of the requirements for the Project Development Plan submittal
for the above mentioned project (per the Rochester Zoning Ordinance, # 2247, 64B.500.) Plans
are also attached.
(a) Location, size and legal description
• Total site area is 24.5 acres
• Property is located adjacent to CSAH #22 and just north of Douglas Trail overpass in
Sections 16 and 17 of Cascade Township. See attached for legal description.
(b) Names and addresses of the property owner and designers
• IBMCU
4001 West River Parkway NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Paul Horgen, Steve Spohn
• United Properties
3500 West 80`s Street
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Mark Nelson, Brian Carey
• HGA
202 First Avenue SW 701 Washington Avenue North
Rochester, MN 55902 Minneapolis, MN 55401
Hal Henderson Bill Blanski, Vicki Hooper
(c) Transportation plan
• The attached site plans indicate all new roadway locations.
• Traffic volumes on West Circle Drive are indicated in the traffic study prepared for the
City of Rochester by Parsons Transportation Group.
• The proposed city street that connects West Circle Drive into the THE property will be
owned and maintained by the city. The extension of Nottingham Drive to the new city
street will be owned and maintained by the city. All other streets and parking lots will be
private.
Ham me 1, reen and Abrahamson, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North - Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 55401-1180
Telephone 612.758.4000 Facsimile 612.758.4199
Visit our Web3ile: www.hga.com
Page 2
(d) Utility plan (from McGhie and Betts Report)
• Sanitary sewer - in place along Nottingham Drive and will be extended to serve the site.
• Water — 12" watermain along West Circle Drive — will be connected into to feed the site.
• Gas — is being installed along Nottingham Drive and will be extended to serve the site.
• Electrical — an overhead electrical line is located along West Circle Drive, which will be
tied into underground lines installed to serve the site.
(e) Residential density plans
NA
(f) Commercial intensity plan
• Floor areas indicated represent a maximum area.
The master plan consists of 4 buildings as shown on the site plan.
Bldg 1 120,000 sf 3-5 levels
Bldg 2 90,000 sf 3 levels
Bldg 3 30,000 sf 1 level
Bldg 4 6,000 sf 1 level
• Parking for buildings 1 and 2 accommodates 840 cars, based on 4 cars per 1000 sf of '
building area. Proof of parking for an additional 105 cars, based on 4.5 cars per 1000 sf of
building area, is dashed. A three level parking structure is indicated by a heavy dashed line.
• Parking for Buildings 3 and 4 accommodates 144 cars, based on 4 cars per 1000 sf of
building area. Proof of parking for an additional 18 cars, based on 4.5 cars per 1000 sf of
building area, is dashed.
(g) Open space and park plan
• Open space is shown on the plan and consists of all land not used for buildings, roadway:
or parking. Existing trees and mature vegetation will be retained to the extent possible.
This area consists of approximately 15.2 acres.
• The total project development is indicated on the master plan. IBMCU will maintain and
own all portions of the property with the exception of the loop road and the extension of
Nottingham Drive (see (c) above). The project will be completed in several phases of
building construction, with the open space surrounding and adjacent to the individual
buildings completed at the time the individual buildings are completed.
(h) Homeowners association bylaws
NA
(i) Storm water management plan (from McGhie and Betts report)
• Storm water will be directed toward Kings Run or Nottingham Drive and tie into the city
system.
rage
(j) Development phasing plan
• The master plan shows the total project development and the Phase I plan shows the
Phase I development. Two phases of site development are planned. Multiple phases of
building construction are planned anticipating beginning with the building at the south end
of the site and continuing north.
• Development of Phase 1 will begin in the spring of 2002. The complete development of
the roadway system is to be completed in 5 years.
Enclosure
cc: Paul Horgen, Steve Spohn, IBMCU
Brian Carey, Mark Nelson, United Properties
Bill Blanski, Hal Henderson, HGA
s:\project\1600\1692\015-00\cot -des\cones\master plw submittaLdoc
Page 10 '
City Planning and Zoning Con,.,,..sion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch presented the staff report, dated October 18, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Rivas asked if the amendment to the general development plan was to lock in the location
of the roadways.
Mr. Ellerbusch responded yes.
Discussion ensued regarding reasons for positions of roadways
The applicant's representative, Mr. Hal Henderson of Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
located at 202 1s` Avenue 5W, addressed the Commission. He stated that Mark Nelson was
present from United Properties (Development Consultant) to answer any questions the
Commission may have. He stated that they agree with the staff recommendation.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
10
Page 11
City Planning and Zoning Corn.. --ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch pre el d the staff report, dated O ober 18, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the hester-Olmsted Pla ng Department.
Mr. Ellerbusch explained the proc s the/ation would go through.
Discussed getting emergency vehiclesated access.
Mr. Quinn asked what the timing
public road.
Mr. Ellerbusch responded that it w Id be workedNjt in the development agreement. He stated
that he would approximate it/Iob3 to 5years.
Mr. Hodgson expressed conith stormwater run\offeasked if the final plan would have
more details.
Mr. Ellerbusch respondey/yes. He explained that they would ne@kto submit a grading plan.
Discussion ensued regarding how to get around the gated access anNprivate road.
E
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING )61
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
--M DESCRIPTION: Project Development Plan #01-04 for the IBM Mid America Employees
PREPARED BY:
dit Union Office Building in Special District 1 (SD-1), The Arboretum. The property is
Jeff Ellerbusch,
located along the east side of West Circle Drive immediately north of the Douglas Trail
Senior Planner
Bicycle Bridge
November 14, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On October 24, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this "Project Development Plan" to build a
120,000 square foot office building in the Arboretum Special Zoning District (SD-1). At the same meeting, the
Commission considered a revision to the General Development Plan (#83) for "The Arboretum" to reflect the complete
development plans for the phase subject to this application and the remaining IBM Credit Union to the north.
The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Sections 61.146 and 62.708 of the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve the project development plan with the staff -recommended findings and
conditions in the staff report dated October 18, 2001. The motion carried 8-0.
Conditions:
1. Results of a wetland investigation of the entire site should be submitted for consideration as soon as
possible. Special District final development plans should not be submitted for approval until all wetland
issues are completed.
?. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the final development plan that is designed
to restrict any runoff from the development from entering the adjacent Northern Hills Prairie Park. Storm
Water Management shall be part of the plan. Separate grading approval and permits are required prior to
any construction.
3. The utility plans submitted with the final plan shall include the interconnection of water mains as referenced
in the October 10, 2001 memo from Donn Richardson of RPU Water.
4. The property shall be platted before permits are issued for construction. The plat shall dedicate the required
utility easements requested by Qwest from Nottingham Drive NW along the private road to Building #1. The
plat shall reference "access control authority" along the West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) frontage.
5. Details of the gated entrance shall be provided with the final plan. The gate shall be located outside of the
public right-of-way for Nottingham Drive NW and it shall be designed to permit passing of emergency
vehicles.
6. Prior to final plat submittal for any portion of this property, the applicant(s) shall enter into a development
agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant(s) relating to, but not limited to, right-
of-way dedication and required platting, the extension of public utilities, Transportation Improvement
District (TID) charges, storm water management, park land transfers and maximum park shares in the cost of
utility and road improvements, the timing of traffic improvements and the limitations on development until
certain improvements are made, applicable charges or contributions for public infrastructure on and off site,
and pedestrian amenity improvements. This development agreement in draft form shall be provided at the
time of final plan submittal.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Page 2
RCA ((j
November 14, 2001
7. The Final Site Plan application shall include in addition to the required submittals of Special District 1 #
2247):
• A completely scaled and dimensioned site plan;
• Site capacity calculations and zoning conformance evaluations as if this property were zoned B-4,
General Commercial;
• A landscape plan that includes screening of the surface parking lot and incorporates landscaping with
trees within the parking lot to meet the screening and buffering findings required by section 62.708(1)(j);
• Explanation of the exact use of the building;
• Color scheme for the exterior of the building and an explanation of the plan for creating a harmonious
appearance with other future buildings in the development.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 18, 2001.
Gouncl Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with approval of the project development plan as proposed, it should instruct
the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution for Council approval.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated October 18, 2001
2. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicants: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 19, 2001 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
5.HGA-Rochester (Hal Henderson); HGA-Minneapolis (Bill Blanski & Vicki Hooper)
bd7P IRrr P ncirr /f7 wP. i!t t M� p q
ROCIIP,STER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPi... MENT
44
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jeff Ellerbusch, Senior Planner
DATE: October 18, 2001
01 M
�6►�_l�aaca
�!{\�f�71 �{.\I is,
w �tlllo,��I�t{{IV��i
RE: Type 111, Phase 11 Process — Arboretum Special District (SD-1)
Project Development Plan to allow the construction of a 120,000
square foot office building. The property is located along the east
side of the West Circle Drive, immediately north of the Douglas
Trail Bridge.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicants: IBM Mid America Employees Credit Union
Paul Horgan; Steve Spohn
4001 West River Parkway NW
Rochester. MN 55901
Owner:
Project Designers:
Referral Agency Comments:
United Properties
Mark Nelson ; Brian Carey
3500 West 80th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55431
IBM Mid America Employees Credit Union
HGA
Hal Henderson
202 First Avenue SW
Rochester, MN 55902
HGA
Bill Blanski; Vicki Hooper
701 Washington Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Senior Transportation Planner; Rochester Public
Works, Rochester Park & Rec; RPU Water
Division; Qwest; Fire Dept.; Planning Dept.
Addressing Staff
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 50V285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2 of 10
Report Attachments:
1. Referral Comments (7 letters — 16 pages)
2. Location Map Aerial Photo
3. Approved GDP Map
4. Project Development Plan Site Plan
5. Project Dev. Plan Large Scale Version
6. Proposed GDP Amended Map
7. Applicants' Narrative (2 pages)
Development Review:
Location of Property:
The property is located along the east side of West
Circle Drive immediately north of the Douglas Trail
Bridge. Access to the property is also available
from the present end of Nottingham Drive NW.
Zoning:
SD-1 (Arboretum Special District)
Adjacent Land Uses &
North: Vacant property included the later phases of
Zoning
this commercial development zoned SD-1.
South: Douglas Trail zoned R-1 and the Northern
Hills Prairie Park zoned SD-1.
East: Northern Hills Prairie Park, future Lincolnshire
Park, single-family homes and vacant lots on
Nottingham Drive NW all zoned SD -I.
West: Across West Circle Drive is publicly owned
open space and the Northern Hills Golf Course
zoned R-1.
General Development Plan: The approved Arboretum General Development
Plan designates this property appropriate for
"commercial" development. An amendment to the
GDP to revise the street alignments through this
property is also under consideration at this time.
Access: The main access into the site would be from a new
driveway opening onto Circle Drive. The project
development plan identifies this as a private road
initially that will be changed to a public street in later
phases of this development. Transportation plans
now call for the location of the proposed driveway
opening onto Circle Drive to become a signalized
intersection in the future, replacing the present 55"
Street NW intersection by moving it southerly to this
location.
A temporary secondary access into the private
streets within this proposed development is taken
off the present end of Nottingham Drive NW. This
access point is to be controlled during this first
phase with a gated entrance. This gate will be
removed in the future when the public streets are
Page 3 of 10 ^
l l J
constructed in the development.
Also, the revised GDP for this property shows a
new access to the north into the Northwest Plaza
property planned to be built when the 551" Street
NW / Circle Drive intersection is moved as
previously described.
Drainage: The property generally drains northeasterly across
the park property to King's Run. Runoff from the
site when developed will be directed toward King's
Run and also in part toward Nottingham Drive.
Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator
maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands.
Soils maps indicate a hydric soil type (176-Garwin
Silty Clay Loam) on a portion of the site extending
northeasterly from Circle Drive / Douglas Trail
intersection. This soil type is in the area where the
proposed building is located. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property
and submitting the information as part of this
application.
Special District Summary:
In 1982, the City adopted a Special Zoning District
for The Arboretum (# 2247). The Special District
allows for a mixture of land uses guided by a
general development plan for the area. Land uses
conforming to the underlying R-1 district (at the time
of Special District adoption) only need be approved
through conventional zoning and subdivision
approval processes (such as Lincolnshire
Subdivisions). Other development projects in
accordance with the general development plan for
the property, but not conforming to the underlying
R-1 zoning must be considered for approval
through a two-step site plan review process set
forth in Ordinance # 2247.
This two-step process includes the Project
Development Plan and a Final Site Plan. Each
process is reviewed at public hearings before the
CPUC and the City Council.
Recently the City amended the Zoning Ordinance
and Land Development Manual to require that
special district project evaluations must be
according to the findings for conditional uses and
restricted developments (See Paragraph 60.327 of
the LDM).
Page 4 of 10 7y
Summary of Proposal:
The proposed development is subject to the provisions of Ordinance #2247, which establishes the
Arboretum Special District and provides for procedures for approval of projects within the Special
District. In this instance, A Type III, Phase II review procedure is necessary for both the project
development plan phase and the final development plan phase of the review. This requires public
hearings at both the Planning Commission and the City Council. According to the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM Sec. 60.327), this application will need to
be measured against the criteria applicable for conditional use permits (Sec. 61.146) and also for
a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan (62.708).
Staff has reviewed the proposed use based on the most closely related underlying zoning district
standards, which in this case, would be the general zoning district standards for the B-4 (General
Commercial) zoning district. The B-4 zone is most often associated with this type of location
locations. Technically, any type of commercial use at any development intensity can be proposed
for consideration under the special district regulations.
The applicant is proposing to construct, as a first phase, a single "office" type building of at most
120,000 square feet in area. The site plan shows an "L" shaped building footprint with
approximately 30,000 square feet of floor area in the main portion of the "L". The narrative
suggests that the building would be from three up to five floors in height. This amount of building
converts to a floor area ratio of approximately 0.20 (0.50 is permitted in the B-4 zone). The
potential maximum height of 5 stories could exceed the conventional height limit in the B-4 zone
of 40 feet above grade, however the site of the building makes minor height increases appear
acceptable. Off-street parking for at least 480, and with expansions, up to 540 cars is provided.
This amount of parking is in excess of what would be required for an office (2.5 spaces per 1000
sq. ft.) and at the rate (4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.) required for a business center (sic shopping
center).
The proposed building and parking area is shown setback 100 feet from the Circle Drive right-of-
way. These large setbacks give the project a very park -like atmosphere. Open space on the
developed portion of this site is approximately 8 acres of a total of 13.5.
For this first phase, all access to the buildings and parking areas from the adjacent public street
system will be via 24-foot wide private roads. The private road connection to Nottingham Drive
NW is proposed to be controlled by some type of gate with an electronic card reader to restrict
access from this direction to employees of the facility. Detail of this system will have to be
provided in the final plan phase. Emergency vehicle access from Nottingham Drive NW will be
necessary.
At this time, a complete site capacity calculation has not been submitted for this project. These
calculations will need to be included with the final development plan application. All other specific
zoning requirements will be evaluated with the final plan. Final plan submittals must include all
the detail such as floor plans and building elevations that need to be submitted for a zoning
certificate as part of a building permit.
All the proposed development is outside any floodplain or shoreland areas. Wetlands could exist
on the site based on the soil types mapped for the property. The finalizing of wetland investigation
is the most important task that needs to be accomplished at this time.
Page 5 of 10 MW
/?5
Criteria & Findings:
Sections 61.146 and 62.708 are attached for your review. These sections of the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) include the criteria that must be
considered when reviewing this application. Staff suggests the following findings.
In regard to Section 61.146, if this application were approved subject to conditions or
modifications, the staff suggests that findings within this Section could not be made to
support denial of this request.
In regard to Section 62.708 (1) of the LDM, staff suggests the following findings:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area appear
adequate to serve the proposed development. Sewer, water and electricity are directly
available to this site. Water reliability can be assured by the connection of the two water
main stub -outs to the site being interconnected in this first phase.
b) Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards associated with the
development of this site.
c) Natural Features: The proposed use makes no unexpected demands on the natural
features of the area. The land has in most cases been cropped in the past. Drainage
design that insures the adjacent Northern Hills Prairie Park is unaffected by runoff will
protect natural features in the area. Wetland investigation will establish if the presence of
wetland exists.
Residential Traffic Impact: This development is not expected to generate any
appreciable amount of traffic within residential areas. This first phase has only gated
access to Nottingham Drive NW leading into the residential area. Nottingham Drive NW
is a major local street that was designed and is planned to carry neighborhood trips from
the Lincolnshire area to the Circle Drive corridor in the future.
d) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the proposal is not expected
to exceed the capacity of adjacent streets. The amount of traffic generated by this first
phase of development at a single, temporarily uncontrolled intersection with Circle Drive,
as improved with turning lanes as required by Olmsted County, was found by the
transportation staff be in the acceptable range at this time with this amount of
development.
e) Height Impacts: The proposed height of this structure is 3 to 5 floors. At 5 floors this
building would most likely exceed the typical maximum height for commercial structures
outside of the downtown. However, this maximum potential height is not expected to
result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties through shadowing or interference with
air movement. The large setbacks of 100 feet to any property line and adjacent open
space to the east and south will mitigate the effect of the height.
f) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related
to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for a B-4 (General
Commercial) zoning district. The setbacks are in fact over six times greater than the
minimum standards of the B-4 zone.
g) 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.
Page 6 of 10
h) Screening and Buffering: The large setbacks proposed create the best form of
buffering. Specific landscape screening of the east and west sides of the parking area
would be expected to be provided in the final plan. Internal parking lot landscaping should
be considered at a site like this to soften the appearance of the parking near a natural
area.
i) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of
off-street parking and loading areas. The applicant will need to provide a complete site
capacity evaluation with the final plan application.
j) General Compatibility: The building orientation, height and size appear compatible with
the surrounding uses.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning staff would recommend approval of the proposed Special District Project
Development Plan subject to the following conditions/modifications:
1. Results of a wetland investigation of the entire site should be submitted for
consideration as soon as possible. Special District final development plans should
not be submitted for approval until all wetland issues are completed.
2. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the final
development plan that is designed to restrict any runoff from the development from
entering the adjacent Northern Hills Prairie Park. Storm Water Management shall
be part of the plan. Separate grading approval and permits are required prior to
any construction.
3. The utility plans submitted with the final plan shall include the interconnection of
water mains as referenced in the October 10, 2001 memo from Donn Richardson of
RPU Water.
A. The property shall be platted before permits are issued for construction. The plat
shall dedicate the required utility easements requested by Qwest from Nottingham
Drive NW along the private road to Building #1. The plat shall reference "access
control authority" along the West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) frontage.
5. Details of the gated entrance shall be provided with the final plan. The gate shall
be located outside of the public right-of-way for Nottingham Drive NW and it shall
be designed to permit passing of emergency vehicles.
6. Prior to final plat submittal for any portion of this property, the applicant(s) shall
enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of
the applicant(s) relating to, but not limited to, right-of-way dedication and required
platting, the extension of public utilities, Transportation Improvement District (TID)
charges, storm water management, park land transfers and maximum park shares
in the cost of utility and road improvements, the timing of traffic improvements and
the limitations on development until certain improvements are made, applicable
charges or contributions for public infrastructure on and off site, and pedestrian
amenity improvements. This development agreement in draft form shall be
provided at the time of final plan submittal.
Page 7 of 10
7. The Final Site Plan application shall include in addition to the required submittals
of Special District 1 (Ord. # 2247):
• A completely scaled and dimensioned site plan;
• Site capacity calculations and zoning conformance evaluations as if this
property were zoned B-4, General Commercial;
• A landscape plan that includes screening of the surface parking lot and
incorporates landscaping with trees within the parking lot to meet the
screening and buffering findings required by section 62.708(1)Q);
• Explanation of the exact use of the building;
• Color scheme for the exterior of the building and an explanation of the plan for
creating a harmonious appearance with other future buildings in the
development.
Page 8 of 10
EXCERPTS FROM THE LDM
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or
Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use
unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed
development is made:
1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways
will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public
facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and
structures will be detrimental to other private development in the
neighborhood or will impose 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.
Page 9 of 10
M
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:
2) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area
are adequate to serve the proposed development.
b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such
as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the
development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in
the Phase II plans.
c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the
arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent
practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the
site.
d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed
development:
1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local
residential streets;
2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets;
3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local
residential streets;
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development
will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual
improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of
adjacent streets have been identified where needed.
f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and
placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development. Factors to consider include:
1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a
majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year;
2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary
exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in
elevation.
Page 10 of 10
/�O'
g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks
are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required
for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district.
h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the
preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable
orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
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.
IBM Mid America I U
Employees federal fredit Union oCT 2 7m
wmraome�s `::,' rug-io�°�;i"�r .
D
33✓ G 4}
•
edxc-
�.ry
x °
.
I
I
I I
Il
/
!j !
r
IBM Mid America r' f
Em to ees Federal {relit Union
P Y i! ocr 2 2ooi "` ' " '
6&ft,lfnxe.n..w_.�.....�.............. i.�� l GOTEV PLrST—
nocas,._r�:_
i Fi auenur. nrc. .,.:.:. eereer era e� r trio
r_pv_
we pledge, we deliver
October 10, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II Special District Amendment Project Development Plan #01-04
to allow the construction of a Commercial building consisting of approximately 120,000 SF and
up to 5 floors in the Special District-1 (Arboretum) zoning district located on the east side of
West Circle Dr. NW north of the Douglas Trail.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced site plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. The working static pressure at elevation 1035 is approximately 57 PSI.
2. The two existing water main stub -outs to this site should be interconnected with this first
phase of development to provide adequate reliability, water quality and flows for fire
protection.
We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
� %�06-AA 1 `rs�*��""'�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
HGA
Mark Nelson, United Properties for IBM Mid America Credit Union
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
i
ROCHESTER•OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
PHONE (507) 285.8232
FAX (507)287.2275
Date: October 2, 2001
To: Agencies Indicated Below
From: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department
Subject: Type III, Phase it Special District Amendment Project, Development Plan #01-04
to allow the construction of a Commercial building consisting of approximately
120,000 square feet and up to five floors in the Special District-1 (Arboretum)
zoning district. The property Is located along the east side of West Circle
Drive, west of the Lincolnshire Subdivisions and north of the Douglas Trail.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on October 24, 2001, in
the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 40 Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to
prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by October
12, 2001. You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance Is greatly
appreciated. If you have comments, In addition to forwarding them to the Planning Departmen4 please send a
copy to:
_.. IBM MI.dAmerica Credit Union HGA
C/O Mark Nelson, United Properties 701 Washington Avenue North
3500 West SOW Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis MN 55401.1180
Bloomington MN 55431 (612) 758.4000
(952) 820-8727
City Agencies County Agencies Other Agencies
1. Public Works 15. Health Department 19. School Board
Richard Freese Rich Peter Jeff Koppers
2, Fire Department
Lyle Felsch
3. Crime Prevention
Darrel Hildebranl, Gov.
Center
4. Crime Prevention
Steve Woslager
5.
6.
7.
8.
16. Public Works
17. GIS Division
Randy Growden
18. Environmental Resource
Services
RPU Operations Division L
Mike Engle
RP Divisidsonon
oterRichardson
n
Donn Richardson
Park 8 Recreaticn
(� _
Denny Stolz
Building Safety
Y —
Ron gooseose
9. City Attorney
Dave Goslee
10. Downtown Dev. Dist.
Doug Knott
11. City Administration
Terry Spaeth
12. Susan Waughtal
Neighborhood Organizer
13. Transportation Planner
Charlie Reiter
In
20. Peoples Natural Gas
Neat Clausen
27� Ow"t.' :.
- Don Kendall
22. Charter
Communications
23. MN DOT
Dale Maul
24. Post Office
Supervisor
k 25. MN DNR
1� Jim Cooper
26. SWCD
1>/,27. Peoples Coop
Rick W ellik
5a7�S s• 3G�.9
Page I I
City Planning and Zoning Con _ _ >ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Type III Phase II Special District Amendment Project Development Plan #01-04 to allow
the construction of a Commercial building consisting of approximately 120,000 square
/ feet and up to five floors in the Special District-1 (Arboretum) zoning district. The
1'l[� property is located along the east side of West Circle Drive, west of the Lincolnshire
Subdivisions and north of the Douglas Trail.
Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch presented the staff report, dated October 18, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Ellerbusch explained the process the application would go through.
Discussed getting emergency vehicles around the gated access.
Mr. Quinn asked what the timing would be of the public road.
Mr. Ellerbusch responded that it would be worked out in the development agreement. He stated
that he would approximate it to be 3 to 5 years.
Mr. Hodgson expressed concern with stormwater run off. He asked if the final plan would have
more details.
Mr. Ellerbusch responded yes. He explained that they would need to submit a grading plan.
Discussion ensued regarding how to get around the gated access and private road.
�qzCo
City Planning and Zoning Corr......,,, ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001 /
i-
The applicant's representative, Mr. Hal Henderson of Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
located at 202 151 Avenue SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that Mark Nelson was
present from United Properties (Development Consultant) to answer any questions the
Commission may have. He stated that they agree with the staff -recommended conditions.
Mr. Henderson explained that the private road came from discussions with the Public Works
Department. It is to provide a back access for the employees. He explained that the gate is to
control most people going through private property to get to Circle Drive. He further explained
that, once the roadways are put in, there is a chance that the gated access could be taken out.
Ms. Rivas asked if he would be opposed to increasing internal parking lot landscaping to break
up the amount of asphalt and putting in some islands.
Mr. Henderson responded that it was a staff recommendation. He stated that they agreed to the
recommendation itself so they will be looking into it. He stated that they would maintain the
same quality and character as their other buildings.
Mr. Brede asked if the private road would become a public road, would it have to be
reconstructed.
Mr. Henderson responded that the master plan shows the public roads they intend on having.
He stated that the private road would remain private.
Mr. Henderson explained that the project would occur in three (3) phases.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Page 13
City Planning and Zoning Con ;ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
A five-minute break occurred.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /G
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan # 92, known as Manor
PREPARED BY:
ods West, by Forbrook-Bigelow Development. The applicant proposes to amend the
Theresa Fogarty,
)roved Plan to identify a continuation of 6m Street NW intersecting into 7th Street NW to
Planner
accommodate single family residential development. The property is located east of
I
Manor Park Drive, north of 51h Street NW, west of 6th Street NW and south of 7th Street NW
in an area previously proposed for a church development. A preliminary plat is being
I
considered concurrent with this application.
November 14, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On October 24, 2001, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Amendment to General Development Plan
#92.
The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Amendment to General Development Plan #92, known as Manor
Woods West, by Forbrook-Bigelow Development with staff findings and conditions. Mr. Slaver seconded
the motion. The motion carried 6-0, with Mr. Ohly and Ms. Rivas abstaining.
Conditions:
1. 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 approved private detention facility.
2. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant, relating to, but not limited to, stormwater managaement, pedestrian facilities, right-of-
way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure needed to serve this property.
3. Lots with direct access to 7fb Street NW shall have shared driveways, meeting the access spacing standards of the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
4. The Final Plat for this portion of the GDP shall include:
a. Controlled access along the entire 71h Street NW frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 8, Block 1 and within 35 feet of
the ROW intersection of 61h Street NW and 7fh Street NW.
b. A revised roadway name for 5'h Street NW, to be approved by the Planning Department Addressing staff.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 18, 2001.jIeA
Council Action Needed: N �.Q " /
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.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
[�'N3O 1S3M SOOOMMONVVI
N`dli N3Nd0l3h30 1t2f3N3°J
�E d- iJz ��]flJfie �h I
REVISED
ROCHESTER-OLAISTED PLANNING DEPA.,NIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: October 18, 2001
RpCNES TI;R•AE .
DF .... • l,t f
kq TED:A UCC,54'S•P
RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #92, known as Manor
Woods West, by Forbrook-Bigelow Development. The applicant
proposes to amend the approved Plan to identify a continuation of
6th Street NW intersecting into 7th Street NW to accommodate
single family residential development. The property is located
east of Manor Park Drive, north of 5th Street NW, west of 6th Street
NW and south of 7th Street NW in an area previously proposed for
a church development. A preliminary plat is being considered
concurrent with this application.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Forbrook-Bigelow Development
706 County Rd. 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
Consultants: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: The property is located south of 7th St. NW, between
Manor Park Drive NW and 43 ° Ave. NW and includes
approximately 7.51 acres of land.
Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped.
Proposed Use: The Plan proposes to develop 29 single family
residential units and the continuation of one roadway
(6`T Street NW).
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
designates this property as suitable for "low density
residential" types of development.
Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family Residential) district.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
. ww.
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
�..
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
Roadways: The applicant is proposing a new public roadway
continuing from 6'h St. NW that would intersect into
7'h Street NW. The roadway configuration does not fit
the roadway type for a street. The naming of the
roadway will need to be coordinated with Planning
Department addressing staff.
Since 7'h Street NW is a "collector" roadway,
accessing spacing standards will require shared
driveways for the lots with direct access to 7'h Street
NW. In addition, the final plat will need to include
dedication of controlled access along entire 7'h Street
NW frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 8, Block 1 and
within 35 feet of the ROW intersection of 6th Street
NW and 7'h Street NW.
Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along both sides of all roadways within a Plat
and along the entire frontage of 7'h Street NW,
concurrent with the development of the property.
Drainage: The approved General Development Plan identifies
existing topography. The property generally drains to
the east.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted.
Wetlands: A Wetland delineation and replacement plan for
wetlands along 7'h St. NW, adjacent to this property,
was approved in 1998.
Public Utilities: Services are, or will be, available to serve this
property.
Parkland Dedication: The City Park Department has no concerns or issues
relating to parkland with the GDP revision.
The Rochester Park and Recreation Department
recommends that Parkland Dedication requirements
for the Preliminary Plat needs to be satisfied via cash
dedication in lieu of land.
Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department — GIS staff
2. Rochester Public Works Department
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (2)
Page 3
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
Summary:
A preliminary plat (#01-28, Manor Woods West Central Subdivision) is being considered
concurrent with this GDP amendment.
The aFplicant is proposing to amend the GDP for the continuation of 6th Street NW intersecting
into 7` Street NW to accommodate single family residential development, where a church was
previously proposed. The church chose to locate at another site, and will not be pursuing
constructing a facility at this location.
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan (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 amended GDP 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.
The tot sizes proposed are consistent with the R-1 zoning district.
Since 74" St. is a "collector" road, access spacing standards will require
shared driveways for the lots with direct access to 7rh Street NW. In
addition, the final plat will need to include dedication of controlled access
along the 7�4 Street NW along the entire frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 8,
Block 1 and within 35 feet of the ROW of 6�h Street NW and 7`h Street NW
intersection.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
Single family housing is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan and is
also consistent with the Housing Plan standards for the physical and
social environments of residential neighborhoods.
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.
Page 4
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
Access to this portion of the GDP will be from 7th Street NW and the
continuation of 6'h Street NW.
Since 7+h Street NWW, is a "collector" road, access spacing standards will
require shared driveways for the lots with direct access to 7 h Street NW. In
addition, the final plat will need to include dedication of controlled access
along the 74h Street NW along the entire frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 8,
Block 1 and within 35 feet of the ROW of 6'h Street NW and 74h Street NW
intersection.
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.
Since 7=h Street NW. is a "collector" road, access spacing standards
will require shared driveways for the lots with direct access to 7 h
Street NW. In addition, the final plat will need to include dedication
of controlled access along the 7h Street NW along the entire
frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 8, Block 1 and within 35 feet of the
ROW of 6'h Street NW and 70' Street NW intersection.
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. Services are
proposed to be extended from a Street NW and also from Manor
Woods Ninth Subdivision.
Page 5
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
3. The adequacy of
service standards
development.
other public facilities shall be based on the level of
in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways
and along the entire frontage of 7"' Street NW.
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 approved
private detention facility.
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.
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 approved private
detention facility.
Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
The amended GDP is consistent with the subdivision design standards for
single family housing.
Since 7 h Street NWW, is a "collector" road, access spacing standards will
require shared driveways for the lots with direct access to a Street NW. In
addition, the final plat will need to include dedication of controlled access
along the 7' Street NW along the entire frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot B,
Block 1 and within 35 feet of the ROW of 6`h Street NW and 7 h Street NW
intersection.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria:
f. 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
approved private detention facility.
2. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the
City that outlines the obligations of the applicant, relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public
infrastructure needed to serve this property.
Page 6
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
3. Lots with direct access to 7 h St. NW shall have shared driveways, meeting the access spacing
standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
4. The Final Plat for this portion of the GDPshall include:
• controlled access along the entire 7� Street NW frontage of Lot 1, Block T, Lot 8,
Block 1 and within 35 feet of the ROW intersection of 6' Street NW and 7`h Street NW.
A revised roadway name for 6 h Street NW, to be approved by the Planning Department
Addressing staff.
92.
Page 7
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan
In approving a General Development Plan, the Council shall make each of the following
findings:
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.
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.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
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.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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.
Page 8
General Development Plan
October 18, 2001
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.
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.
�pD
00CHESTO,
M
Minnesota
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
TO: Consolidated Planning Department N WORKS
2014Street SE Room 108
2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-3740
Rochester, MN 55904 507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/11/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for the REVISED Preliminary Plat #01-
28 on the Manor Woods West Central Subdivision property. The following are Public Works comments on
the original request from 7/27/0. Previous continents that are no longer applicable, or have been addressed
are indicated with STPaY�ETHROIJGH, while new comments are indicated in BOLD:
1. Approval of Grading and Drainage Plans is required for this development, prior to Final Plat
submittal.
2. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the
City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public
infrastructure needed to serve this property.
3. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. A Voluntary Stormwater
Management Fee will apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to
an approved private detention facility.
St ?,� frontage is i%eloded in the adopted
4. ^sue o _ _ . :ae... ci .n.._. the 7�
'763. The Developer is required to construct concrete sidewalk along the
entire frontage of both sides of West Gentfal LH and the fientage on 6" St AAF ebatt}ng
Lets 1'�t- °• 18,
r �, Ble-k ' , and the entire frontage of 7`h St NW, concurrent with development
of this subdivision.
5. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property to address
the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
6. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's
Engineer.
7. Controlled Access to 7th St NW is required along the entire frontages of Lot 1, Block 2,
and Lot 8, Block 1, and within 35 feet of the ROW intersection of 61b St NW and 7t6 ST
NW.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
Trunkline Sanitary Sewer J8619 @ $665.1598 per acre plus Interest @ 7.0% from
6/25/80 (1 Oyr max) = $1,130.77 per acre.
r CCM Water Tower J8251 @ $900.88 per acre plus Interest @ 7.0% from 7/2/79 (10
yr max) = $1,531.50�er acre
4• Charges for J9363 7 St NW Reconstruction (estini tee _rime._.. $75«7 7,
Stormwater Management, TBD — if on -site detention is not provided.
:• First Seal Coat Contribution
Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division:
2 Street Name Signs 1 Stop Sign 1 Street Ends8igo
C:IWINNTProfileslplabsven%Temporary Internet Files10LK931PP01-28 Manor Woods West Central Subdivision REVISED
Request 10-01.doc
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: October 12, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: MANOR WOODS WEST (AMENDED) GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN # 92
A review of the GDP has turned up the following ROADWAY or ADDRESS related issues:
1. The roadway as illustrated in the GDP would have Sixth Street NW intersecting with
Seventh Street NW. A Street intersecting a Street, is not permissible.
2. The new roadway configuration does not fit the roadway type for a street.
3. If the roadway is to be designated with a name, the entire length of roadway back to 43
Avenue NW would need to be changed. This would require an RCA for that portion of
roadway already in existence, and 14 residences changing their address.
RECOMMENDATION: If this roadway design is approved, the naming of the roadway will
need coordination with our staff, and an RCA will need to be done changing that part of Sixth
Street NW that already exists east of this GDP.
.0?�Ai I F" I AI 111: 1 �,�i_K3nli , AN, II)�V' S'l(i )1 -r V�)I ).i Y,r
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
AND
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated October 18, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Tony Bigelow, of 27693 637th Street, Kasson MN, addressed the Commission. He
explained that he was present on behalf of Forbrook-Bigelow Development. He stated that they
were in agreement with the staff -recommended conditions. He explained that having 61h Street
as a through roadway would help with traffic congestion.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Con nnssion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Mr. Slaver asked if another neighborhood meeting was held.
Mr. Bigelow responded no.
Mr. Slaver asked if there was some informal feedback.
Mr. Bigelow responded yes.
Ms. Rivas asked how many townhomes were proposed in the previous plan.
Mr. Bigelow responded three single-family homes and 37 townhomes.
Ms. Rivas asked how many single-family lots were currently being proposed.
Mr. Bigelow responded 29.
Mr. Darren Knoepke, of 4407 6'" Street NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He
indicated that he used to live on 36th Avenue, which is a busy roadway. Due to the congestion
on the roadway, they moved to a cul-de-sac where they presently reside. He stated that he
feels that Bigelow Enterprises is getting back at the people for fighting the first proposal. He
stated that they could have proposed a through street with the townhome development, but did
not. He stated that he purchased a home at the end of a cul-de-sac and would like to have it
remain that way.
Mr. Robert Kostinec, of 4335 6'" Street NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He
stated that the engineers did not state that traffic was a concern in the previous plan. Therefore,
it should not be a problem with the current plan. He expressed concern with purchasing a home
at the end of a cul-de-sac and having it taken away. He asked the Commission if they took into
account the feelings of the neighbors.
Ms. Petersson responded that they try to account for the feelings of the neighbors, while looking
at all the other items they must consider. She expressed the need to have more than one way
into a neighborhood for emergency purposes.
Mr. Kostinec asked the Commission why they did not list any concern with the cul-de-sac
proposed in a previous plan that was brought before them.
Mr. Svenby responded that the applicant withdrew their application.
Mr. Kostinec stated that cul-de-sacs are places where people want to live.
Ms. Petersson explained that fire protection is almost impossible to get into cul-de-sacs. She
explained that the only way to keep areas the way they are is to purchase land surrounding it.
Ms. Petersson explained that the cul-de-sac Mr. Kostinec lives at is straight. However, the other
end is very curvy and would be a hard cul-de-sac to get emergency services to.
Mr. Kostinec asked why the cul-de-sac proposed in the previous plan wasn't an issue with the
Commission at that time.
w
Page 7
City Planning and Zoning Corn ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Ms. Petersson responded that she must have missed seeing the cul-de-sac in the townhome
development.
Mr. Brede asked if the previous plan had two cul-de-sacs abutting each other.
Ms. Petersson explained that she must have missed it.
Mr. Brede stated another benefit of a through street is snow removal.
Ms. Rivas explained that she did not think the developer was trying to spite the neighborhood,
as it is a matter of economics. She explained that the developer has gone from being able to
sell 37 units down to 29 lots. She stated that, if the developer where to propose a cul-de-sac,
they would loose additional lots.
Mr. Kostinec stated that the 37 townhomes would have been put on the property lines. He
asked how many units would be added by connecting versus the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Petersson stated that she did not notice the back-to-back cul-de-sacs when the
Commission recommended approval the last time. Otherwise, she indicated she would have
voted against it.
Mr. Kostinec asked if there are any particular zoning regulations that address taking out a cul-
de-sac.
Ms. Petersson responded no.
Mr. Kostinec stated that there is a circle in the roadway.
Mr. Burke explained that when a development is designed and the road is to dead end, it is
required to put a bulb at the end of the cul-de-sac if it is planned to continue through or not. He
explained that, when the cul-de-sac was built, the majority of the cul-de-sac is outside of the
subdivision they live in. He stated that this gave the developer the option to extend the street at
a later point in time. If the cul-de-sac were designed to be cul-de-sac only, there would have
been lots designed on the end of the cul-de-sac, which would not allow a through street. He
further explained that developers do this often to extend areas to the next phase.
Mr. Kostinec expressed dissatisfaction with Forbrook-Bigelow selling him the home and then
taking the cul-de-sac away.
Mr. Quinn explained that it is coincidence that Bigelow is the developer that sold him his home
and owns the property to extend the roadway. He explained that anyone could do the same
exact thing if they owned that property.
Mr. Staver stated that, if the church was built previously, there could have been egress at the
end of the cul-de-sac. If it were designed to be for housing, it would have been platted for lots.
The fact that it was left open means that it could have been a secondary egress for the church
property.
Mr. Kostinec stated that he was told that.
Mr. Quinn asked Mr. Kostinec if he was told that it could be an egress for the church.
0-5
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Corn ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Mr. Kostinec responded yes.
Mr. Quinn stated that now it is an egress for more lots instead of a church. He stated that there
would be fewer cars going through there now than if it was an egress for a church.
Mr. Darren Knoepke, of 4407 6th Street NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission again.
He asked if Ms. Petersson was in charge of the Commission. He expressed concern with Ms.
Petersson not seeing the cul-de-sacs in the previous plan and being against the already
constructed cul-de-sac because fire trucks wouldn't be able to turn around.
Ms. Petersson clarified that she did not state that they could not turn around, but that they would
have difficulty.
Mr. Knoepke explained that cul-de-sacs are made a certain size to accommodate such
equipment. He stated that he was very angry that the Commission does not care about their
cul-de-sac.
Mr. Harvey Ratzloff, of 4402 6th Street NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He
stated that he was present to represent Forbrook-Bigelow. He stated that he wasn't planning on
speaking before the Commission because he came to the Commission in August and told them
that he felt they had the best plan for the neighborhood. He explained that one of the reasons
the two cul-de-sacs abutted up to each other was because there is a difference in elevation. He
explained that the two single-family lots on the end would buffer the project from those that live
on 6`h Street. He explained that they did not have another neighborhood meeting because the
objections the neighbors had were met with the new proposal. This included single-family R-1
zoning instead of townhomes and additional traffic to 7'h Street. He stated that there was a
petition that was signed by approximately 60 people. Of the 60 people, there are about 50 that
did not belong on 6th Street. The people on 6'h Street are affected. He stated that the people on
7'h Street asked them to eliminate a lot of the traffic, which they did. He stated that the people
on 5th Street were concerned about water coming into their homes. By taking off the top of the
hill and making the through street, they will be bringing a lot of the water down 6'h Street. He
stated that there are 8 homes less than the previous project.
Mr. Ratzloff explained that the developer did not create the proposal before the Commission in
spite. He explained that he wanted to appeal the decision to deny the previous plan as he felt it
was the best plan for the neighborhood. However, they did not appeal the decision due to the
neighborhood's concerns.
Mr. Robert Kostinec, of 4335 6th Street NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission again.
He stated that the developer may have met the concerns expressed with the previous plan, but
the through street connection wasn't discussed before.
Ms. Petersson explained that it was a concern for those that signed the petition regarding traffic
concerns.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Quinn asked if two separate motions would need to be made.
Mr. Svenby responded that it would be best to make two motions.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Comnussion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Ms. Rivas and Mr. Ohly stated that they would abstain from the vote.
The"motion"carned'.CrO"ariith Ms Rtv "rT d -,M6 fJhi ;abstamm "„
Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch p sented the staff report, dated October 18, 2001, t e Commission. The
staff report is on file at N Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Rivas asked if the amenVagrwi
he general development pl was to lock in the location
of the roadways.
Mr. Ellerbusch responded ye
Discussion ensued regardinor sitions of ro ways.
The applicant's representatiHende n of ammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
located at 202 151 Avenue Sed the Co lssion. He stated that Mark Nelson was
present from United Propertipment Co tant) to answer any questions the
Commission may have. He they agr wi the staff recommendation.
With no one else wishing to be heard, MsAetersson Nosed the public hearing.
Page 2 �bq
RCA
November 14. 2001
ttachments:
Staff Report dated October 18, 2001.
2. Minutes of October 24, 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, November 19, 2001 in the Council / Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
6. McGhie & Betts
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '`)
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E —
:M DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01-28 by Forbrook-Bigelow, to be known as Manor PREPARED BY:
cods West Central Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 7.51 acres Theresa Fogarty,
of land into 29 lots for single family development and also dedicates the right-of-way for 7th Planner
Street NW and the continuation of 6th Street NW to 7th Street NW. The property is located east
of Manor Park Drive NW, west of 61h Street NW and south of 7th Street NW.
November 14, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat
Mr. Tony Bigelow, representing Forbrook-Bigelow Development addressed the Commission. He stated that they were in
agreement with staff -recommended conditions. Mr. Bigelow also explained that having 6'h Street as a through roadway
would help with traffic congestion.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following
conditions or modifications:
1. The Final Plat shall include
a. Controlled access along the entire 7th Street frontage of Lot 1 Block 2, Lot 8, Block 1 and
Within 35 feet of the ROW intersection of 6th Street NW and 7 L Street NW.
b. A revised roadway name for 6ih Street NW, to be approved by the Planning Department
Addressing staff.
2. 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 approved private detention
facility.
3. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land, per the October 3, 2001
memorandum from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department.
4. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that
outlines the obligations of the applicant, relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, pedestrian
facilities, right-of-way dedication and contributions for public infrastructure needed to serve this property.
5. Lots with direst access to 7h Street NW shall have shared driveways, meeting the access spacing standards
to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-28 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development, to be
known as Manor Woods West Central Subdivision with staff recommended conditions. Mr. Quinn seconded
the motion. The motion carried 7-0, with Mr. Only abstaining.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 18, 200�1. +J a Q
COUNCIL ACTION: Mobonbv: secondbv: to:
Page 2
RCA
November 14, 2001 U-!
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions,, or deny the land subdivision permit. The
Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A
motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the
fifteen findings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated October 18, 2001.
2. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 CPZC Meeting.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. McGhie & Betts
on Monday, November 19, 2001, in the Coi
i
as
m`
a
pk "s i�t if�
9
3
ULM
2
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAKIMENT �.vocxFsreR.Af`�1F
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Cow„„TTYY�OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning ��'., •:��
7[fLLGN� Ok • •• `;
Rq rED:A UGUST'"
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: October 18, 2001
RE: Preliminary Plat #01-28 by Forbrook-Bigelow, to be known as
Manor Woods West Central Subdivision. The plat proposes to
subdivide approximately 7.51 acres of land into 29 lots for single
family residential development and also dedicates the right-of-way
for 7t Street NW and the continuation of 6th Street NW to 7th Street
NW. The property is located east of Manor Park Drive NW, west of
6th Street NW and south of 7th Street NW.
Plannino Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Forbrook-Bigelow Development
706 County Rd. 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1
2
3
4
5
Report Attachments: 1
2
3
4
Development Review:
Rochester Department of Public Works
Rochester Park & Rec. Dept.
Planning Department Addressing
Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division
Olmsted County Environmental Services
Land Development Manual Excerpts
Referral Comments (5 letters)
Location Map
Copy of Preliminary Plat
Location of Property: The property is located east of Manor Park Drive NW,
west of 61h Street NW and south of 71h Street NW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
district.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
Ewa,
PLANNING2ONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
�.,
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
October 18, 2001
C--
. ri
Proposed Development: The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 7.51
acres of land into 29 lots for single family residential
development.
Roadways: The plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for 7'h
Street NW and the continuation of 61h Street NW to 71h
Street NW. The roadway configuration does not fit
the roadway type for a street. The naming of the
roadway will need to be coordinated with Planning
Department addressing staff.
Utilities:
Since 7th St. is a "collector' road, access spacing
standards will require shared driveways for the lots
with direct access to 71h St. In addition, the final plat
will need to include dedication of controlled access
along the entire 71h Street NW frontage of Lot 1,
Block 2, Lot 8, Block 1 and within 35 feet of the ROW
intersection of 61h street NW and 71h Street NW.
Utilities will be extended from 71h St. and also from
Manor Woods West Ninth Subdivision.
Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along the both sides of the roadways within
the Plat and along the entire frontage of 7`h Street
NW, concurrent with the development of this plat.
Drainage: This property generally drains to the east. A
Voluntary Storm Water Management fee will apply to
any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do
not drain to an approved private detention facility.
Wetlands: A Wetland delineation and replacement plan for
wetlands along 71h St. NW, adjacent to this property,
was approved in 1998.
Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be approximately 35 parking
spaces.
Lots with direct access to 71h St. NW shall have
shared driveways, meeting the access spacing
standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department
recommends that Parkland Dedication requirements
for this development need to be satisfied via cash
dedication in lieu of land.
Page 3
October 18, 2001
General Development Plan: This property is included in the Manor Woods West
General Development Plan. The original GDP
identified this property being developed with a church.
An amendment to the GDP is being considered
concurrent with this preliminary plat.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM
Sections 61.225 (effective 5/15/199). Staff recommends the following modifications or conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall include
• Controlled access along the entire a Street frontage of Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 8, Block 1
and within 35 feet of the ROW intersection of a street NW and 7"h Street NW.
• A revised roadway name for 6 h Street NW, to be approved by the Planning Department
Addressing staff.
2. Storm Wafer 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
approved private detention facility.
3. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land, per the October 3,
2001 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation.
4. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the
City that outlines the obligations of the applicant, relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public
infrastructure needed to serve this property.
5. Lots with direct access to 7fb St. NW shall have shared driveways, meeting the access spacing
standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
REMINDER TO APPLICANT:
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for
construction of the public roadways and utilities.
• Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement
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 and acceptance of
improvements by the City.
Page 4
October 18, 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 on 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
Page 5
October 18, 2001
a1�
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
ROCHESl'EK
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/11/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX - 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for the REVISED Preliminary Plat #01-
28 on the Manor Woods West Central Subdivision property. The following are Public Works comments on
the original request from 7/27/0. Previous comments that are no longer applicable, or have been addressed
are indicated with while new comments are indicated in BOLD:
1. Approval of Grading and Drainage Plans is required for this development, prior to Final Plat
submittal.
2. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the
City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public
infrastructure needed to serve this property.
3. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. A Voluntary Stormwater
Management Fee will apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to
an approved private detention facility.
... 4. Construction of eerieFete sideway ,.L..... the 7"gt wm�ffiage .is ineluded in the adeptea
assessments for j9363. The Developer is required to construct concrete sidewalk along the
entire frontage of both sides of West GeettF_l r ., nxr and the fientage __ 6" St 1'RFabuttiag
Lots 17 ° 19, Bleekz1 , and the entire frontage of 7" St NW, concurrent with development
of this subdivision.
5. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property to address
the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
6. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's
Engineer.
7. Controlled Access to 7" St NW is required along the entire frontages of Lot 1, Block 2,
and Lot 8, Block 1, and within 35 feet of the ROW intersection of 6'" St NW and 7'" ST
NW.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
.• Trunkline Sanitary Sewer J8619 @ $665.1598 per acre plus Interest @ 7.0% from
6/25/80 (10yr max) = $1,130.77 per acre.
CCM Water Tower J8251 @ $900.88 per acre plus Interest @ 7.0% from 7/2/79 (10
yr max) = $1,531.50 �er acre
S• Charges for J9363 7 St NW Reconstruction d prineipal xoc 687 21)
Stormwater Management, TBD - if on -site detention is not provided.
First Seal Coat Contribution
Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division:
2 Street Name Signs 1 Stop Sign 1 Street -Ends Sig
u
C:VWINN11Profles\plabsven\Temporary Internet Files\OLK93\PP01-28 Manor Woods West Central Subdivision REVISED
Request 10-01.doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND I CREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE ��
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 3, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Manor Woods West Central
Preliminary Plat #01-28
Acreageof plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Density factor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land, ................ ................ .........
7.51 a
29 units
3.86 units/a
.0244
.71 acres
$12,500 / a
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recordation of plat.
0:\DST0TZ\2001\1)EDICATI0N\NW 2898\MANORWOOD W CEN.DCCO:\DSTOTZ\2001\DEDICATION\NW 2898\MANORWOOD W CEN.DOC
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: October 12, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: MANOR WOODS WEST CENTRAL (RESUBMITTED)
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related
issues.
The roadway as illustrated would have Sixth Street NW intersecting with Seventh Street
NW. A Street intersecting a street is not permissible.
2. The new roadway configuration does not fit the roadway type for a street.
3. If the roadway is to be designated with a name, the entire length of roadway back to 43
Avenue NW would need to be changed. This would require an RCA for that portion of
roadway already in existence, and 14 residences changing their address.
RECOMMENDATION: If this roadway design is approved, the naming of the roadway will
need coordination with our staff, and an RCA will need to be done changing that part of Sixth
Street NW that already exists.
(1,P VC) R'_IPMPORARP IDICRNCC'r l'ILC``'OAF:AU_'3dviAKOH'vFp(iDtiN'FS'C(.]:;NTRALCLr>r �F3N]!'I'itnUi'I'.i)UC
rpu _.
we pledge, we deliver
October 3, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Resubmitted Preliminary Plat 901-28 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development to be
known as Manor Woods West Central Subdivision.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. 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,
"OA p -
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Forbrook-Bigelow Development
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Date: October 10, 2001
To: Jennifer Garness, Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
From: Khalid Mubarak, Olmsted County Environmental Services
Re: Resubmitted Preliminary Plat #01-28 by Forbrook-Bigelow Devlp. Known as
( Manor Woods West Central Subdivision)
Plan Review
The Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area (see diagram below) seems to be present within
most of the subdivision area. This assessment is based on information derived from the Olmsted
County Geological Atlas, construction logs from nearby wells and bedrock mapping using
ArcView coverages of the two -foot contour lines. The Decorah shale is mapped at 1140 to 1099
feet in elevation and the underlying Glenwood shale at 1073 to 1068 feet in elevation (see
attached map). More accurate bedrock elevations may be available from borings completed on of -
near the site.
In this hydrogeologic setting, water discharges from the upper aquifer through soils overlying the
Decorah shale before recharging the underlying aquifer. Developments in this setting have the
potential to interrupt these groundwater recharge processes and associated high water tables may
create structural problems.
General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be considered for
this site.
Cummingovllle-Decorah
Groundwater Recharge Management Area
Area where groundwater may be now enough
to the land surface to be taken up by plants
Llmasorno
CumminTo
gsrille �'"'• Mr m
Limestone & Shale
Platteville Limestone,
St. Peter
Sandstone
Prairie du Chien
Limestone
Decorah Edge Recharge Aren
Area where the Galena aquifer recharges
the St Petw4lrairle du Chien 8
Jordon aquiters
Colluvium/
aa�
General Development Recommendations for the
Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area
1. Require the delineation of wetlands and high water table conditions using a First
Omer Soil Survey or the multi -spectral `wetness' maps.
2. Retain the vegetation and existing soils on the site. Limit the extent of grading
that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. The
blue and green areas on the multi -spectral maps indicate near surface water
conditions. It is important to keep the existing soils and vegetation in place in
order to protect the groundwater recharge regime. If areas do become disturbed,
encourage the planting of appropriate native vegetation.
3. Preserve the unique hydric features (springs, seeps, and wetlands) of the site.
Incorporate these featues into common or public open space, linear parks and/or
trailways. .
4. Require vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater
recharge. Where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock, maintain a
one -foot vertical setback for structures to the seasonal high water table. In head
and side slope areas, development on the Decorah shale should be avoided and
a 75-foot lateral setback should be maintained above the Cummingsville-
Decorah contact and below the Decorah -Platteville contact.
5. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturbed, require that the
intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of the recharge
process. Reinfiltration should mimic natural recharge processes where feasible.
6. Require Gay plugs to be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining
dispersed groundwater recharge flows. Trenches may inadvertently serve as
subdrainage channels.
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
—
G
:M DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01-29 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development, to be
PREPARED BY:
known as Manor Woods North First Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide
Brent Svenby,
approximately 12.60 acres of land into 31 lots for single family residential development and
Planner
1 outlot. The plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for 7`h Street NW and one new
roadway ending in a cul-de-sac from 71h Street NW. The property is located west of Manor
Ridge Drive NW, south of 7'h St. NW and east of the Somerset Hills Subdivision.
November 13, 2001
CitV Planninq and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat to allow
for 31 lots for residential development.
Tony Bigelow, on behalf of Forbrook-Bigelow Development, addressed the Commission and stated that they were in
agreement with the conditions.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and
recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall include:
• Controlled access along the entire 7eh Street frontage of Lots 1 and 26, and also along the cul-de-sac road frontage of Lots 1
and 26, Block 2 for a distance of 35 feet from the 7`h St. right-of-way;
• A revised roadway name, to be approved by the Planning Department Addressing staff.
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 approved private detention facility.
3. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land, per the October 3, 2001 memorandum from
Rochester Park and Recreation.
4. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter in to a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way
dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure needed to serve this property.
5. The applicant shall execute a Contribution Agreement with the City, prior to the submittal of the Final Plat, which addresses
the Owner's obligation regarding the 7� Street reconstruction project J9594.
6. If Outlot A is intended to be privately owned, the applicant shall execute an Ownership and Long Term Maintenance
agreement with the City prior to the recording of the final plat documents.
7. Lots with direct access to 7 h St NW shall have shared driveways, meeting the access spacing standards of the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-29 by Forbrook-Bigelow to be known as Manor
Woods North First Subdivision with staff -recommended conditions and findings. Mr. Staver seconded the
motion. The motion carries 7-0, with Ms. Rivas abstaining.
IL
Council Action Needed: WVV
1) The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit.
The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report.
A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of
the fifteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
z
o "e6>5e,Zug
n ma a�°e 'e G. °. •°.6E ^. m_e a:Y'� °
R.
�. ro. �O�pC J3gE $o'•"�.^n",a
iiO "?i aC•-" p HG
...m8on °�mmS�mg g z
" �mn
n 'ee rr- Gib
3 �Sm 4m�NN6ax °a 6e 09 p.�gYy zB
�m "G gn: ceyy
i9;,;' 6 m gG
DAMOvo axE
^Eun,
5S
t fills HIS �
x
d$j i�JJ`` is
1`t
TO:
FROM:
Ro HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAniMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CCU„Ty OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
City Planning and Zoning Commission
Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: October 18, 2001
�.u� rni►f
piofli:fl
RE: Preliminary Plat #01-29 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development, to be known as
Manor Woods North First Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 12.60 acres of land into 31 lots for single family residential
development and 1 outlot. The plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for
7rh Street NW and one new roadway ending in a cul-de-sac from 7th Street NW.
The property is located west of Manor Ridge Drive NW, south of 7rh St. NW and
east of the Somerset Hills Subdivision.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Forbrook-Bigelow Development
706 County Rd. 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1.
Rochester Department of Public Works
2.
Rochester Park & Rec. Dept.
3.
Planning Dept. - Wetlands LGU
4.
Planning Dept. - Addressing
5.
RPU Water Division
6.
RPU Operations Division
Report Attachments: 1.
Land Development Manual Excerpts
2.
Referral Comments (4 Letters)
3.
Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located west of Manor Ridge Drive
NW, south of 7`h St. NW and east of the Somerset
Hills Subdivision.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
-r
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
T�L
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
October 18, 2001
district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 12.60
acres of land into 31 lots for single family residential
development and 1 outlot.
Streets: The plat proposes a new public roadway from 7" St.
NW that would be a cul-de-sac to serve a majority of
the lots. Five lots are proposed to have their only
frontage along 71h St., which would provide them with
access.
Since 7th St. is a "collector' road, access spacing
standards will require shared driveways for the lots
with direct access to 71h St. In addition, the final plat
will need to include dedication of controlled access
along the 71h St. frontage of Lots 1 and 26 and also
along the cul-de-sac roadway, adjacent to Lots 1 and
26, a distance of 35' from the 71h St. right-of-way.
The second roadway named ,501h Lane NW " is
designed with 50' right-of-way and a 51' cul-de-sac
radius. This roadway extends south from 71h Street
NW. The proposed name of the roadway will need to
be changed to a named roadway.
Utilities:
Utilities will be extended from 71h St. and also from
Manor Woods West Tenth Subdivision.
Sidewalks:
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along the both sides of the roadways within
the Plat.
Drainage:
This property generally drains to the west. A
Voluntary Storm Water Management fee will apply to
any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do
not drain to an approved private detention facility.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. There
do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat.
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 37 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 Rochester Park and Recreation Department
recommends that parkland dedication requirements
for this development be satisfied via cash dedication
in lieu of land.
Page 3
October 16, 2001
General Development Plan: This property is included in the Manor Woods West
General Development Plan. An amendment to the
GDP was recently approved which is consistent with
the proposed plat.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM
Sections 61.225 (effective 5/15/199). Staff recommends the following modifications or conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall include:
• Controlled access along the entire 7" Street frontage of Lots 1 and 26, and also along
the cul-de-sac road frontage of Lots 1 and 26, Block 2 for a distance of 35 feet from the
7tb St. right-of-way;
• A revised roadway name, to be approved by the Planning Department Addressing staff.
2. 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
approved private detention facility.
3. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land, per the October 3,
2001 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation.
4. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter Into a Development Agreement with the
City that outlines the obligations of the applicant, relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public
infrastructure needed to serve this property.
5. The applicant shall execute a Contribution Agreement with the Clty� prior to the submittal of the
Final Plat, which addresses the Owner's obligation regarding the 7` Street reconstruction
project J9594.
6. If Outlot A is intended to be privately owned, the applicant shall execute an Ownership and
Long Term Maintenance agreement with the City prior to the recording of the final plat
documents.
7. Lots with direct access to 7" St. NW shall have shared driveways, meeting the access spacing
standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
REMINDER TO APPLICANT:
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for
construction of the public roadways and utilities.
• Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement
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 and acceptance of
improvements by the City.
Page 4
October 18, 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 on 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.
Page 5
October 16, 2001
C�33
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
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/11/01
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 the REVISED
Preliminary Plat #01-29,on the Manor Woods North First property. The following are
Public Works comments on the proposal from 7/27/01. Previous comments that are no
longer applicable, or have been addressed are indicated with while
new comments are indicated in BOLD:
1. Approval of Grading and Drainage Plans is required for this development,
prior to Final Plat submittal.
2. A Contribution Agreement has been prepared to address the Owner's
obligation regarding the 7`h St NW street reconstruction project J9594. The
Owner is required to execute the Contribution prior to Final Plat submittal.
3. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development
Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating
to, but not limited to, the required contribution for 7th St NW Reconstruction,
stormwater management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and
contributions for public infrastructure needed to serve this property.
4. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. A
Voluntary Stormwater Management Fee will apply to any areas of this
subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to an approved private detention
facility.
5. Construction of concrete sidewalk along the 7`h St NW frontage was not
included in the 7 h St NW reconstruction project for J9594. The Developer is
required to construct concrete sidewalk along the entire frontages of both
sides of ^'� 50`h Ln NW, within this Subdivision—,H+&hKk*g4he
n.,.,.tages a fOtatlet. 'B' & 'n' as well as, concrete sidewalk along the south
side of 7`' St NW. '
6. Long term maintenance and ownership of Outlots 'A', `B', and 'C', needs to
be addressed.
7. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this
property to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to
serve this subdivision
C:\WINDOWS%Temporary Internet Files\OLKB0221PP01-29 Manor Woods North First REVISED Request 10.01.doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
8. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the
Developer's Engineer.
9. The Owner shall execute an Ownership & Long Term Maintenance agreement
for the Outlets. Outlot A, if it is intended to remain privately owned.
4-G; Controlled access is required on the Final Plat along the frontage of 71h St NW
for Lets 1, 2, 3 r. 9, BlFiek 1 Lot 1 & 26, Block 2, and within 35 feet of the
ROW intersection of 7" ST NW & 50" Ln NW.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
Trunkline Sanitary Sewer J8619 @ $665.1598 per acre plus Interest @
7.0% from 6/25/80 (10yr max) = $1,130.77 per acre.
CCM Water Tower J8251 @ $900.88 per acre plus Interest @ 7.0%
from 7/2/79 (10 yr max) = $1,531.50 per acre
Charges for J9594 7th St NW Reconstruction (estimated principal
$72,234.19)
Stormwater Management, TBD — if on -site detention is not provided.
First Seal Coat Contribution
Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division:
2-6-Street name Signs 2 1 Stop Signs 1 Street Ends Sign
C:IWINDOWS%Temporary Internet Files\01_KB022\PP01-29 Manor Woods North First REVISED Request 10-01.doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND 3REATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 3, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Manor Woods North First
Preliminary Plat #01-29
Acreage of plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Densityfactor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
12.60 a
31 units
2.46 units/a
.0244
.76 acres
$12,500 / a
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recordation of plat.
0:\DSTOTZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NW 2898\MANORWOOD N IST.DOC
rue pledge, we deliver
October 3, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Resubmitted Preliminary Plat #01-29 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development to be
known as Manor Woods North First.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. If Outlot A requires water service a water main and or service extension with easements may
be required to provide an adequate water supply.
2. 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, P ,.'J
"-04WA �)`�10'�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Forbrook-Bigelow Development
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: October 12. 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: MANOR WOODS NORTH FIRST (RESUBMITTED)
PRELIMINARY PLAT # 01-29
A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related
issues.
1. 50 LANE NW should be a named roadway.
RECOMMENDATION: Name the roadway, and keep the roadway type and directional of LANE NW.
(['IIM11OR, R\ INIIRNI I !11LSOLKN)2?,AiANORwPOD�M)RTI] I IRSIRCtiI'13PI'.I:)U:'
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Corn,....,., ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2DOI
6 J
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Preliminary Plat #01-29 by Forbrook-Bigelow Development, to be known as Manor Woods
North First Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 12 60 acres of
land into 31 lots for single family residential development and 1 outlot The plat also
proposes to dedicate right-of-way for 7t Street NW and one new roadway ending in a cul-
de-sac from 7' Street NW. The property is located west of Manor Ridge Drive NW,_south
of 7' St. NW and east of the Somerset Hills Subdivision.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated October 18, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Discussion ensued regarding Lots 27-29 sharing driveways.
Mr. Tony Bigelow, of 27693 637th Street, Kasson MN, addressed the Commission. He
explained that he was present on behalf of Forbrook-Bigelow Development. He stated that they
were in agreement with the staff -recommended conditions. He explained that, at this time, they
are not sure who would retain ownership of Outlot A.
Ms. Rivas asked if special developmental techniques have been made to avoid intrusion of the
seasonal high water table.
Mr. Bigelow handed out a memo regarding the decorah edge shale to the Commission. He
explained that most of the decorah edge is contained in the outlet. He stated that they would
tell future homeowners where the decorah edge is located.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Ms. Rivas explained that she would need to abstain from the vote.
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Corn ___-ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Mr. Brent Svenby presented th taff reports, dated Oct r 1ll 2001, to the Commission. The
staff reports are on file at the hester-Olmsted Planning partment.
Mr. Tony Bigelow, of 27693 37'" Street, Kasson MN, addre\Imission. He
explained that he was pres nt on behalf of Forbrook-Bigelowt. He stated that they
were in agreement with t staff -recommended conditions. hat having 6" Street
as a through roadway w Id help with traffic congestion.
c >,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
M DESCRIPTION: Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-
PREPARED BY:
by Morris Memorial LLC from "Low Density Residential" to "Industrial" on 40 acres
Brent Svenby,
described as the SW 114 of the SW 1l4 of Section 13, Cascade Twp. The vacant property is
Planner
located on the east side of East River Rd. NE, approximately one -quarter mile north of 371h
St. NE and adjacent to the RPU Office Center
November 14, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2001, to consider the Land Use Plan
Amendment request for the property. The applicant is requesting to designate approximately 40 acres be designated for
"Industrial" on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
The Commission discussed whether the area proposed to be designated "Industrial' is appropriate based on the criteria as
included in the staff report. The Commission recommended approval, with the following findings.
Mr. Staver made a motion to approve Land Use Plan Amendment #01-04 by Morris Memorial with the following
findings. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Hodgson and Ms. Petersson voting nay.
a) The property has fairly level terrain. An existing waterway dissects the property and drains water to
the northwest corner of the property.
b) This property abuts East River Road, which is identified as a collector road on the ROCOG
Thoroughfare Plan and is identified as a future connection between 37`h Street and 55'h Street.
Currently, the roadway is not constructed to a collector roadway standard, but it is anticipated that it
will be in the future. The property doesn't have direct access to a freeway, expressway or arterial
roadway, however, the GDP submitted along with this application allows for a future connection to
Trunk Highway 63 which is identified as an expressway on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan.
c) The property consists of approximately 40 acres, which is adequate area for the expansion of
industrial uses.
The Land Use Plan refers to "industrial" designation as an area intended primarily for manufacturing,
transportation related facilities, communication related facilities, privately owned utilities,
warehousing and outside storage of materials and equipment and uses of similar character.
Industrial uses are characterized by relatively high levels of truck traffic and noise.
d) Sanitary sewer and water do not abut the property. These utilities would need to be extended to
serve the development. The Main Level Water System is available to this property approximately 300
feet south of the SW corner. This water system will need to be extended to the property as well as to
the adjacent properties as required by Rochester Public Utilities. The applicant will need to
coordinate with the utility agencies the extension of utilities to the property.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 19, 2001.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
Page 2
RCA
November 14, 2001
P � a -
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by
findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan (as included in the staff report).
2. if the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated October 19, 2001
2. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File
4. Planning Department GIS
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 19, 2001 in the Council / Board
Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building
6. Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
I
xljj . 11 " •
e Change #94-12
�J � � t I ,
I 48 St NE
ROCHESTER-OLAISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C 00"1Y OF www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: October 19, 2001
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #01-04 by Morris Memorial LLC to amend the
Land Use Plan designation for approximately 40 acres of land from "low
density residential' to "Industrial" designation. The property is located
along the east side of East River Road NE, approximately one -quarter
mile north of 37th Street NE and adjacent to the RPU Office Center.
Planning Department Review:
Property Owner:
Consultant:
Morris Memorial LLC
3775 Willow Ridge Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
1009 W hitewater Avenue
St. Charles, MN 55972
Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of East
River Road NE, approximately one -quarter mile north
of 37'h Street NE and adjacent to the RPU Office
Center.
Requested Action: The applicant requests to amend the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate
approximately 40 acres of land for "industrial' uses.
The property is currently designated for "low density
residential' uses. A Zoning District Amendment and
General Development Plan are being considered
concurrent with this application.
Existing Land Use: The property is currently vacant.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant has also filed a lamtkts�tarl
amendment and a General Development Plan that
are being considered concurrent with this application.
The proposed GDP identifies the property being
developed as a manufactured home park. A
manufactured home park is not a permitted use in the
M-1 zoning district, so if the zone change is approved
the applicant will need to obtain approval of a
manufactured home park through other means.
Adjacent Land Use and
East: Vacant land in Olmsted County which is zoned
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
..wso.=.PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
..wu.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
LUPA 01-04 Morris Memorial
October 19, 2001
Zoning:
Ag (Agricultural) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map.
The property is designated for "low density
residential' uses on the Land Use Plan.
South: The property to the south is zoned M-2
(Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The
RPU Office Center is located to south. RPU uses this
property for offices and the storage of equipment and
materials. The property is designated for "Industrial'
uses on the Land Use Plan.
North: The property to the north is located in Olmsted
County. This property is zoned Industrial and there is
a number of different industrial uses found to the
north. The property is designated for "low density
residential' uses on the Land Use Plan.
West: Across East River Road is property used for a
mining operation. This property is located in Olmsted
and is zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion)
district on the County zoning map. The property is
designated for "industrial' uses on the Land Use Plan.
Foster Arend Park is located to the Southwest.
Transportation Access: East River Road NE, which abuts the property along
its westerly edge, is identified a collector roadway on
the Thoroughfare Plan. A collector roadway requires
that 50 feet of right-of-way, from the centerline, be
dedicated for the easterly half of the roadway.
Currently the roadway is not constructed to a collector
roadway design standard. It is anticipated that the
roadway will be reconstructed in the future to a
collector standard.
The plan proposes a future public roadway along the
south property line. This roadway will need to the
coordinated with the adjacent property owners.
The development is proposed to be served by private
roadways. These roadways are shown at 32 feet in
width. These roadways will need to be posted "No
Parking — Fire Lane" on one side of the street.
Design of the roadways will need to be designed to
accommodate fire apparatus, especially the dead end
hammer heads.
See traffic analysis prepared be Charlie Reiter, Senior
Transportation Planner.
Wetlands: According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no
hydric soils exist on the site.
Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 11,
2001. A summary of the meeting is attached.
G - 1
Page 3
LUPA01-04 Morris Memorial
October 19, 2001
Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department - John Hanford
2. Charlie Reiter - Senior Transportation Planner
3. Rochester Public Works
4. RPU - Water Division
5. RPU - Operations Division
6. Fire Department
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3, Referral Comments - see GDP Report
4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Analysis:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies location criteria for "Industrial' types
of uses as follows:
a) Having level terrain (less than 5% slope).
b) Having excellent access to transportation facilities, including direct access to a
freeway, expressway, or arterial. Access to either rail or air transportation is also
desirable.
c) Having adequate area available for industrial expansion, providing adequate space for
buffer areas, where needed, to protect adjacent residential use designations.
d) Served by utilities and pubic facilities.
Staff Suggested Findings:
a) The property has fairly level terrain. An existing waterway dissects the property and
drains water to the northwest corner of the property.
b) This property abuts East River Road, which is identified as a collector road on the
ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan and is identified as a future connection between 37=" Street
and 55r" Street. Currently, the roadway is not constructed to a collector roadway
standard, but it is anticipated that it will be in the future. The property doesn't have
direct access to a freeway, expressway or arterial roadway, however, the GDP
submitted along with this application allows for a future connection to Trunk Highway
63 which is identified as an expressway on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan.
c) The property consists of approximately 40 acres, which is adequate area for the
expansion of industrial uses. However, it is not the intention of the applicant to use
this land for industrial uses. According to the General Development Plan submitted
concurrently with this Land Use Plan Amendment, the applicant is proposing to use
the property for a manufactured home park.
The Land Use Plan refers to "industrial" designation as an area intended primarily for
manufacturing, transportation related facilities, communication related facilities,
Page 4
LUPA 01-04 Morris Memorial
October 19, 2001
privately owned utilities, warehousing and outside storage of materials and equipment
and uses of similar character. Industrial uses are characterized by relatively high
levels of truck traffic and noise.
d) Sanitary sewer and water do not abut the property. These utilities would need to be
extended to serve the development. The Main Level Water System is available to this
property approximately 300 feet south of the SW corner. This water system will need
to be extended to the property as well as to the adjacent properties as required by
Rochester Public Utilities. The applicant will need to coordinate with the utility
agencies the extension of utilities to the property.
Staff Recommendation:
The ability to consider the Zone Change, Land Use Plan Amendment and General
Development Plan concurrently allows the City to consider this development proposal as a
package. Based upon the accompanying General Development Plan for this site and the
findings above, Staff suggests that the CPZC and Council need to determine if a residential
use should be permitted in an industrial land use area. The Land Use Plan clearly
identifies that industrial designated lands should be used for uses which are industrial in
nature and not for residential uses. Residential uses are not permitted in an industrial
zone, so the application would need to apply through the Restricted Development process
in order to develop the property with residential uses. The current designation of the
property is for low density residential uses on the Land Use Plan, which is the R-1, R-IX
and R-2 zoning districts. In the R-1X and R-2 zoning district, manufactured home parks are
a Type 11I use, which means they could be approved through the conditional use process
in those zoning districts.
- COVHTV p�
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507)285-8232
FROM: Charles Reiter I Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: October 18, 2001
RE: Traffic Analysis for Land Use Amendment / Rezoning / GDP by Morris Memorial LLC
INTRODUCTION
The proposed development plan for the Morris property indicates development of a 155-unit
Manufactured Home Park that will be developed in two phases with primary access to East
River Road. The main east -west road serving the development extends to the east property line,
providing the opportunity for a future extension or connection into the street system that will
serve the property to the east, thus providing the opportunity for access to TH 63 in the future.
Table 1 summarizes the traffic generation characteristics of the proposed development. Trip
generation has been estimated in two ways, first using household trip rates taken from the
Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, which is a standard reference for trip rates
used throughout the country, and second by using trip rates obtained locally from a study of the
Willowridge Mobile Home Park. The locally derived rates are 73% higher on a daily basis (8.3
trips per unit vs. 4.8 trips per unit) and 35% higher during the AM and PM Peak Hours.
Table 1
AM PK
PM Pk Hour
Hour
TOTAL
Total In / Out
Total In / Out
Tri Generation based on ITE
745
70
18/52
1 90
1 55 / 35
Trio Generation based on local
1280
94
1 16 / 78
1 124
1 77 / 47
ANALYSIS
From a traffic operations impact, the main consideration under existing conditions is to look at
the effect of the added traffic resulting from the development on the intersection of East River
Road and 371h St NE. This signalized intersection currently operates at a Level of Service A (see
Attachment 1 for descriptions of Level of Service — also note Level of Service is an analysis of
Peak Hour conditions). The additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed
development will cause the overall intersection Level of Service to drop to a B, which is still very
good and exceeds the standards set in the Land Development Manual.
One observation of concern from the analysis is that even though the overall intersection will
operate at an acceptable Level of Service, the eastbound left turn lane off of 37'h St onto East
River Road is likely to see a significant increase in delay due to the additional traffic generated
by the development. Options are available in terms of changing signal timing and phasing at this
intersection that can improve the Level of Service for the eastbound left turn which can be
considered if the delay to this movement becomes unacceptable in the future. It does not
appear from the analysis that physical improvements to the intersection would be needed to
address this issue if it arises. At this time changes to signal operations would not be
recommended, and observation of future operations to see if delay problems in fact do develop
would be the course of action to take.
In terms of future conditions, I would actually expect the impact of this development on the East
River Road intersection to 37'h St to lessen as other road system improvements are made in the
area. It would be my expectation that as the land to the east of this site develops, access will be
made available to TH 63, which should draw some traffic away from East River Road. In
addition, in the longer term, the planned extension of 55'h St NW across the Zumbro River and
to TH 63 should provide an alternate travel route to the northwest area of the city, which should
also reduce traffic flow (helping to reduce the problematic eastbound left turn on 37`h St in
particular). I would note that the construction of the 55'h St extension will probably increase the
overall amount of north -south traffic on East River Road, and as a result of that construction and
the build -out of lands along East River Road the street will likely need to be upgraded in the
future to a 3 lane (with a center left turn lane) or 4 lane roadway.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
East River Road is designated on the Thoroughfare Plan as a Collector Street and on the
ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan as the location of a Local Connector Trail. Adequate right-of-
way should be provided to accommodate these improvements. A determination of this right of
way should be made in consultation with the Public Works Department.
The proposed spacing of access points along the property is generally consistent with spacing
requirements along Collector Streets. The location of the main access for the park dictates that
the next access to the north should probably be 200-300' north of the north property line, which
when looking at property boundaries in the area actually works well, since it would locate that
next access at a common property line between the next two properties lying to the north.
A final comment on the proposed plan we would make is to recommend consultation with the
Transit Coordinator and Rochester City Lines on the preferred location for a bus stop to serve
the development. While transit service currently extends only to the Shopko Center, there has
been interest in extending service to the Zumbro Ridge and Hallmark Terrace Parks on 55fh St
NE. If this were done, it would seem the route could easily be structured to provide service to
this development as well.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL,
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECRON
AVERAGE
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION
STOPPED
OF
RESERVE
IMPACT ON
DELAY
SERVICE
CAPACITY
MINOR STREET TRAFFIC
'
PER VEHICLE
DESIGNATION
(PCPH)
SECONDS
- Good progression with condition of free flaw
accompanied by low volumes and high speeds.
.
- Major movements have low percentage of snips.
< 5.1
A
> 400
Little or no delay
• Waiting vehicles will clear on one green phase.
- Good progression with traffic moving fairly free,
but operating speeds are beginning to be restricted
somewhat by traffic.
- More vehicle stops will be required than L.O.S.-A.
5.1 - 15.0
B 300 - 399
Short traffic delays
- Waiting vehicles still will probably clear on one
green phase.
,
- Fair progression with traffic moving smoothly.
- The number of vehicles stopping is significant at
this level, although many still pass through without
15.1 - 25.0
C 200.299
Average traffic delays
stopping.
- Individual cycle failures (waiting for more than one
---1) may begin to appear.
- Acceptable intersection operation during peak
hours.
- Congestion becomes noticeable, and traffic is
flow high V/C ratios.
'
approaching unstable with
25.1 -40.0
D 100 - I99
Long traffic delays
- Driven have little freedom to maneuver. '
- Many vehicles stop and proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
I.
- Poor progression, high volumes, long queues.
- At or beyond limitof acceptable delay.
40.1 - 60.0
E 0 - 99
Very long traffic delays
- Volumes are at, of near, capacity.
i
- Individual cycle failures are frequcnL
- Forced flow operation at low speeds where
volumes are over capacity.
Volumes exceed capacity of
•
each
lane. Extreme delays with
- Unacceptable to drivers with all vehicles stopping.
> 60.0
F queuing
causes congestion
affecting
all movements in the
- Cycle failures are maximized.
intersection
V/C Volume to Capacity
,PCPH) • Passenger Can Per Hour
-...
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/10/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507.287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Land Use Plan Amendment 401-04, on
the Morris Meadows (proposed GDP#167) property. The following are Public Works continents on the
proposal:
1. The proposed use of this property as a Manufactured Home Park development, as indicated by the
GDP map, does not correspond to the requested Industrial Use classification.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1esl01-KB022\1-UPA01-04 Morris Meadows Am
rpu
we pledge, we deliver
September 25, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Zoning District Amendment # 01-12 and Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan Map Amendment #01-04 by Morris Memorial LLC on 40 acres of property located east
of East River Rd NE, north of the RPU Service Center.
Dear Ms Gayness:
Our review of the referenced amendments is complete and our comments follow:
Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates that, with the proper networking of
the water main, adequate flows for fire protection for this type of use will be available within
this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0614A P
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Moms Memorial LLC
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
NFAM
ALL-oOMIUCA CM
ROCHESTER.
V,.,? A;1?&e.Jaa
DATE: October 12, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: General Development Plan #01-167
�S
0:11NOCHESTE R. p1.1a
R'rTF
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507)285-8256
Zoning District Amendment #01-12
S $9tvice Area•Land�Use Plan, Amendment#01-04,.Morris Meadows, located east of
East River Road NE, 1/4 Mil e North of 37th Street NE and adjacent to the RPU Office
Center.
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. No hydrants were shown with this submittal.
2. 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.
The 32' private drives shown must be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" on at least one side to allow
for a minimum 20 foot clear driving width for emergency vehicle access. The dead end hammer
head shown, must be of approved size to accommodate fire apparatus. (50' from the center line of
the driving surface to the end of each side of the hammerhead)
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
Morris Memorial LLC, 3775 Willow Ridge Dr, SW, Rochester, MN 55902
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc., 1009 Whitewater Avenue, St. Charles, MN. 55972
CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES COMPANY
5300 HIGHWAY 63 SOUTH
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904
(507) 282-3776
October 12, 2001
Neighborhood Information Meeting
RE: Morris Meadows Proposal of Morris Memorial, LLC
7:00 p.m., Thursday, October 11, 2001
Room 224, Evangel United Methodist Church
2645 North Broadway, Rochester, MN 55906
The meeting was attended by 6 invitees, 2 owners and the owner's engineer. The engineer explained the
purpose of the meeting and the details of the proposal. He explained the concepts of the Land Use Plan,
Zoning, and General Development Plan. The owners believe the property can be best used through
utilizing mixed commercial and industrial uses. However, the current proposal is to use the property as a
manufactured home park until more demand for commercial and industrial property exists. The property
has commercial and industrial use on three sides now. The fourth side is agricultural, but it is
sandwiched between this property and U.S. Highway 63.
The property owner on the north side of the property asked how this development would affect the
property values of existing industrial properties. There is no answer, because it cannot be predicted. He
is concerned that "kids" from this residential development will hike to his property and play on his
f construction equipment. He asked if the park could be fenced to keep "kids" at home? Answer: Not
practical, cannot fence people into the park, and besides, the City is expecting trails out of the park to
connect to the City trail system. What about the effect of blasting in the rock quarry across East River
Road from the park? Answer: The homes do not have concrete basements, so they are not as vulnerable
as conventional housing. There are also legal limitations on the magnitude of earth "quakes" that may be
created by blasting.
The trucking firm owner north of the property is also concerned about security. He usually has
substantial property on loaded trucks in his parking lot and is concerned about theft and vandalism. He
wants to work on improving security. Also, he would like to limit the number of accesses to his property
because limited access is easier to police. He wants to talk more about security fencing.
Question: Will 41st Street be extended to the east if it is to become a connection between U.S. 63 and
East River Road? Answer: Probably not, because of the steep hill east of U.S. 63. A connection will
probably go around the hill as it does now.
There is a concern by property owners about current drainage conditions in the area, particularly north of
the northwest comer of the site. Apparently, local flooding and ponding are common. They do not want
to see the current bad situation aggravated. Then there was a lot of conversation about transportation
facilities, but that was not particularly relevant to this proposal.
Meeting ended at 8:10 p.m
Page 13
City Planning and Zoning Coi ___;sion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
A five-minute break occurred.
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-04, by Morris
Memorial LLC from "Low Density Residential" to "Industrial' on 40 acres described as
the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Cascade Twp. The vacant property is located on
the east side of East River Rd. NE, approximately one -quarter mile north of 37F St. NE
and adjacent to the RPU Office Center.
AND
AND
Page 14
City Planning and Zoning Corn.... —ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
adjacent to the RPU Office Center.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated October 19, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Burke asked what zoning districts allow manufactured home parks.
Mr. Svenby responded R-1x, R-2, R-3, B-4 and B-1 as a conditional use permit.
Mr. Slaver stated asked why the Park Department needs additional parkland from the general
development plan, due to the proximity of Foster Arends.
Mr. Svenby responded that he did not specifically know, but the area would need a
neighborhood park.
Mr. Stever asked what the likelihood would be of having a roadway extended east to meet with
Highway 63.
Mr. Svenby responded that it would be likely, as the applicant owns the property to the east. He
explained that it is a connection that the City would like to see some day.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he was confused about approving a zone change request that does not
allow a manufactured home park.
Mr. Svenby responded that any action taken would not approve the manufactured home park.
He explained that the applicant would need to go through a restricted development conditional
use permit process to be able to have a manufactured home park located in a zoning district
which doesn't allow them.
Mr. Svenby responded that some of the reasons for rezoning is that, when land is annexed, it is
placed in the R-1 zoning district. He explained that concerns were brought up at the annexation
hearing before the City Council regarding the property to the north being zoned for industrial
uses in the County. With the industrial zoning district south of the property, it did not make
sense to zone the property R-1. Therefore, the City Council placed the property in the Holding
Zone.
Discussion ensued regarding the restricted development conditional use process.
Mr. Quinn stated that there is no condition limiting the amount of development for any period of
time with the amount of traffic that would be generated from Phase I and Phase II.
Mr. Svenby stated that Charlie Reiter's analysis shows that, if a manufactured home park were
located on the property, the level of service at the intersection of 37th Street and East River
Road is adequate and would meet the level of service based on the number of trips proposed.
If the applicant had proposed an industrial use on the property, the analysis would probably be
different.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Ken Boyer, with Civil Engineering Services Company
located at 5300 Highway 63 South, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He asked that
Page 15
City Planning and Zoning Con-. ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001 o J
the Commission review all three applications concurrently. However, he asked that the
Commission act on the general development first. If the Commission chooses not to support
the general development plan, they may reconsider the land use plan and zone change request.
Mr. Boyer explained that the site is surrounded by industrial uses. Therefore, the M-1 zoning
district is logical. He explained that the property is not in high demand at this point in time for
industrial uses. Until there is a high demand, they propose a manufactured home park to make
use of the property.
Mr. Boyer explained that the risk of people wanting to live in a manufactured home park at the
proposed location is something the applicant is willing to take.
Mr. Boyer explained that they plan to meet the Park and Recreation Department's
recommendations.
Mr. Boyer stated that the east -west street aligns with 41 s' Street. This is a street that the
Rochester Public Works expects to improve and signalize the intersection. Therefore, they are
trying to maintain their street on that alignment. The owner south of the property is Rochester
Public Utilities. He stated that if the street is made, he expects that Rochester Public Utilities
would participate in the project in the form of right-of-way and future construction.
Mr. Boyer explained that this is not the first time this type of proposal has been made in the M-1
zoning district.
Mr. Nordeen Soma, of 629 Southtown Heights Drive SW, Rochester MN, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he owns the property to the north of the proposed site. He
explained that their property is zoned Industrial. He explained that they store construction
equipment and process topsoil that they buy. He expressed concern with possible accidents
with having children living so close by. He explained that fencing wouldn't keep children off of
the premises.
Mr. Soma stated that he did not believe the manufactured home park would move, after being
placed on the site.
Mr. Bob Suk, of 18 Third Street SW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that
he was present to represent Midwest Specialized Transportation and the Koenig family that
owns Midwest Specialized Transportation. He explained that the family has approximately 40
acres of land, some of which they acquired at different times. He explained that the family went
through a great expense on zone change requests along with entering into agreements with
County and City that provide for annexation and utility connection.
Mr. Suk stated that the business is continually expanding. He explained that they have a
storage yard for a lot of extensive heavy equipment. The company is not opposed to the zone
change, but is concerned about the use of the property.
Mr. Suk explained the hazards of having a residential area near these types of industrial uses.
Also, once a manufactured home is created, it is hard to remove.
Mr. Suk stated that their company comes under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, if there is
vandalism, it wouldn't bring in the police, it would bring in the FBI.
Page 16
City Planning and Zoning Conn ...... ion Minutes '
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding how to make motions.
Mr. Quinn stated that they approved an RV park south of town and required them to put up a
fence. He stated that they could require a fence to minimize the concerns of neighbors.
Mr. Ohly stated that they need to look out for the safety of the residents of the manufactured
home park from the industrial area. He stated that he did not think a fence would accomplish
much. He indicated that it was a bad idea to put a manufactured home park in the middle of an
industrial area.
Ms. Petersson expressed concern with having a manufactured home park across from Foster
Arends Park.
Ms. Rivas stated that the difference between having the RV park and manufactured home park
is that this manufactured home park would be sandwiched in between industrial businesses.
Ms. Petersson stated that families would know the hazards before moving into the
manufactured home park.
Mr. Burke expressed concern with residents of the manufactured home park complaining about
the industrial businesses surrounding them regarding noise and truck traffic.
Mr. Burke stated that there isn't a lot of compatibility between the two. If the site was adjacent
to industrial instead of surrounded by it, he may have different feelings.
Mr. Staver stated that, if the general development plan were denied, procedurally, the zone
change and land use plan amendment could be withdrawn.
Mr. Svenby recommended that the Commission vote on the general development plan as
submitted.
Mr. Svenby explained that, by allowing the zone change, land use plan amendment, and
general development plan to be reviewed concurrently, it acts as one package. Therefore,
one item is denied, they others should be denied as well.
Mr. Boyer stated that, if the Commission were to deny the general development plan, they
would like time to decide which direction to take with the land use plan amendment and zone
change.
Discussion ensued regarding how to vote on the requests.
Page 17
City Planning and Zoning Comm„sion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Page 18
City Planning and Zoning Corn
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
ion Minutes
i
Ordinance, the M 1 zoning district provides an area for a mixture of commeraal
usesand industrial uses whichdo not generate significant adverse impacts'
3 The amendment to M-1 would tie consistent with ithe RochE ster Urban service
Area'Land Use Plan, if the Land Use Plan A_mendment which, is being considered
concurrent) " is approved,' and would 'not be considered s` of zoninz' „.
Mr. Svenby recommended that specific language with regard a manufactured park be stricken
from the findings.
Mr. Staver stated that he agreed with Mr. Svenby.
Ms. Petersson stated that she would vote against the motion, as she does not believe the three
applications should be separated as they were submitted concurrently.
Tf*rnotion carried tic2 With M6..Peters66n'and Mr. Hod sori votin qna"' E
Mr. Staver stated that the Commission is not against manufactured home parks in general. He
explained that it would not be appropriate at that particular location.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the emorandum,
The memorandum is on file at the Chester-O
2.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the n
The memorandum is on file at the
3.
No discussion items wejk brought forward.
Dctober 18, 2001, to the Commission.
Planning Department.
18, 2001, to the Commission.
I Department.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
— D
i
:M DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #01-167 by Morris Memorial LLC to be
PREPARED BY:
own as Morris Meadows. The Plan permits the development of a Manufactured Home
Brent Svenby,
Park on 40 acres of vacant land described as the SW 1/4 of the SW 114, Section 13,
Planner
Cascade Twp. The property is proposed to be zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial Industrial)
and developed as a "Restricted Development" under the Zoning Ordinance. The property
is located on the east side of East River Rd. NE approximately one -quarter mile north of
371h St. NE and adiacent to the RPU Office Center.
November 15, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On October 24, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this General Development Plan.
Ken Boyer, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission. He explained the proposal and explained the
reasoning for the Land Use Plan Amendment, Zone Change and General Development Plan.
Neighboring property owners expressed concerns with the intended use of the property, that of a manufactured home
park.
The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
Mr. Staver made a motion to recommend denial of General Development Plan #167, to be known as Morris Memorial
LLC based on staff -recommended findings. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
attached staff report dated October 19, 2001 which lists the CP&ZC adopted findings for denial.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 19, 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 October 19, 2001
2. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 CPZC Meeting (see LUPA RCA)
Distribution: uac
1. City re 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, November 19, 2001 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
,anrt P. MAgQav Ri n/Aminn Inn
IUNCILACTION: Motionby: Second by: to:
Rpm
E■
ndment
e Change
b ST NE
.Uxt
2
g
a
0�3e
w t.
M u
W
Z
W
0
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
co,,,,,, 0� www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: October 19, 2001
.yt.� LI N
`'4n+tDy'Oin
MEMO„n
�e1j
yr
RE: General Development Plan #167 to be known as Morris Meadows
Planninq Department Review;
Petitioner/Property Owner:
Consultant:
Morris Memorial LLC
3775 Willow Ridge Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
1009 Whitewater Avenue
St. Charles, MN 55972
Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of East
River Road NE, approximately one -quarter mile north
of 371° Street NE and adjacent to the RPU Office
Center.
Proposed Use: The proposed GDP identifies the property being
developed as a manufactured home park. A
manufactured home park is not a permitted use in the
M-1 zoning district, so if the zone change is approved
the applicant will need to obtain approval of a
manufactured home park through other means. A
Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District
Amendment are being considered concurrent with
this application.
Land Use Plan The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
And Zoning Designations: designates this property as suitable for "low density
residential' uses and the property is currently zoned H
(Holding) district.
The applicant has filed a petition to amend the Land
Use Plan to designate the property for "industrial'
uses. The applicant has also filed a petition to zone
the property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial)
district. These applications are being considered
concurrent with this GDP.
Streets: The plan proposes both public and private roadways
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-6224
mow- PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
mrmm
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
within the development.
East River Road NE, which abuts the property along
its westerly edge, is identified a collector roadway on
the Thoroughfare Plan. A collector roadway requires
that 50 feet of right-of-way, from the centerline, be
dedicated for the roadway. Currently the roadway is
not constructed to a collector roadway design
standard. It is anticipated that the roadway will be
reconstructed in the future to a collector standard.
The plan proposes a future public roadway along the
south property line. This roadway will need to the
coordinated with the adjacent property owners.
The development is proposed to be served by private
roadways. These roadways are shown at 32 feet in
width. These roadways will need to be posted "No
Parking — Fire Lane" on one side of the street.
Design of the roadways will need to be designed to
accommodate fire apparatus, especially the dead end
hammer heads.
Sidewalks:
Pedestrian facilities are required along the entire
frontage of East River Road NE and the frontages of
the proposed public road along the south property
line. Additional sidewalk/pedestrian facilities may be
required along the private roadways.
Drainage:
A Storm water pond is proposed for the northwest
corner of the property. The current drainage pattern
of the property is to the northwest corner. Currently
there is an existing waterway running diagonally
through the property to the northwest corner. The
GDP proposes to relocate this water way to the
southerly boundary of the property and along the
westerly property boundary.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted or developed.
Wetlands:
According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no
hydric soils exist on the site.
Public Utilities:
Sanitary sewer and water do not abut the property.
These utilities would need to be extended to serve the
development. The Main Level Water System is
available to this property approximately 300 feet
south of the SW corner. This water system will need
to be extended to the property as well as to the
adjacent properties as required by Rochester Public
Utilities. The applicant will need to coordinate with
RPU Water Division to determine options and design
requirements to develop the necessary water system
Page 3
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
layout to serve the area.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication requirements for this
development will need to be satisfied through land
dedication. This GDP will require parkland
dedication of approximately 3.75 acres. The proposed
GDP identifies approximately a 2 acre park which will
need to be redesigned to be approximately 3.75
acres. Public access to park would need to be
provided through a public easement.
If this property is developed as a manufactured home
park, additional private parkland requirements will be
needed for the development in addition to the public
parkland dedication requirements.
Referral Comments: 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Division
2. Rochester Public Works
3. Rochester Park & Recreation
4. RPU Operations Division
5. RPU Water Division
6. MnDOT
7. Rochester Fire Department
8. Planning Department - Addressing
9. Planning Department - Wetlands
Report Attachments: 1. Proposed General Development Plan
2. General Development Plan Narrative
3. Referral Comments
4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Summary:
This GDP includes approximately 40 acres and proposes to develop with a residential use in a
commercial/industrial zoning district. Residential uses are not permitted in the M-1 zoning district,
so if this GDP is approved the applicant would need to pursue the development of residential uses
through the restricted development process. The restricted development process involves a
preliminary and final plan review with public hearings before the CPZC and City Council.
Access to the site will be provided from East River Road which is designated as a collector
roadway on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan. The roadway is not currently constructed to a
collector standard but it is anticipated that it would constructed to collector roadway standard in
the future. The southerly public roadway shown to straddle adjacent properties. When this
property is platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The Plat will either
need to be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need to be shifted entirely on
the Morris Memorial property with access and utilities provided to the abutting property to the
south.
Stormwater management for this property is proposed to be the construction of a stormwater
management facility in the northwest corner of the property. A Voluntary Storm Water
Page 4
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
Management fee will apply to any areas, when graded, do not drain to an approved private
detention facility.
A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered for this
property concurrent with the GDP.
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached).
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment are being
considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the
land uses within the GDP would not be consistent with the land use
designation and zoning for the property. The GDP identifies the property
being developed as a manufactured home park, which wouldn't be
consistent with the uses considered appropriate for "industrial"
designation on the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan refers to "industrial"
designation as area intended primarily for manufacturing, transportation
related facilities, communication related facilities, privately owned utilities,
warehousing and outside storage of materials and equipment and uses of
similar character. According to the Land Use Plan, industrial uses are
characterized by relatively high levels of truck traffic and noise.
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.
A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment are being
considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the
land uses within the GDP would not be consistent with the land use
designation and zoning for the property. The proposed use of the property,
as a manufactured home park would not be considered to be compatible
with the existing and permissible future uses of adjacent property.
Currently the property to the south is used for storage of materials and
equipment for RPU. To the west, across East River Road NE, there is an
existing mining and excavation operation. Industrial uses are also to the
north of the proposed development.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendments are being
considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the
land uses proposed within the GDP would not be consistent with the land
use designation and zoning for the property.
Page 5
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
The Land Use Plan refers to "industrial" designation as area intended
primarily for manufacturing, transportation related facilities,
communication related facilities, privately owned utilities, warehousing and
outside storage of materials and equipment and uses of similar character.
According to the Land Use Plan, industrial uses are characterized by
relatively high levels of truck traffic and noise.
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.
East River Road NE is identified as a collector road on the ROCOG
Thoroughfare Plan and is identified as a future connection between 374h
Street and 55`h Street. Ultimately the total right-of-way needed to upgrade
East River Road to a collector roadway design is 100 feet, 50 feet from the
centerline. The proposed GDP identifies 33 feet from the centerline.
Seventeen additional feet will be required to be dedicated for a total of 50
feet from the centerline. Construction of the upgrading of East River Road
is not currently in the CIP.
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.
Please see the attached memorandum from Charles Reiter, dated
October 18, 2001, which includes a traffic analysis for this GDP.
Roadways proposed within this development include both private
and public roads. Right-of-way and pavement widths shown on the
GDP are not consistent with local design standards.
East River Road is identified as a collector road on the ROCOG
Thoroughfare Plan and is identified as a future connection between
the 37"' Street and 551h Street. This GDP identifies the right-of-way
for East River Road at 33 feet. A dedication requirement for a
collector roadway is 50 feet from the centerline. Seventeen
additional feet with need to be dedicated for East River Road.
Construction of this connection is not currently in the CIP.
Page 6 /
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
r J
October 19, 2001
From a traffic operations impact, the main consideration under
existing conditions is the effect of the added traffic resulting from
the development on the intersection of East River Road and 37 8 St.
NE. This signalized intersection currently operates at a Level of
Service A. The added traffic that will be generated by the proposed
development will cause the overall intersection Level of Service to
drop to B, which is still very good and exceeds the standards set in
the Land Development Manual.
As other road system improvements are made in the area, the
expected impact of this development on East River Road
intersection to 37'" St. NE would likely lessen. if the land to east
develops, access would be available to Trunk Highway 63, which
should reduce the overall traffic volumes at the East River Road and
37tb St. NE intersection.
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.
Sanitary sewer and water do not abut the property. These utilities
would need to be extended to serve the development. The Main
Level Water System is available to this property approximately 300
feet south of the SW corner. This water system will need to be
extended to the property as well as to the adjacent properties as
required by Rochester Public Utilities. The applicant will need to
coordinate with RPU Water Division to determine options and
design requirements to develop the necessary water system layout
to serve the area.
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.
Parkland dedication requirements for this development will need to
be satisfied through land dedication. This GDP will require
parkland dedication of approximately 3.75 acres. The proposed GDP
identifies approximately a 2 acre park which will need to be
redesigned to be approximately 3.75 acres. Public access to park
would need to be provided through a public easement.
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
Page 7 i
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
A Storm water pond is proposed for the northwest corner of the property.
The current drainage pattern of the property is to the northwest corner.
Currently there is an existing water way running diagonally through the
property to the northwest corner. The GDP proposes to relocate the water
way to the southerly boundary of the property and along the westerly
property boundary. Detailed grading and drainage plans will 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.
The development of this property as a manufactured home would not be
considered compatible with the adjacent uses. Uses to the south, west and
north are all industrial in nature and would not be compatible with a
residential use.
The property has direct access to East River Road, which abuts the
property along its westerly edge, which is identified a collector roadway on
the Thoroughfare Plan. A collector roadway requires that 50 feet of right-
of-way, from the centerline, be dedicated for the easterly half of the
roadway. Currently the roadway is not constructed to a collector roadway
design standard. It is anticipated that the roadway will be reconstructed in
the future to a collector standard.
Parkland dedication for this development should include approximately
3.75 acres of land. The GDP, as proposed, does not include adequate
parkland needed for the proposed development.
Section 64.100 of the LDM establishes criteria for secondary access. Based
on the number of proposed lots, a secondary access is required.
The plan proposes a future public roadway along the south property line.
This roadway will need to the coordinated with the adjacent property
owners. Partial dedication of right-of-way is not permitted, so the roadway
may need to be shifted entirely on this parcel.
Recommendation:
If the CPZC and City Council determine that a manufactured home park could be
compatible use in an industrial district, Staff recommends the following conditions or
modifications to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual and applicable criteria:
Page 8 /
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
The GDP shall be revised to identify the following:
• Dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of East River Road (in
addition to the 15 foot waterway)
• Pedestrian facilities along the east side of East River Road and the public
roadway along the south property line.
• A public park meeting the dedication requirements as stated in the memo dated
September 19, 2001 from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department.
• A secondary access for the development which meets the spacing requirements
of the Land Development manual for a collector roadway.
• Identify controlled access along East River Road, except of the approved access
locations.
2. The southerly public roadway shown to straddle adjacent properties. When this
property is platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The
Plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need
to be shifted entirely on the Morris Memorial property with access and utilities
provided to the abutting property to the south.
3. The property shall be platted. Prior to the submittal of a final plat, the applicant shall
enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the
applicant relating to, but not limited to, right-of-way dedication, the extension of public
utilities, transportation improvement district (TID) charges, stormwater management,
park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, and applicable
charges/contributions for public infrastructure, including the construction of the
proposed "future public street" along the south property line.
d. Stormwater Management must be provided for the development. An ownership and
maintenance declaration will be required for the storm water facility outiot, if it serves
less 50 acres. A Voluntary Storm Water Management fee will apply to any areas, when
graded, do not drain to an approved private detention facility.
5. The applicant shall grade the property to be consistent with the proposed grade of the
future road along the south property line.
6. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department on a method of dedicating
the 25 foot wide waterway.
7. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Rochester Transit Coordinator on the
preferred location for a bus stop to serve the development.
NOTE: This GDP review did not include detailed site plan review for compliance with all
regulations applicable to permit issuance specifically those regulations for manufactured
home parks. Manufactured home park regulations would be reviewed at such a time that a
restrictive development application was submitted, if this GDP is approved.
Page 9
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan
In approving a General Development Plan, the Council shall make each of the following
findings:
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.
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.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Page 10
General Development Plan #167 Morris Meadows
October 19, 2001
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.
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.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/11/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 O' 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 General Development Plan
#lemon the Morris Meadows property. The following are Public Works comments on the
proposal:
Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement
with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited
to, Right -Of -Way Dedication, the extension of public utilities, Transportation
Improvement District (TID) charges, stormwater management, park dedication,
traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and applicable
charges/contributions for public infrastructure, including the construction of the
proposed "Future Public Street' along the south property line.
2. Storm Water Management must be provided. As shown, on -site detention is
proposed. An Ownership & Maintenance Declaration will be required for the Storm
Water facility Outlot, if it will serve less than 50 acres.
3. Dedication of 50 feet of ROW is required for East River Rd (in addition to the 25
foot waterway that is indicated on the GDP);...,_ ..,_ ..
4. Based on the number of lots in Phase I & Phase II, and the indication that the main
cast/west private street will continue east, a secondary access should be provided.
Sanitary Sewer & Water does not abut the property. The extension of public sewer
and water to serve the property must be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
6. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed along all the entire frontage of East Rived
Rd NE, and the frontages of the proposed public road along the south property line..
7. Controlled Access will be required along East River Rd NE, with the exception of the
approved private road access(s).
8. Utilities will need to be extended across the southerly '/x of this property in order to
serve the proposed Phase I.
C:\WINDOWS1Temporary Intemet Fi1es%0LKB022\GDP167 Morris Meadows .doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester. MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4th Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX - 507-281-6216
9. The method for dedicating the proposed 25 foot wide waterways should be reviewed
and approved by Public Works.
10. Grading of the property should be consistent with the proposed grade of the future
public street along the south property line. This issue will be addressed further in the
Development Agreement for this property.
The following Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property and will be addressed
in the Development Agreement:
-e Sewer Availability Charge @ $1709.89 per developable acre.
Water Availability Charge @ $1709.89 per developable acre.
Transportation Improvement District (TID) —To be determined.
Storm Water Management, for any areas that do not drain to an on -site detention facility.
C:IWIND0WS%Temporary Internet FIIeS10LKB0221GDP167 Morris Meadows .doc
rpo
we pledge, we deliver
September 25, 2001
Rochester-Ohnsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: General Development Plan #01-167 by Morris Memorial LLC on 40 acres of
property located east of East River Rd NE and north of the RPU Service Center to be known as
Morris Meadows.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
Main Level Water System service is available to this property approximately 300' south of
the SW comer.
2. Water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per our requirements.
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0644 P14,
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Morris Memorial LLC
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
e,tn RcUe nP
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
Rochester, Mn DEPARTMENT
September 19, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning Departmen
RE: General Development Plan #01-167
Morris Meadows
Parkland dedication for the ± 154 dwelling unit development will be ± 3.75 acres.
Dedication should be in the form of land. The general location of the proposed 2.0
J
acre park is acceptable. The size of the park area should be increased to at least 3.75
acres. Dedication for the development can be deferred until such time as the park area is
accessible via the parking lot or until the Park Department wishes to begin development of
the park.
The public access to the park will have to be via the off street parking lot shown on
the plan. A public access easement across the parking lot parcel will be needed.
O:\DSTOTZ\2001\DEDICATION\NE 2896\MORRIS MEADOWS GDP.DOC
,
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 559044744
Phone: (507) 285-8232
Fax: (507) 287-2275
GDP REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: October 10, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC: Lyle Felsch
RE: MORRIS MEADOWS GDP # 01-167
A review of the GDP has tumed up the following ROADWAY or ADDRESS related issues:
The official designation of all public and/or 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 G1S/ E-911 Addressing Staff in cooperation with the Rochester Fire
Department. if required, this signage will be determined at the time of address
review.
C t+i \.k>»N:C[MPORARY 1K [l R. -f I=J[ I � (}Chan_; �I�)HR15ML4DU�1'S(DI"01 1t•;.DOC
Narrative to accompany Morris Meadows GDP:
a) There are no significant topographic limitations on this site. Ground slopes are in a range
of from two percent to ten percent. Soils are good for construction of the proposed
improvements. The entire property is underlain by limestone that varies from three to
twenty feet below the surface and will make trenching for utilities very difficult in some
locations.
b) Storm drainage should not be difficult to control. There is a minor drainageway crossing
the property. This will be rerouted along the south and west edges of the property. Water
falling on the site will be collected in storm sewers and directed to a storm water
detention basin in the northwest comer of the site.
c) Offsite drainage problems are not expected. The property will continue to serve as a
drainageway for upstream properties. Water released from the site will be limited to the
discharge rate prior to development.
d) Adequate sewer and water service can be made available to the development on the west
side of the property. The property generally slopes from east to west, so only one sewer
outlet is needed. Other utilities such as telephone, cable and electricity will need to be
brought into the site, but no unusual limitations exist.
e) The soils at the site are not on the City's list of erosive soils. Again, no unusual
conditions exist.
f) The GDP shows the anticipated phasing of the project into two phases. The anticipated
schedule is to complete Phase I constructiop.lotg in-2002-anchto oomplete Phase II
construction lots in 2003.
c,Gp 14 ';lir
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING L I
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
M DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment # 01-12 by Morris Memorial LLC from the
PREPARED BY:
H (Holding) District to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) District. This 40 acre
Brent Svenby,
property is described as the SW 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Cascade Twp situated
Planner
along the east side of East River Rd. NE, approximately one -quarter mile north of 37`h
St. NE and adjacent to the RPU Office Center.
November 14, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2001 to consider this zone change. The
Commission also reviewed a Land Use Plan Amendment and GDP for the property.
Neighboring property owners expressed concerns with the intended use of the property, that of a manufactured home park.
The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended
approval, with the following findings.
Motion by Staver, seconded by Rivas to recommend approval Zoning District Amendment #01-12, with the
following findings. Motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Hodgson and Ms. Petersson voting nay.
1. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density
residential' types of uses. A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this
application. If the Land Use Plan amendment from 'low density residential' to "industrial' is approved,
zoning 40 acres of land to M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) would be consistent with the "industrial' land
use designation.
The Land Use Plan refers to "industrial' designation as an area intended primarily for manufacturing,
transportation related facilities, communication related facilities, privately owned utilities, warehousing and
outside storage of materials and equipment and uses of similar character. Industrial uses are characterized
by relatively high levels of truck traffic and noise.
2. Uses within the M-1 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent
properties, the properties to the south, north and west are all used for industrial uses. According to the City
of Rochester Zoning Ordinance, the M-1 zoning district provides an area for a mixture of commercial uses
and industrial uses which do not generate significant adverse impacts.
3. The amendment to M-1 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, if the
Land Use Plan Amendment which is being considered concurrently is approved, and would not be
considered spot zoning.
Planning Staff Recommendation: Lu{f
See attached staff report dated October 19, 2001.
n
UNCIL ACTION:
,vivdon By: Seconded By: Action:
L endment # ,
one e Change # - 2
,8
SITE
IMMEMMEMA
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEP/....MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C 0 4 x. r o F www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: October 19, 2001
�sn,►?�i■o�
1poo■yu��
AAbi
RE: Zoning District Amendment # 01-12 by Morris Memorial LLC Zoning
District Amendment # 01-12 by Morris Memorial LLC from the H
(Holding) District to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) District. This
40 acre property is described as the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13,
Cascade Twp situated along the east side of East River Rd. NE,
approximately one -quarter mile north of 37th St. NE and adjacent to the
RPU Office Center.
Planning Department Review:
Property Owner/Petitioner:
Consultant:
Morris Memorial LLC
3775 Willow Ridge Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
1009 W hitewater Avenue
St. Charles, MN 55972
Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of East
River Road NE, approximately one -quarter mile north
of 37`h Street NE and adjacent to the RPU Office
Center.
Requested Action: The applicant is requesting to zone 40 acres of land
to the M-1 Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district. This
property was recently annexed into the City and upon
annexation the City Council placed the property is the
Holding zoning district.
Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant has also filed a Land Use Plan
amendment and a General Development Plan that
are being considered concurrent with this application.
The proposed GDP identifies the property eventually
being developed as a manufactured home park. A
manufactured home park is a permitted use in the M-
1 zoning district, so if the zone change is approved
the applicant will need to obtain approval of a
manufactured home park through other means.
Adjacent Land Use and East: Vacant land in Olmsted County which is zoned
BUILDING CODE 5071265-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
.ry wo.PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
ZC #01-12 Morris Memorial
October 19. 2001
Zoning:
Ag (Agricultural) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map.
The property is designated for "low density
residential' uses on the Land Use Plan.
South: The property to the south is zoned M-2
(Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The
RPU Office Center is located to south. RPU uses this
property for offices and the storage of equipment and
materials. The property is designated for "Industrial'
uses on the Land Use Plan,
North: The property to the north is located in Olmsted
County. This property is zoned Industrial and there is
a number of different industrial uses found to the
north. The property is designated for "low density
residential' uses on the Land Use Plan.
West: Across East River Road is property used for
mining operation. This property is located in Olmsted
and is zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion)
district on the County zoning map. The property is
designated for "industrial' uses on the Land Use Plan.
Foster Arend Park is located to the Southwest.
Transportation Access: East River Road NE, which abuts the property along
its westerly edge, is identified a collector roadway on
the Thoroughfare Plan. A collector roadway requires
that 50 feet of right-of-way, from the centerline, be
dedicated for the easterly half of the roadway.
Currently the roadway is not constructed to a collector
roadway design standard. It is anticipated that the
roadway will be reconstructed in the future to a
collector standard.
The plan proposes a future public roadway along the
south property line. This roadway will need to the
coordinated with the adjacent property owners.
The development is proposed to be served by private
roadways. These roadways are shown at 32 feet in
width. These roadways will need to be posted "No
Parking — Fire Lane" on one side of the street.
Design of the roadways will need to be designed to
accommodate fire apparatus, especially the dead end
hammer heads.
See traffic analysis prepared be Charlie Reiter, Senior
Transportation Planner.
Wetlands: According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no
hydric soils exist on the site.
Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 11,
2001. A summary of the meeting is attached.
Page 3
ZC #01-12 Morris Memorial
October 19, 2001
Referral Comments: 1. Charlie Reiter — Senior Transportation Planner
2. Planning Department - Wetlands
3. Rochester Public Works
4. RPU - Water Division
5. RPU - Operations Division
6. Fire Department
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Area Zoning Map
3. Referral Comments
4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary— see land use
plan amendment report
Analysis for Zoning District Amendment:
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the
Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application
requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria:
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal
petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the
proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as
found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter
3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan;
or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to
rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as
appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. A Land Use Plan amendment
is being considered concurrent with this application. If the Land Use Plan amendment
from `low density residential" to "industrial' is approved, zoning 40 acres of land to M-
1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) would be consistent with the "industrial" land use
designation. However, it is not the intent of the applicant to use this land for industrial
uses. According to the General Development Plan submitted concurrently with this
zone change petition, the applicant wishes to use the property for a manufactured
home park. Using this property for residential uses, with it being zoned commercial -
industrial, would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing
Plan.
The Land Use Plan refers to "industrial' designation as an area intended primarily for
manufacturing, transportation related facilities, communication related facilities,
privately owned utilities, warehousing and outside storage of materials and equipment
Page 4
ZC #01-12 Morris Memorial
October 19, 2001
and uses of similar character. Industrial uses are characterized by relatively high
levels of truck traffic and noise.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map fled by
formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the
subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and
Uses within the M-1 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and
compatible with adjacent properties, the properties to the south, north and west
are all used for industrial uses. However the applicant, as indicated by the
accompanying GDP, intends to develop the property with a manufactured home
park which is a residential use and not an industrial use. A manufactured home
park is not a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district and would not likely be
compatible with the adjacent uses. According to the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance, the M-1 zoning district provides an area for a mixture of commercial
uses and industrial uses which do not generate significant adverse impacts.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that
assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in
this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state).
The amendment to M-1 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area
Land Use Plan, if the Land Use Plan Amendment which is being considered
concurrently is approved, and would not be considered spot zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
The ability to consider the Zone Change, Land Use Plan Amendment and General
Development Plan concurrently allows the City to consider this development proposal as a
package. Based upon the accompanying General Development Plan for this site and the
findings above, Staff suggests that the CPZC and Council need to determine if a residential
use should be permitted in an industrial land use area. The City's Zoning Ordinance
clearly identifies that industrial zoning districts do not allow residential uses. Residential
uses are not permitted in an industrial zone, so the application would need to apply
through the Restricted Development process in order to develop the property with
residential uses. The current designation of the property is for low density residential
uses on the Land Use Plan, which is the R-1, R-IX and R-2 zoning districts. In the R-1X
and R-2 zoning district, manufactured home parks are a Type Ill use, which means they
could be approved through the conditional use process in those zoning districts.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/10/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Zone Change 401-12, on the Morris
Meadows (proposed GDP#167) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
The proposed use of this property as a Manufactured Home Park development (as indicated by the
GDP map), does not require an Industrial classification, and could be accommodated by a less
restrictive/intensive zoning.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB02212ONE01-12 Morris Meadows .doc
rpu
ue pCed�e, we deliver
September 25, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Zoning District Amendment # 01-12 and Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan Map Amendment #01-04 by Morris Memorial LLC on 40 acres of property located east
of East River Rd NE, north of the RPU Service Center.
Dear Ms Gamess:
Our review of the referenced amendments is complete and our comments follow:
1. Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates that, with the proper networking of
the water main, adequate flows for fire protection for this type of use will be available within
this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
06-JA P
Dome Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Morris Memorial LLC
Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc.
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 dJ�
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDAS CTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ZE�—
M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon
PREPARED BY:
ks First Subdivision. This Plat proposes to subdivide 32.94 acres of land into 44 lots for
Theresa Fogarty,
single family development and 4 outlots. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for six new
Planner
roadways and one existing roadway. The applicant is also requesting approval of a
Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain
areas within the development. The property is located south of Viola Road (CSAH 2), west of
Haverhill Road NE and east of Century Hills Drive NE and is within part of the approved
Shannon Oaks General Development Plan.
November 15, 2001
Planning Department Review:
Staff accepted the Final Plat application without an executed Development Agreement. The applicant and the
City have reviewed a preliminary Development Agreement and are in the process of completing the final
Development Agreement.
The applicant is in agreement with having this item continued to the December 3, 2001 City Council meeting.
It is anticipated that an executed Development Agreement will be completed at that time.
Council Action Needed:
1. Continue the item until the December 3, 2001 City Council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Copy of proposed Final Plat.
2. Location Map
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, November 19, 2001 in the
Council Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
UNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING d r
AULNUA btl: 1 IUN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING
PLANNING
DATE: 11-19-01
ITEM NO.
C-( Z
EM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-48 by Jim Heim to be known as Elmcroft Fourth Addition. PREPARED BY:
his Plat proposes to resubdivide Lots 20 and 21, Elmcroft Third Addition into 4 lots for Theresa Fogarty,
residential development. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Planner
Alteration Permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain areas within the
development. The property is located along the west side of Elmcroft Drive SW and south of
25th Street SW
November 14, 2001
Planning Department Review:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land, per the
November 9, 2001 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation.
2. Construction of pedestrian facilities are required along the entire frontage of this property concurrent with
individual lot development, unless a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is executed.
3. Payment of charges related to Sewer A vailability, Water Availability, Sanitary Sewer and Water main Frontage
Charges, and Utility Service Connections is required prior to development of this property.
4. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department.
Planning Department Review- Substantial Land Alteration Permit.
Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Haul Route Plan from City Public Works for removing fill
from the site during the excavation activity.
2. The applicant shall submit a Performance Bond in an amount determined by City Public Works assuring that the
site will be fully restored after completion of the excavation activity.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial
of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity.
Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the Applicant)
1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications
2. Recording Statement n ryUJ L
3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement
4. Recording Fee
5. Title Opinion
6. 1 Original Plat Mylar
7. 2 Mylar Copies of Plat
Attachments:
4. Staff report dated, November 14, 2001,
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
FA
Final Plat #01-48
Y Elmcroft 4th Addition
600' Notification Distance
Ward 1 Hanson
11 /07/01
��3
j9{a1i+
a9R fy%l
/
••;:a
:F�:IY's
Sl
I
f
a
it
;`
zj
3
r:
:i°.,
I'Y•
a
i
Ra.d
s•����" .!
Fn t
ix E„€
j6�E
: I°Y�
x
p S
d S
yYe
tt
=
'o I
6+�
'%
^I.
ilk
Z
nvAls
?r�y,x
.J
F 3
is
g%
gt
a14
¢-i:;a-,
.a
.g,%=
is
�fi
! ;=$
a
,•
4i
"'
jEI
raCie
?:F-xifs
E�
cS
Goa
,?cTi
_
z
O
F
Z
O
0
is
j
sk
d
,
��
$�
F` •�
O
� (
Fa
2
�y%�
5p5d
Y�
a�II
SS%
f=,�
3j
i1!Ss
l
F
LL
In
p
U w. nN
�NNII
t�£ c/ �CKUU
J / p� �.
1521 oy
IIRU2 � I
JGKUV
m"I
� I I
I Lai
I i I N
� I I
I t it 0
NC!I1l 13V 118I
00'S4£
C311tlldNn
P
C:
_Y
Y8888
e
gg
3i
=
-33 € # n INV Id V,)NIUVCJ
I •• l!33� 3�5p}p FSI 55 � e r
• 3 Sa g'i' 7 YiO53NNIW 'SUS3H70N
• Si C € eeaF N0I1Ia4V Hlb IAONDW13
p �s
� F
i
3
i�
i
n
W
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
October 10, 2001
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Olmsted County Planning LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2122 SE Campus Drive
PLANNERS
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Substantial Land Alteration 5
Elmcroft 41h Addition
Rochester, Minnesota
ROCHESTER OFF
Dear Ms. Baker:
717 Third Avenue
This letter is to serve as a request for substantial land alteration approval for the above
referenced final plat. The existing residential land will be regraded to be suitable for
Rochester, MIN 55,
residential applications. Generally, the area behind the proposed building pads will be
507-288-6
cut down and hauled away to provide for more suitable grades.
Fax 507-288-51
The grading would be completed in the summer of 2002. The entire disturbed area will be
re -seeded and the steep slopes covered with a wood fiber blanket.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES MASON CITY OFFI
641-424-6:
Wade Neubauer, EIT
WEN:bsd DELIFIELD OFFI
YCA #7380
262-646-61
Attachment Grading Plan with 10' cuts marked
Equal Opp .rfy Employer
yaggy.Eom
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C O U N T Y OF www,olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: November 9, 2001
�hni'oAtieini
1 jivi�iiliv�iq
y na��nij
RE:Final Plat #01-48 by Jim Heim to be known as ElmcroftFourth
Addition. This Plat proposes to resubdivide Lots 20 and 21,
Elmcroft Third Addition into 4 lots for residential development.
The applicant is also requesting approval of 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 west side of Elmcroft Drive SW and south of 25th Street
SW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Jim Heim
710 SW 25`" Street
Rochester, MN 55902
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1.
Rochester Park and Recreation Department
2.
Rochester Public Works Department
3.
Rochester Public Utility Department— Water
Division
Report Attachments: 1.
Referral Comments (3 Letters)
2.
Copy of Final Plat
3.
Location Map
4.
Memo from Yaggy Colby Associates, dated
October 10, 2001.
5.
Copy of Substantial Land Alternation Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located along the west side of Elmcroft
Drive SW and south of 25u' Street SW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
-w.eow PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 2001
Proposed Development: This proposal is resubdividing Lots 20 and 21 into 4
lots for residential development. The applicant is also
requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration
permit.
Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
plat.
Pedestrian Facilities: Construction of pedestrian facilities are required
along the entire frontage of this property concurrent
with individual lot development, unless a Pedestrian
Facilities Agreement is executed.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Drainage: Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved
by the City Public Works Department.
Public Utilities: Sanitary Sewer & Water main have recently been
extended to serve this property.
Payment of charges related to Sewer Availability,
Water Availability, Sanitary Sewer and Water main
Frontage Charges, and Utility Service Connections is
required prior to development of this property.
Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for
service vehicles and visitors. This development
requires 5 spillover parking stalls. It appears as
though the additional parking can be accommodated
on the roadways and most likely within private
driveways, as well.
Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department has
stated that parkland dedication should only be
required for the increased number of dwelling units as
a result of replatting. The parkland dedication
requirement for this development shall be met via:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $500 with
payment due prior to recording the final plat.
General Development Plan: This is an old, undeveloped County subdivision, there
is no General Development Plan for this area.
Preliminary Plat:
According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all
proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right-
of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land
Subdivision Permit).
Page 3
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 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, such as a final plat,
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,
greater than 10% will occur basically in the center of this plat (southern area of Lot 2 and northern
area of Lot 3).
Sections 61,146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached.
Staff Suggested Findings:
If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land 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 slopes on the site will be a
maximum of 3:1. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and
be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department.
2) The grading 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 (approximately 7,421
cubic yards) will be hauled off the site.
3) Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards
4) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized
to move the earth. The excess material (7,421 cubic yards) will be hauled off the site. It will
be necessary to truck haul fill from the site, thereby requiring an approved Haul Route Plan
from City Public Works.
5) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water
quality.
6) 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 dwellings.
7) 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.
8) 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 in
one phase, during the summer of 2002.
Page 4
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 2001
9) The grading will only take place during one phase during the summer of 2002. 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.
10) 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.
11) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City.
Stormwater management will be required for the development.
12) 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.
13) The grading work is expected to be completed during the summer of 2002. The duration
seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project.
14) 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.
15) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the
completion of the excavation activity. The applicant will need to submit a Performance Bond in
an amount determined by City Public Works assuring that the site will be fully restored after
completion of the excavation activity.
16) 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) The applicant will also be required to submit a Performance Bond in an amount determined by
City Public Works assuring that the site will be fully restored after completion of the excavation
activity.
2) Not applicable.
3) Not applicable.
4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and
drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and
sediment control.
5) Not applicable.
6) Not applicable.
7) Not applicable.
8) Not applicable.
J
Page 5
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 2001
Planning Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land, per the
November 9, 2001 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation.
2. Construction of pedestrian facilities are required along the entire frontage of this
property concurrent with individual lot development, unless a Pedestrian Facilities
Agreement is executed.
3. Payment of charges related to Sewer A vailability, Water Availability, Sanitary Sewer
and Water main Frontage Charges, and Utility Service Connections is required
prior to development of this property.
Substantial Land Alteration Planning Staff Review and Recommendation:
Planning Staff has reviewed the Substantial Land Alteration Permit request and recommend
approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Haul Route Plan from City
Public Works for removing fill from the site during the excavation activity.
2. The applicant shall submit a Performance Bond in an amount determined by City
Public Works assuring that the site will be fully restored after completion of the
excavation activity.
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / Owner Contract for
construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
MA
Page 6
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 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 on 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
Page 7
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 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
Page 8
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 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
Page 9
Elmcroff Fourth Addition
November 14, 2001
be mitigated;
4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface
water quality;
5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the
natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects
are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration
of the site following completion of the excavation activity;
6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development
anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive
Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses,
existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and
other natural resources;
7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties;
8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from
unsightly features of the excavation operation;
9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and
stabilization of cut and fill areas;
10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns
or stormwater management facilities;
11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other
natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality;
12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity
is appropriate for the size and location of the activity;
13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been
approved by the City;
14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after
completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits
reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,
neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies.
15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building
code.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council
shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the
following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards
to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will
be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose
11
Page 10
Elmcroft Fourth Addition
November 14, 2001
undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public
facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the
site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent
properties.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in
the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised
plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific
ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the
proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been
secured by the applicant.
61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to
allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose
modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are
necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146.
M
i
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE �
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 9, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Replat of Elmcroft 4th Subdivision
Number of dwelling units .............................................
2"
Densityfactor............................................................
.0244
Dedication...............................................................
.05 acres
Fair market value of land .............................................
$10,000
•applicant only responsible for parkland dedication for the increase in the number of dwelling
units as a result of the replatting.
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $500 (.05 acres X $10,000/acre) with payment due
prior to recordation of the plat.
C:\DSTOTZ\200i\DEDICATIOR\SE 2E95\ELMCR.nFT 4TH REPLnT.DOC
rd
ROCHESTER
Winne9ota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 11/14/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for
the Elmcroft Fourth Addition freDlat of Lots 20 & 21. Elmcroft 3rd F
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4m Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
property.
m
1. Sanitary Sewer & Watermain have recently been extended to serve this, and
the surrounding properties. Payment of charges related to Sewer Availability,
Water Availability, Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Frontage Charges, and Utility
Service Connections is required on this property.
2. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along the entire frontage of
this property concurrent with individual lot development, unless a Pedestrian
Facilities Agreement is executed.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LKa0221FP0148 Elmcroft 4th Addition.doc
we pledge, we deliver
November 13, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #01-48 by Jim Heim to be known as Elmcroft Fourth Addition and
approval of a Substantial Land Alteration in certain areas within the development.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced final plat and the SLA is complete and we have no objections.
The water main system has been installed in this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
064A R141
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
_ 13
VI DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01.49 by Dan Sodberg to be known as Northview Second
PREPARED BY:
division. This Plat proposes to resubdivide Lot 1, Block 2, Northview First Subdivision
Theresa Fogarty,
into 3 lots for commercial development. The property is located along the east side of 400'
Planner
Avenue NW, west of Douglas Trail and south of 41" Street NW
November 14, 2001
Planning Department Review:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval subject to the following condition:
1. The Final Plat be revised identifying the 20' public utility easement for the water main installed as apart
of the development of Lot 1, Block 1.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Enclosures., (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the Applicant)
1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications
2. Recording Statement
3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement
Recording Fee
Title Opinion
6. 1 Original Plat Mytar
7. 2 Mytar Copies of Plat
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated, November 14, 2001.
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, November 19, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
--JNCILACTION: Motionby: second by: to:
Nanhem Kids
Golf Course
J
Final Plat #01-49
Northview 2nd Subdivision
1,200' Notification Distance
Ward 3 McConnell
11 /07/01
R
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CCU N r r OF www.01mstedcounty.com/pianning
TO: Common Council and Mayor
FROM: Theresa Fogarty
DATE: November 19, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-49 Northview, Second Subdivision — Item No. E-13
The following condition needs to be added:
2. A new Declaration Maintenance Agreement for the Stormwater Detention Facility
be executed to include the subdividing of Lot 1, Block 2 into three parcels to be
known as Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Northview Second Subdivision.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPfNG 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
awl.
ran
J
rl
Z
O
Q7
r)
O
6
W
�i
O �
Z u
W
F—
F—
<L
J
ia_
z
J
USN
o co
V � u
YOO J
z
�®.
B
}'
i"•
rid
�
FP S
gas
•{I
�
_e :Ia •i
G
E8
6a �' �
ly
Z
O-
F
v
>
-
Fa"
jat
y
E# Et
tF
f f
F
��
.aE
N
itY:
erU��Pg TRPlI
e
J
l 1 0
s l 0 0 l
e
p177�
�
va
N
Fl
ED
Ic
.vN
yy
M3�
n—I
n
v
-j
i
n
CL
r--
LB'l04 .S4,2f1SE A
'M'N 30N3AY H104 A
r7NO�jm 41 �� C n lJ
Ifaamn37 T J�I1 1 II
GCUU .A
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U N T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: November 14, 2001
D'i 60CH ESTER.,tll1.4F✓
ti •. J�
Rq TF.11�AUGUST`
RE: Final Plat #0149 by Dan Soderberg to be known as Northview
Second Subdivision. This Plat proposes to resubdivide Lott,
Block 2, Northview First Subdivision into 3 lots for commercial
development. The property is located along the east side of 40th
Avenue NW, west of the Douglas Trail and south of 415t Street
NW.
Planning Denartment Review:
Applicant/Owner: D & B Properties of Rochester LLC
Dan Soderberg'
3730 NW 40`" Avenue
Rochester, MN 55901
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Works Department
2. Rochester Public Utility Department — Water
Division
Report Attachments: 1, Referral Comments (2 Letters)
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Location Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located along the east side of 40" Avenue
NW, west of the Douglas Trail and south of 41 st
Street NW.
Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
•.n�ww• PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
("'rOOO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Northview Second Subdivision
November 14, 2001
Pedestrian Facilities:
Site Development Plan approval will be required at
the time of individual lot development, which will
address pedestrian facilities.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Drainage: Grading Plans will be reviewed through the permitting
process for each lot at the time of development.
Public Utilities: Utilities are currently available to serve the property,
The 20' public utility easement for the water main
installed as a part of the development of Lot 1,Block 1
must be shown on the plat.
Spillover Parking: Parking for the development of each lot will be
determined at the time of Site Development Plan
Review.
Parkland Dedication: The property will not be used for residential
development, therefore, there are no parkland
dedication requirements.
Preliminary Plat:
According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all
proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right-
of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land
Subdivision Permit).
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval
subject to the following condition:
1. The Final Plat be revised identifying the 20' public utility easement for the water
main installed as a part of the development of Lot 1, Block 1..
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / Owner Contract for
construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision, if the extension of
public watermain and/or addition of hydrants is required for individual lot development.
t i � • �'
we pledge, we deliver
November 13, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #01-49 by Dan Soderberg to be known as Northview Second
Subdivision.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. The 20' public utility easement for the water main installed this year as apart of the
development of Lot 1, Block 1 must be shown on the plat.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
064A L�'
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Dan Soderberg
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
11/15/01 15:04 FAX 507 287 2275
ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. - CTY ADMIN
MC
Q002
rpu
we pledge, we deliver
507/280-1579
November 14, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Final Plat #01-49 by Dan Soderberg to be known as Northview Second
Subdivision, This Plat proposes to resubdivide Lot 1, Block 2, Northview First
Subdivision into 3 lots for commercial development. The property is located
along the east side of 4& Avenue NW, west of the Douglas Trail and south of
41 a Street NW.
RPU's Operations Division review of the referenced Final Plat is complete and our comments
follow:
Electrical Facilities were installed to serve this parcel as Lot 1, Block2, Northview First. If the
re -platting of this property causes any existing electric facilities to be relocated it will be done at
the owner/developer's expense.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Engle
mje
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Rood NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 Facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.orc
� %� a►11a�
/P/innedota
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
TO: Consolidated PlanningDepartment WORKS
p 201 4�' Street BE Room 108
2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-3740
Rochester, MN 55904 507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 11/14/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #01-49, on
the Northview Second Subdivision (reolat of Lot 1, Block 2, Northview 1" Subd))
property.
1. Site Development Plan approval will be required at the time of individual lot
development.
2. If the extension of public watermain and/or addition of hydrant(s) is required
for individual lot development, execution of a City -Owner Contract will be
required.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property have previously been paid.
C:\WINDOW&Temporary Internet FIIes101_KB02ZFP01-49 Northview 2nd Subd.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �I
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGtN1JA 5t(;110N:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
November 14, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PLANNING — I
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 60.200, 62.272, and 62.390 —Use PREPARED
or Storage Containers. I John Harford,
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On September 26, 2001 the CP&ZC initiated text amendments to Section 60.200 and 62.272 after discussions that
started in the spring. A public hearing was held by the CPZC on October 10, 2001. The CPZC continued the
amendment process to review alternative wording on October 24, 2001. On October 24, 2001 the CP&ZC discussed
voted to approve the proposed text amendment.
The CPZC recommended approval of a text amendment that 1) provides a definition of storage container, 2) allows
for the use of storage containers in residential zoning districts on school and park property with limitations, 3)
establishes standards to apply in the commercial and industrial districts. Three options were presented to the CPZC
for storage containers located in parks or at school sites. The CPZC recommends that the storage containers be
permitted as temporary uses for a period not to exceed 6 months in any one year. In the B-4, M-1, and M-2 districts
storage containers are limited in lot coverage, location and height; there must be site improvements to screen the
containers; and containers must be maintained.
nning Department Recommendation:
See the attached staff report dated November 14, 2001. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment as
amended by the CPZC.
One leasing company recently notified the Planning Department that some companies are now using wooden
containers rather than metal containers. In order for these provisions to apply to wooden storage containers
staff has added it to the definition. The CPZC was not made aware of such a possibility during the public
hearing.
Council Action Needed: The Council should pass an ordinance approving the text amendment.
Attachments:
1. Staff report and proposed text amendment dated November 14, 2001.
2. Staff report dated October 11, 2001.
3. Minutes of the CP&ZC meetings of October 10th and October 24, 2001
JNCILACTION: Motior,bv: Secondbv: to:
�z
'r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
k 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
I�o�s�lt�m.c!mn
CO UN TV OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN HARFORD
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2001
RE: City Initiated Text Amendment #01-12 to amend Sections 60.200, 62.390 and
related sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
(LDM) that address the use of storage containers.
The CPZC reviewed the issue of storage containers at the October I Oth meeting and
reviewed the suggested language. The CPZC voted to continue the hearing until October
24"'.and instructed staff to make the changes discussed at the hearing. The amended
language approved by the CPZC is provided below. Changes to the current ordinance are
italicized.
Sut=_eested Changes:
60.200 DEFINITIONS:
Storage Container. An all -metal structure, or made of other construction materials,
fully enclosed, used for storage purposes, and is accessory and detached from the
principal building. Storage containers are individual units that are periodically
removed from a property by truck and are considered a structure without any
attached foundation or footings. A storage container may be a self contained unit
that includes wheels and is licensed as a vehicle or a unit that must be trucked to a
site and removed from the trailer used for transport. This definition excludes
warming sheds at city parks and schools, sheds and dumpsters or rolloff containers
that are used for the collection of solid waste. Storage containers are also referred to
as cargo containers, temporary storage containers, portable storage containers,
containerized storage devices, semi -trailers or truck -trailers.
2. Section 62.272 Limitation on Use is part of the larger section of the ordinance
covering accessory uses in residential zoning districts. The first part is unchanged except
to add a subsection number to the existing paragraph. The second paragraph labeled as
#2 is the proposed new language.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/265-8224
,.�.,,.,.. PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
..xaee
1) Non-residential and Accessory Uses: Accessory uses in residential districts
shall not include the conduct of any business, trade, or industry, except as
provided for in this section, or any private way or walk giving access to such
activity and shall not include the boarding of animals or the keeping of fowl or
farm animals except as otherwise provided by any provision of the Rochester
Code of Ordinances. Accessory uses or structures to a residential principal use
may include 1) garages, carports, other parking spaces, swimming pools and
tools sheds for the exclusive use of residents on the premises and their guests;
2) summer houses or servants quarters of persons employed on the premises,
without kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling;
3) gardening and the keeping of a limited number of household pets exclusively
for the personal enjoyment of residents of the premises; 4) solar apparatus that
are used for servicing the principal residence on the lot; 5) private greenhouses
for the use by residents of the premises.
2) Storage Containers: Permitted in any zoning district only on public parkland or
school sites for a period not to exceed 6 months per year.
a) The location of the storage container shall be no closer than 50 feet to a
property line adjacent to a residential zoning lot. A storage container shall be
no closer than 25 feet to a public street. Where residential dwellings are
located across the street from residential dwelling units the storage container
must be located a minimum of 50 feet from the property line/right of way line.
b) The storage container must bean earth tone color and may have an
identification sign a maximum of 2 square feet in area.
c) Maintained as specified in Section 62.390(4)(g) Maintenance.
In the case of a permanent use of storage containers in a non-residential zoning district
the staff suggests the following addition to Section 62.390.
3. 62.390 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN NON-
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
4) Storage Containers in Non-residential Districts: Container storage of
merchandise is permitted only when incidental to the permitted use located on the
same lot, and provided that the container storage area meets the following
requirements. These standards do not apply to truck trailers or semi -trailers that are
actively being used for the transportation of merchandise and are temporarily located
adjacent to loading docks of a principal structure.
a) Storage Container Lots: The exterior storage of storage containers by a lease
agent or storage container leasing business shall be permitted only in the M-1
and M-2 districts. This use shall be classified as a "Non -Production Industrial"
use and must meet the requirements established for that use in the M-1 and M-2
districts. Storage containers shall not be stacked for storage on such lots. A Site
Development Plan review and zoning certificate is required for this use.
I
b) Accessory Use in a Non-residential District: Storage containers are a permitted
accessory use only within the B-4, M-1 and M-2 districts far those use categories
that permit exterior storage or display as specified by the applicable zoning
district standards and site appearance standards, and Section 63.240. A Site
Development Plan review and zoning certificate is required for the placement of
any storage container in any zoning district where not part of an approved Site
Development Plan.
c) Storage container location: Storage containers must meet Exterior Storage
Standard "S" as specified in Section 63.242(4). Storage containers may be
located within the buildable area of a lot and setback from any public right-of-
way 25 feet. Storage containers and the container storage area shall not be
located on any part of a yard between the front or side street lot line and the
principle structure or building. Storage containers may not be located on utility
or drainage easements. The area of a lot designated for storage containers shall
be located immediately adjacent to the principal structure.
d) Maximum permitted height: The maximum height permitted shall be 9%_feet
above the finished grade in any district. Storage containers shall not be stacked.
Note: This height limitation will exclude the use of any storage container with
permanently attached wheels. Staff does not recommend allowing the use of old tractor
trailer units as storage containers in any zoning district.
e) Site impact: The area of a lot designated for storage containers shall be included
as apart of the f oor area and all related calculations including f oor area ratio
and landscape area. In no case shall the area on a property designated for
storage containers exceed the outer dimensions of the principal structure or 10%
of the gross floor area, whichever is less.
Where a home center or lumberyard classified as a Non -Production Industrial
Use proposes to use storage containers the containers shall be located within the
permitted exterior storage area and must be calculated as part of the exterior
storage area as regulated by the district and Sections 63.240 and 63.260.
Note: Staff is of the opinion that there should be a limit to the area permanently set aside
for the placement of storage containers as there is for the size of buildings or buildable
area. Storage containers are to be treated as an accessory structure/use to a principal use.
Therefore their use should not result in the containers becoming the principal structure
and use on the property except where being stored by the leasing company. Subsection e)
establishes a limit to the use of the containers. The floor area ratio for the specific district
applies in all cases and either the outer dimensions or the 10% gross floor area will apply
depending on the type of building. The reason for the outer dimensions and the 10% is to
address multi story buildings.
f Site improvements: The storage containers shall be located on a paved level
surface to prevent shifting, rolling, or other movement. In the B-4 and M-1
districts:
1) the area designated for storage containers shall be required to provide a
bufferyard that meets the standard established for the Non -Production
Industrial use category;
2) the storage container area shall be completely enclosed by a solid wall made
of the same material and the same appearance as the principal structure, and
a gate that blocks the view of the storage area; the wall shall be 10 feet in
height. The gate shall be securable.
A wall will not be required where a home center or lumberyard classified as
a Non -Production Industrial Use proposes to use storage containers and the
containers are located within the exterior storage area as regulated by the
district, and Sections 63.240 and 63.260.
Note: As discussed on Oct 101h this sentence has been added along with a similar
reference in subsection e above. It recognizes the difference between a retail use with no
exterior storage permitted and a home center which is classified as a combined Retail
Trade use and Non -Production Industrial use.
In the M-2 district the area designated for storage containers shall be required to
provide a bufferyard that meets the standard established for the Non -Production
Industrial use category.
g) Maintenance: The storage containers must be free ofgraffiti, posters, bills or
advertising signs. All containers must be free of corrosion, rust, rot, holes or
leaks. The containers must be painted. Graffiti and other vandalism must be
repaired within two weeks of the incident. A company identification sign no more
than 2 square feet in area shall be attached to the storage container.
h) General standards:
1) storage containers shall not be connected to utility services;
2) storage containers may not be used to store mixed municipal waste or other
solid waste or hazardous, flammable, explosive, corrosive or biologically
infectious or contagious materials;
3) the area used to park the storage containers shall be located on a lot that
allows the units to be moveable;
4) no object may be stacked or stored on top of a storage container.
Temporary Use Permit:
Temporary uses in the current ordinance are covered in Sections 62.149(2) and 61.115. It
states that the zoning administrator may approve a zoning certificate as a revocable
permit for a temporary use for a period not to exceed 12 months. The uses listed indicate
that the temporary use could occur on a seasonal or annual basis. However, it is clear
that the intent is not to promote a continuous activity or use under the temporary use
provision because it would become a permanent use as is covered in Section 62.149(2).
Section 62.149(2) and 61.115 can still be used by any applicant for a temporary use
covering storage containers.
CPZC recommends the addition of a subsection to 61.115 Approval of Temporary Uses.
5) Storage Containers: Storage containers placed as temporary uses may not
block fire lanes, no parking zones or restrict emergency vehicles, delivery or
other vehicle circulation. The placement of the container shall not block the
visibility for vehicles or pedestrians entering or exiting the site. No solid or
hazardous waste or hazardous material is permitted in or around the storage
containers. No materials may be stacked or stored on top of the storage
container.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the following findings:
1. There is a public need for the amendment. The current ordinance provisions have
required some interpretation on the part of staff. With the adoption of these requirements
a common set of standards will be applied to all applicants in a fair and even manner.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the ordinance by
providing an equitable solution to this land use conflict. The proposed regulations will
address visual impact of storage containers and the potential for uncontrolled use of the
containers throughout the city.
1 The adoption of the amendment is lawful. The city attorney has been notified of
the provisions of the ordinance and had not identified any legal issues with its
application.
11
'" RO WER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COY„„ OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: CITY PLANNING AND ZONING
FROM: JOHN HARFORD
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2001; OCTOBEO 11, 2001
t iu�ia��lU�rl�
Apnrr�Ip�n !
♦`a�9�1.`�=UI
RE: City Initiated Text Amendment #01-12 to amend Sections 60.200, 62.390 and
related sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
(LDM) that address the use of storage containers.
The CPZC reviewed the issue of storage containers at the October loth meeting and
reviewed the suggested language. The CPZC voted to continue the hearing until October
24`h.and instructed staff to make the changes discussed at the hearing. The amended
language is provided below. Additions or changes are italicized, in bold print and
underlined.
Su¢Qested Changes:
The staff recommends the following changes to the current ordinance language and
standards. The new language based on staff review and CPZC review on Oct. 10`h is
bold, italicized and underlined.
1. 60.200 DEFINITIONS: Storage Container: An all -metal structure fully enclosed,
used for storage purposes, and is accessory and detached from the principal building.
Storage containers are individual units that are periodically removed from a property
by truck and it is considered a structure without any attached foundation or footings.
A storage container may be a self contained unit that includes wheels and is licensed
as a vehicle or a unit that must be trucked to a site and removed from the trailer used
for transport. This definition excludes warming sheds at city Parks and schools,
sheds and dumpsters or rolloff containers that are used for the collection ofsolid
waste. Storage containers are also referred to as cargo containers, temporary
storage containers, portable storage containers, containerized storage devices, semi-
trailers or truck -trailers.
2. Section 62.272 Limitation on Use is part of the larger section of the ordinance
covering accessory uses in residential zoning districts. The first part is unchanged
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
,. ,.,.. PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
except to add a subsection number to the existing paragraph. The second paragraph
labeled as #2 is the proposed new language.
1) Non-residential and Accessory Uses: Accessory uses in residential districts
shall not include the conduct of any business, trade, or industry, except as provided
for in this section, or any private way or walk giving access to such activity and shall
not include the boarding of animals or the keeping of fowl or farm animals except as
otherwise provided by any provision of the Rochester Code of Ordinances.
Accessory uses or structures to a residential principal use may include 1) garages,
carports, other parking spaces, swimming pools and tools sheds for the exclusive
use of residents on the premises and their guests; 2) summer houses or servants
quarters of persons employed on the premises, without kitchen facilities and not
rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling; 3) gardening and the keeping of a
limited number of household pets exclusively for the personal enjoyment of residents
of the premises; 4) solar apparatus that are used for servicing the principal residence
on the lot; 5) private greenhouses for the use by residents of the premises.
2) Storage Containers in Residential Districts: Storage containers of any size shall
not be a permitted principal or accessory use of any property within a residential
zoning district. This prohibition shall not apply to temporary uses as covered in
Section 61.115.
An alternative to excluding storage containers from residential zones would be to allow
them on public parkland/school sites but meeting certain standards. Section 62,272
Subpart #2 would be reworded as follows:
2) Storage Containers in Residential Districts: Storage containers of any size shall
not be a permitted principal or accessory use of any property within a residential
zoning district, except on public parkland or schools. This prohibition shall not apply
to temporary uses as covered in Section 61.115. Storage containers located on public
parkland or school property must meet the following standards where adjacent
development consists of residential dwellings located within 200 feet of a proposed
storage container:
a) Storage containers shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from lot lines.
b) Storage containers must be placed on a paved level surface and access must
be on a paved driveway or parking facility.
c) A bufferyard Class D shall surround the area used for the storage container.
Where a storage container is located on a surface parking facility a solid
wood fence must surround the storage container.
d) Storage containers must be an earth tone color.
e) Storage containers shall be maintained as specified in Section 62.390(4)(e)
Maintenance, and may have an identification sign a maximum oft square
feet in area.
f A zoning certificate shall be required.
Where a storage container is proposed to be located more than 200 feet from a
residential dwelling the following standards apply:
g. Storage containers shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from lot lines.
h. A zoning certificate is required.
L Storage containers must be an earth tone color.
j. Storage containers shall be maintained as specified in Section 62.390(4)(2)
Maintenance, and may have an identification sign a maximum oft square
feet in area.
If the CPZC believes that it is reasonable to allow seasonal but not permanent use of
storage containers located on public parkland staff suggests the following language.
6) Storage Containers: Permitted in any zoning district only on public parkland
or school sites for a period not to exceed 3 months per year.
a) The location of the storage container shall be no closer than 50 feet to a
Property line adjacent to a residential zoning lot. A storage container shall
be no closer than 25 feet to a public street. Where residential dwellings are
located across the street from residential dwelling units the storage
container must be located a minimum of 50 feet from the property line/rieht
of way line.
b) The storage container must bean earth tone color and may have an
identification sign a maximum oft square feet in area.
c) Maintained as specified in Section 62.390(4)(e) Maintenance.
Staff recommends that you treat storage container use in parks as permanent uses and use
the second option listed above.
In the case of a permanent use of storage containers in a non-residential zoning district
the staff suggests the following addition to Section 62.390.
3. 62.390 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN NON-
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
4) Storage Containers in Non-residential Districts: Container storage of
merchandise is permitted only when incidental to the permitted use located on the
same lot, and provided that the container storage area meets the following
requirements. These standards do not apply to truck trailers or semi -trailers that are
actively being used for the transportation of merchandise and are temporarily located
adjacent to loading docks of a principal structure.
a) Storage Container Lots: The exterior storage of storage containers by a lease
agent or storage container leasing business shall be permitted only in the M-1
and M-2 districts. This use shall be classified as a "Non -Production Industrial "
•
use and must meet the requirements established for that use in the M-1 and M-2
districts. Storage containers shall not be stacked for storage on such lots. A Site
Development Plan review and zoning certificate is required for this use.
b) Accessory Use in a Non-residential District: Storage containers are a permitted
accessory use only within the B-4, M-1 and M-2 districts for those use categories
that permit exterior storage or display as specified by the applicable zoning
district standards and site appearance standards, and Section 63.240. A Site
Development Plan review and zoning certificate is required for the placement of
any storage container in any zoning district where not part of an approved Site
Development Plan.
c) Storage container location: Storage containers must meet Exterior Storage
Standard "S" as specified in Section 63.242(4). Storage containers may be
located within the buildable area of a lot and setback from any public right-of-
way 25 feet. Storage containers and the container storage area shall not be
located on any part of a yard between the front or side street lot line and the
principle structure or building. Storage containers may not be located on utility
or drainage easements. The area of a lot designated for storage containers shall
be located immediately adjacent to the principal structure.
d) Maximum permitted height: The maximum height permitted shall be 9% feet
above the finished grade in any district. Storage containers shall not be stacked.
Note: This height limitation will exclude the use of any storage container with
permanently attached wheels. Staff does not recommend allowing the use of old tractor
trailer units as storage containers in any zoning district.
e) Site impact: The area of a lot designated for storage containers shall be included
as a part of the floor area and all related calculations including floor area ratio
and landscape area. In no case shall the area on a property designated for
storage containers exceed the outer dimensions of the principal structure or 10%
of the gross floor area, whichever is less.
Where a home center or lumber vard classified as a Non -Production Industrial
Use proposes to use storage containers the containers shall be located within
the permitted exterior storage area and must be calculated as part of the
exterior storage area as regulated by the district and Sections 63.240 and
63.260.
Note: Staff is of the opinion that there should be a limit to the area permanently set aside
for the placement of storage containers as there is for the size of buildings or buildable
area. Storage containers are to be treated as an accessory structure/use to a principal use.
Therefore their use should not result in the containers becoming the principal structure
and use on the property except where being stored by the leasing company. Subsection e
establishes a limit to the use of the containers. The floor area ratio for the specific district
applies in all cases and either the outer dimensions or the 10% gross floor area will apply
depending on the type of building. The reason for the outer dimensions and the 10% is to
address multi story buildings.
Site improvements: The storage containers shall be located on a paved level
surface to prevent shifting, rolling, or other movement. In the B-4 and M-1
districts:
1) the area designated for storage containers shall be required to provide a
bufferyard that meets the standard established for the Non -Production
Industrial use category;
2) the storage container area shall be completely enclosed by a solid masers
wall made of the same material and the same appearance as the principal
structure, and a gate that blocks the view of the storage area; the wall shall be
10 feet in height. The gate shall be securable.
A wall will not be required where a home center or lumber yard classified as
a Non -Production Industrial Use proposes to use storage containers and the
containers are located within the exterior storage area as regulated by the
district, and Sections 63.240 and 63.260.
Nate: As discussed on Oct 10 this sentence has been added along with a similar
reference in subsection a above. It recognizes the difference between a retail use with no
exterior storage permitted and a home center which is classified as a combined Retail
Trade use and Non -Production Industrial use.
In the M-2 district the area designated for storage containers shall be required to
provide a bufferyard that meets the standard established for the Non -Production
Industrial use category.
g) Maintenance: The storage containers must be free of graffiti, posters, bills or
advertising signs. A11 containers must be free of corrosion, rust, rot, holes or
leaks. The containers must be painted. Graffiti and other vandalism must be
repaired within two weeks of the incident. A company identification sign no more
than 2 square feet in area shall be attached to the storage container.
h) General standards:
1) storage containers shall not be connected to utility services;
2) storage containers may not be used to store mixed municipal waste or other
solid waste or hazardous, flammable, explosive, corrosive or biologically
infectious or contagious materials;
3) the area used to park the storage containers shall be located on a lot that
allows the units to be moveable;
4) no object maybe stacked or stored on top of a storage container.
Temporary Use Permit:
Temporary uses in the current ordinance are covered in Sections 62.149(2) and 61.115. It
states that the zoning administrator may approve a zoning certificate as a revocable
permit for a temporary use for a period not to exceed 12 months. The uses listed indicate
that the temporary use could occur on a seasonal or annual basis. However, it is clear
that the intent is not to promote a continuous activity or use under the temporary use
provision because it would become a permanent use as is covered in Section 62.149(2).
Section 62.149(2) and 61.115 can still be used by any applicant for a temporary use
covering storage containers.
Staff recommends the addition of a subsection to 61.115 Approval of Temporary Uses.
5) Storage Containers: Storage containers placed as temporary uses may not
block f re lanes, no parking zones or restrict emergency vehicles, delivery or
other vehicle circulation. The placement of the container shall not block the
visibility for vehicles or pedestrians entering or exiting the site. No solid or
hazardous waste or hazardous material is permitted in or around the storage
containers. No materials may be stacked or stored on top of the storage
container.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the CPZC recommend approval of the language proposed in this
report. Staff recommends that standards be made part of the subsection that addresses
storage containers in residential districts if they are permitted.
Staff recommends the following findings:
2. There is a public need for the amendment. The current ordinance provisions have
required some interpretation on the part of staff. With the adoption of these requirements
a common set of standards will be applied to all applicants in a fair and even manner.
3. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the ordinance by
providing an equitable solution to this land use conflict. The proposed regulations will
address visual impact of storage containers and the potential for uncontrolled use of the
containers throughout the city.
4. The adoption of the amendment is lawful. The city attorney has been notified of
the provisions of the ordinance and had not identified any legal issues with its
application.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE - SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the
Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Ms. Mary Petersson, Chair; Mr. Randy Stever, Vice Chair; Mr. Michael
Quinn; Mr. Paul Ohly; Mr. James Burke; Mr. John Hodgson; Mr. Ardell Brede; and Ms. Leslie
Rivas
Members Absent: Ms. Lisa Wiesner
Staff Present: Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch; Mr. Brent Svenby; Mr. John Harford; and Ms. Jennifer
Garness
Other City Staff Present: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Mr. Staver made a motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 2001, as written.
Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The minutes from October 10, 2001 were
approved unanimously.
Mr. Staver made a motion to approve the agenda; hearing items C2 (Amendment
to General Development Plan #92) and C3 (Preliminary Plat #01-28) together and
hearing items C6 (Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-
04), C7 (Zoning District Amendment #01-12), and C8 (General Development Plan
#01-167) together. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
City Initiated Text Amendment #01-12 to amend Sections 60.200, 62.390 and related
sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) that
address the use of storage containers.
Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated October 1, 2001 and October 11, 2001, to the
Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Rivas asked Mr. Harford to explain the reasoning behind alternative three for storage
containers in residential zoning districts.
Mr. Harford stated that there might be some school sites that are not zoned residential. He
explained that he didn't want to exclude them.
Mr. Harford explained that staff recommends the second alternative for storage containers in
residential zoning districts.
~� r�
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Con ;ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Ms. Petersson stated that the Park Department should build structures.
Mr. Harford stated that he could put something into the RCA to the City Council that indicates
the Commission's desire to have built structures on parkland.
Mr. Hanford stated that he had not received any comments from Roy Sutherland regarding how
many parks the change would affect.
Mr. Burke stated that, if they made a maximum amount of time to be three months, it could force
the Park Department to create a permanent building.
Mr. Burke suggested that the height be one (1) foot higher than the storage unit, instead of
puffing an exact measurement.
Mr. Quinn suggested Y2 foot higher than the container itself.
Ms. Rivas suggested a minimum height of 10 feet.
Mr. Harford stated that, by saying 9 1h feet, it excludes used trailers being sold as storage units.
He explained that the City of Bryon has had several property owners using those types of units.
Mr. Brede asked if roll -off containers and dumpsters were being addressed.
Mr. Harford explained that they are covered under exterior storage. He explained that some
zoning districts require screening of dumpsters.
Mr. Burke asked if tire shops are excluded from the proposed changes.
Mr. Harford responded that, because it wouldn't be a fully enclosed unit, it would not be covered
under the proposed changes.
Mr. Rob Larson, a representative of Trade Mart Furniture located at 3050 7'" Street NW,
Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern with making the Park and
Recreation Department build a unit after a three-month period. He stated that the storage units
cost approximately $200 to move and spend approximately $100 a month to rent. He explained
that there are not many buildings you can build for that amount. He questioned if it would be
tax -paying money well spent.
Mr. Larson explained that Trade Mart couldn't afford to construct a building at the present time.
Therefore, they must use storage containers.
Ms. Petersson explained that they require other City Departments to build when necessary (i.e.
RPU).
Mr. Larson stated that they could put a fence around the area where the units are stored.
However, they are located in an isolated area that most people do not even see. He questioned
if a variance could be issued for those that don't create a nuisance.
Mr. Larson explained the hardship of moving containers, emptying them, paving area, moving
them back, and refilling the containers. He explained that there is blacktop up to most of the
containers presently.
Page 3 _
City Planning and Zoning Corn ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
Ms. Petersson asked staff if variances could be granted for isolated areas.
Mr. Harford responded that anyone could apply for a variance. He explained the process it
would go through with the Board of Appeals.
Ms. Rivas asked Mr. Larson if they would move their business at some point, as they could not
afford to construct another building.
Mr. Larson responded no. He explained that they plan to construct at a later time.
Ms. Rivas asked if they would add to their current building or construct a separate structure.
Mr. Larson responded that they would construct a separate building.
Mr. Stever asked how many storage containers they currently had.
Mr. Larson responded 70 to 75 units.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding having a minimum height of the structures of 10 feet
Mr. Hodgson suggested using alternative three (3) regarding storage containers in residential
districts. He indicated that it would be preferable for the Park Department to consider more
permanent structures. He expressed concern with limiting a time period of three (3) months.
Therefore, he suggested changing it to a six (6) month period.
Mr. Harford stated that some of the temporary uses appear on a seasonal basis. If the
Commission chooses the third (3) alternative, he questioned if it would be something they would
see as an intermittent use once every 3 years or something they would accept on a three (3) or
six (6) month basis.
Mr. Hodgson expressed concern with vandalism on units that stay in a certain location for a long
period of time. He suggested letting the units be used year after year, but have a time limit
placed on how long they can stay in that certain place at one time.
Mr. Brede asked if the motion included a minimum height.
Mr. Harford suggested amending the motion to include a minimum height.
11
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Corr :ion Minutes
Hearing Date: October 24, 2001
fhe':motronas amended; carried WPM 'XVQVI�-P
Mr. Brent Svenby pr'6kented the staff report, dated October 18, 20,91, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at\Rochester-Olmstedter-Olmsted Planning Dspart
Discussion ensued reg27-29 sharing drivewaysMr. Tony Bigelow, of 2Street, Kasson /itions.
ressed the Commission. He
explained that he was half of Forbroow Development. He stated that they
were in agreement witc mended cHe explained that, at this time, they
are not sure who woulers ' of Outlo
Ms. Rivas asked if special developmental t iques have been made to avoid intrusion of the
seasonal high water table.
Mr. Bigelow handed out a memo re
explained that most of the decorah
tell future homeowners where the <
With no one else wishing to be
Ms. Rivas explained that she
r( the de rah edge shale to the Commission. He
is containe in the outlot. He stated that they would
hedge is loc ed.
Ms. Peterson c sed the public hearing.
need to abstain from the
Page 10 w •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
(LDM) with the staff -recommended find s. Mr. Hodgson second(
motion carried 5-1; with Mr. OhI' �votin and Ms. Wiesner absti
sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordii
address the use of storage containers.
the motion. The
Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated October 1, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Harford stated that the Park and Recreation Department questioned if warming sheds would
fall underneath the definition of storage containers. He explained to them that it wasn't his
intent. Therefore, he suggested that warming sheds at City parks be added to the list of
exclusions.
Ms. Petersson agreed with the change.
Mr. Harford explained that the section referred to under "2) Storage Containers in Residential
Districts" and in the alternative language should refer to Section 61.115 and not 61.115(3).
Mr. Harford pointed out that the Commission needed to discuss whether or not they wanted to
allow storage containers at retail establishments, since exterior storage is not a permitted use
for retail.
Ms. Wiesner if they would be allowed for construction purposes.
Mr. Harford stated that staff could issue a temporary use permit. He explained that the permit
would be good for one year.
Discussion ensued regarding screening storage containers and long-term maintenance.
Ms. Wiesner stated that the suggestion is that the containers be enclosed in an 8 foot high wall.
Mr. Harford responded that it would be one way to approach it.
Ms. Wiesner expressed concern with people adding a roof to the structure and using it as
storage.
Mr. Harford stated that the unit would be temporary. However, the masonry wall would not be.
He explained that the use would be a permanent use there. He explained that a zoning
certificate would be required and perhaps a building permit.
Mr. Harford explained that the intent is to screen the containers.
Discussion ensued regarding the site impact.
Mr. Burke asked if the containers would be required to be placed on a paved surface, if they
received a temporary permit.
Page I
City Planning and Zoning Corrunission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Mr. Harford explained that the Building and Safety Department and Fire Department do not want
to issue permits if the containers are not wired.
Mr. Harford asked the Commission if they wanted him to look closer at site impact.
Ms. Petersson and Ms. Wiesner responded yes.
Mr. Wheeler stated that the site plan review for most new commercial shopping centers,
buildings plans, etc. is extensive. He explained that much of the work would be in vain if much
of the lot area is being used for an a foot high wall with storage containers. Some limitation on
the area that is devoted to storage containers makes sense.
Mr. Wheeler explained that outdoor storage is only allowed for certain types of uses under
certain circumstances.
Mr. Wheeler stated that the use that has generated the most complaints was the use of storage
containers between Kmart and 3rd Avenue South.
Mr. Harford stated that there needs to be a limit on the amount of area that can be used for this
type of use. He indicated that he would review items 3) c) and 3) e) to see how they can work
together and to make a distinction between the types of uses by a store like Menards and a
store like Kohls.
Mr. Harford stated that stacking would not be allowed on the storage sites. He stated that Mr.
Moulton had indicated that they could be stacked, based on the construction of the units.
However, safety would be a concern when stacking them on a gravel area. Also, they would not
be screened appropriately.
Mr. Harford asked the Commission if he should make a change allowing them for a retail use.
The Commission came to a consensus for Mr. Harford to make the change.
Mr. Burke asked Mr. Harford to assess the method of enclosing the containers.
Ms. Rivas asked if there was a maximum amount of time a person could apply for a temporary
permit.
Mr. Harford responded that a temporary permit would be issued for one year. He explained
that, if a person wanted to continue the use, they would need to apply for an additional
temporary use permit once theirs expired.
Mr. Rob Larson, of 621 Elton Hills Drive NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He
stated that he was present to represent Trademart Furniture. He explained that they use a
number of storage containers until they can build another warehouse.
Mr. Larson stated that there isn't a storage unit made that is less than a''/: feet tall. He stated
that 9 % feet is the most commonly used container.
Mr. Larson asked that the Commission adopt the language to allow retail businesses to use
storage containers.
J
Page 12
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 10, 2001
Mr. Larson expressed concern with having to build a wall and footings to shield the containers.
He stated that it would add congestion and create a problem for trucks to maneuver around.
Also, it would be cost prohibitive for them to continue to use the storage containers they
presently own.
Ms. Petersson asked what Trademart was currently zoned.
Mr. Larson responded B-4. He stated that they did not receive any permits, as they did not
know that they were to obtain them.
Ms. Rivas asked if there are residential homes to the south of the property.
Mr. Larson responded no.
Ms. Rivas asked how many containers Trademart owned.
Mr. Larson responded 70. He indicated that the majority of them were painted.
Ms. Rivas asked how purchasing 70 containers would be less expensive than constructing an
additional warehouse.
Mr. Larson explained that the additional warehouse would cost approximately $2 million.
Mr. Robert DeWitz, of 604 11the Avenue NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He
explained that he had semi -trailers that are parked in subdivisions while the houses are being
constructed. He stated that they do not move the trailers often while constructing the
subdivision. He stated that they keep their lumber in the trailer.
Mr. DeWitt asked if there had been any complaints received over the years with regard to the
trailers.
Mr. Harford responded yes. However, he indicated that present text amendment would not
address the type of use Mr. DeWitz uses.
Ms. Wiesner moved to continue C.ltylmtiated Text Amendment..#, 01 12 to October. 24, '
2001 Mr Hodgson seconded the` motion The'motioncarried 7-0.
Mr. Harford asked the Commission to call him with any further suggestions.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 11-19-01
, DATE:
ArFNnA .gFCTION-
ORIr;IN ATING nFPT-
ITFM N2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC WORKS
n APPLICATIONS FOR YEAR 2002 STATE TRANSIT
PRFPARFn RY-
ASSISTANCE
1
A KNAUER 1
This is a public hearing to consider two separate applications for operating assistance from the
State of Minnesota for 2002 regular route and dial -a -ride services. Exhibit "A" provides a
summary of funding sources for each program. The applications are subject to negotiation
with the State and the Council's budget deliberations. Beginning in 2002 local governments are
prohibited from using property tax levy to support transit operations. Local levy can still be
used for transit capital improvements.
Regular Route
The application for regular route requests $1,282,349 in State operating funds. This includes
$211, 474 in property tax relief funding. It's projected that program revenues (fares and
advertising) will cover approximately 40% of total expenses. The application provides for
increased wages and the addition of 1.5 driver positions.
Dial -A -Ride
The application for dial -a -ride requests $306,232 in State operating assistance funds including
$95,107 in property tax relief funds. The application provides for the approximately 2 additional
vehicles hours of service on weekdays. This will be used as needed to relieve sporadic
demand and decreased travel times.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
(1) Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing submission of the an application to the
State of Minnesota for 2002 transit assistance for regular route operations and
the signing of any subsequent grant contract with MNDOT by the Mayor and City
Clerk.
(2) Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing submission of the an application to the
State of Minnesota for 2002 transit assistance for dial -a -ride operations and the
signing of any subsequent grant contract with MNDOT by the Mayor and City Clerk.
JCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATIONS FOR STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota at 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 19, 2001 in the County/ City Board
Room at the Government Center located at 201 4th Street SE for the purpose of considering
applications for State transit assistance funds for 2002 as further described below.
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
LOCAL(1) STATE FEDERAL TOTAL
1. REGULAR ROUTE
A. Operating Assistance for 2002
Regular Route Transit Service $1,111,800 $1,282,349 $372,961 $2,767,110
2. DIAL -A -RIDE
A. Operating Assistance for 2002
Dial -a -Ride Service $149,288 $306,232 $- 0 - $455,520
(1) Local includes program revenues (fares, advertising revenue & sponsorships )
SERVICE LEVELS: The proposed funding will provide for a slight expansion of services for
both regular route and dial -a -ride. A description of these expanded services are included in the
applications for State transit assistance.
At the hearing opportunity will be provided for persons to be heard with respect to the project.
Interested individuals may also submit comments in writing to the address below. Further
information regarding these applications can be obtained by contacting the Rochester Department
of Public Works, Transportation Division, 201 4th street SE, Rochester, MN 55904
Judy Scherr, City Clerk
Print: 10/31/2001
11/17/2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING ❑EPT: I ITEM NO_
Public Works
:M DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood
PREPARED BY:
c,p D. Rossman
This is a Public Hearing to establish Permit Parking on 81h Avenue SW / 600 block. The residents have
petitioned the City to establish Permit Parking on their street, to control all day parking during weekdays
The area is shown on the attached map.
This petition is from within the Edison Neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established
on six blocks. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138 and staff
finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add a street to an existing zone. The street requested is
impacted heavily by all day parking Monday thru Friday from a source outside the neighborhood. There
is a "No Parking" restriction on the east side of this street due to the pavement width. This is to remain.
The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property owners or residents:
Block street/row width # of signers # of owners % signing Notes
8u' Avenue SW / 600 block 24/75 8 10 80 %
I
W i I 1_.......
co
.._......__
;t
L tom.
I
t---f I
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution
Book:
A) adding paragraphs (6) to Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) of section L "Residential Permit Parking to be
effective from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday thru Friday"
(8) 8d' Avenue SW / 600 block, on the west side of the street.1""'
COUNCIL ACTION: Notion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT
Public Works
:M DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 6th Ave SE from 16 1/2 St SE to End of Cul-
de Sac (J9607)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6306-2-00 (J9607)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 6th Ave SE from 16 1/2 St SE to End of Cul-de Sac
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
R. Kelm
fZ K-
Project Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1977. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) rating of 68.
A petition for said project was referred to Public Works at the January 19, 2000 City Council meeting. An
informational meeting was held with the abutting property owners on October 9, 2001. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report and request for project and
assessment hearing.
Estimated Project Costs
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$42 000.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$2 000.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4 900.00
Sub Total
$48 900.00
En ineerin Interest Contin envies 12%
$5 868.00
TOTAL 1
$54,768.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
special Assessments - Frontage
$17 549.24
S eclat Assessments - Sidewalk
$785.11
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 454.89
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$29 490.76
Storm Sewer Re2airs/U22rades
$5 488.00
TOTAL
$54,768.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
v
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
CURB, GUTTER & OVERLAY ON 6TH AVE SE FROM
16 1/2 ST SE TO END OF CUL-DE SAC
October 10, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 6th Ave SE from 16 1 /2 St SE to End of Cut -de Sac, was
referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the
Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibilitv Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2002 based
on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1977.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective,
cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 68, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
4. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
5. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
_
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab wf ci 0.59
$42.000.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$2,000.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4 900.00
Sub Total
$48 900.00
En ineerin , Interest, Contingencies 12%
$5,868.00
TOTAL
$54,758.00
-2— OCTOBER 10, 2001
Assessment Distribution:
T'he cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2002 w ill be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones ............ $15.98 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones........... $23.97per assessable foot
Residential comer lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2002
1
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.98
1,098.20
$17,549.24
Commercial Zones
$23,9
Subtotal
$17,549.24
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk(residential).................................................$5.33 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$6.12 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.92 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)...............$7.46 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential)............................$31.95 per square yard
Residential comer lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2002
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.33
14T30
S785.11
5" Sidewalk (commercial)
$6.12
6" Sidewalk at residential drive approaches)
$8.93
7" Sidewalk at commercial drive approaches)
$7.46
Subtotal
$785.11
credit for long side
Subtotal
$785.11
Proiect Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$17,549.24
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$785.11
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1,454.89
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$29 490.76
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5,488.00
TOTAL
$54,768.00
Submitted for your consideration:
9.'a (J' A Q
Russell Kelm, PE Douglas Nelson, P
Design Engineer Engineering Manager
P:WROJECTSU-PROJU9607\Design\Doca\feasibility Repert.DOC
-3- . OCTOBER 10. 2001
CURB, GUTTER.& OVERLAYON 6TH AVE SE FROM
16 1/2 ST SE TO END OF CUL-DE SAC
P:�PROJECTSW-PROJV960"\Design',Docskfeasibiiity Report.DOC
-4- OCTOBER 10, 2001
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEf1ULF
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6306-2-00 Date: Odober 10, 2001
J No: 9607
Descdption: Curb, Gutter 8 Overlay on 6th Ave SE
from 16-1/2 Street S.E. to End of Cul-de Sac
Feasibility
Cost
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab wl d 0-59
$42.000,00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$2.000,00
Storm Sewer Repaim/Upgrades
$4.900.00
Sub Total
$48,900.00
$0,00
$0.00
lEngineering, Interest, Contin enaes 12%
$5,668-00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$54,768.00
$0.00
$0.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$17 549.24
$17 549.24
$17 549.24
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$785.11
$785.11
$785.11
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 454.89
-$785.11
-$785.11
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab Wed 0-59
$29,490.76
-$17 549.24
-$17 549.24
Storm Sewer Re airs/Upqrades
$5,488.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$54,768.00
$0.00
$0.00
Distribution Percentages:
Special Assessments
33.48%
#OIV/01
#DIV/01
City Street Share
66.52%1
#DIV101
#DIV/01
TOTAL
100.0%1
#ovlol
#DIV/01
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
P:`,PROJECTS\J-PRCJIJ96071DesignlDocs�feasibiiity Report. DOC
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTERA ll
We the undersigned owners of property in ;'!�e ,4F,e 110/G1 0'. f"tdlt1�C�
Subdivision, in the City of Rochester, Minnesota, do hereby
petition the Rochester City Council to construct the following
local improvement project:
commencing at and ending at in
199_. We are aware that as owners of property abuttina this
proposed project, we are subject to certain charges pursuant to
the City of Rochester's Comprehensive Pavement Management
Strategy.
Name (please print)
Address
1. I Aq
I � 7 lctA-� ke- Sc
`d
(D ZS (oTM Avt SE-
0
vie
K
Dv—&,
L— 7- 1_
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
r i
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 6th Ave SE from 16 1/2 St SE to End of Cut -
de Sac (J9607)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
63D6-2-00 (J9607)
Protect Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 6th Ave SE from 16 1/2 St SE to End of Cul-de Sac
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
RMKelm
Proiect Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1977. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) rating of 68.
A petition for said project was referred to Public Works at the January 19, 2000 City Council meeting. An
informational meeting was held with the abutting property owners on October 9, 2001.
Estimated Protect Costs
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$42 000.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$2 000.00
Storm Sewer Rapairs/Upgrades
$4 900.00
Sub Total
$48 900.00
lEngineering, Interest Contin envies 12%
$5,868.00
TOTAL 1
$54,768.00
Proiect Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$17 549.24
special Assessments - Sidewalk
$785.11
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 454.89
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$29 490.76
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5 488.00
TOTAL
$54,768.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map
---JNCIL ACTION: motion
by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
W DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 7th Ave SE from 16th Street to 16'/2 Street SE
(J9840)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6307-2-02 (J9840)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 7th Ave SE from 16th Street to 16Y2 Street SE
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
r � R. Kelm
Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1973. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) rating of 75.
A petition for said project was referred to Public Works at the May 1, 2001 City Council meeting. An informational
meeting was held with the abutting property owners on October 9, 2001. Their support for a rehabilitation project
resulted in this preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report and request for project and assessment hearing.
Estimated Project Costs
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$87 700,00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 900.00
Storm Sewer RepairslUpgrades
$4 800.00
Sub Total
$94 400.00
En ineerin Interest Contingencies 12%
$11 328.00
TOTAL
$1b5,728.Od
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$24 835.48
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$460.25
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 667.75
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$73 388.52
Storm Sewer ReDairs/Uoarades
$5 376.00
TOTAL
$105,728.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
401
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map, Petition
UNCIL ACTION: Motion
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
CURB, GUTTER & OVERLAY ON 7TH AVE SE FROM
16 1/2 ST SE TO 16TH ST SE
October 16, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb. Gutter & Overlav on 7th Ave SE from 16 1 /2 St SE to 16th St SE, was referred to
the Public Works Department on May 1, 2001 for.preparation of the Engineers Feasibility
Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based
on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1973.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective,
cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 75, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
4. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
5. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$87,700.00
8307 Sidewalk Re iacement
$1 900,00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4,800.00
Sub Total
$94,400.00
lEngineering, Interest, Contingencies 12%
$11,328.00
TOTAL
$105,728.00
3,1?'
— 2 — OCTOBER 16, 2..001
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as.r tablisherjby City Council Policy, for the year 2002 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones ............ $15:98 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones........... $23.97per assessable foot
Residential corner lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2002
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.98
1,554.16
$24,835.48
Commercial Zones
$23.97
Subtotal
$24,835.48
replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential)................................................. $5.31 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$6.12 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.92 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)...............$7.46 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential) ................. ........... $31.95 per square yard
Residential corner lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2002
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk residential
$5.33
86.35
$460.25
5' Sidewalk (commercial)
$6.12
6" Sidewalk at residential drive approaches)
$6.93
T' Sidewalk at commercial drive approaches)
$7.46
Subtotal
$460.25
credit for long side
Subtotal
1
$460.25
Proiect Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$24,835.48
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$460.25
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 667.75
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$73,388.52
Storm Sewer Re airs/U rades
$5,376.00
TOTAL
$105,728.00
Su`bbRtitte 1 or Ypur consideration: ^
-z� — ii
Russell Kelm, PE bouglas Nelson, PE
Design Engineez Engineering Manager
P.'.,P:L(;fp:(`1'ti`..)-I'2n1`.1,1.7Ut 17cri,-.i', Un,`n'..iva;:ib�iitry I:cy+vrt.000
- 3 - OCrOBER 16,2001
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER. AND OVERLAY ON
3RD STREET SE FROM I ITI-4 -AVE TO 13 V2STREET SE
OCTOBGR 16, 2001
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSi RUC'I ON CON I RACT
Project No: 6307-2-02 Date: October 16, 2001
J No: 9840
Description: Curb, Gutter 8 Overlay on 7th Ave SE
from 16th Street to 16% Street SE
Feasibility
Cost
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$87 700.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 900.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4 800.c0
Sub Total
$94 400.00
$0.00
$0.00
En ineerin Interest, Contingencies 12%
$11,328.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$105.728.00
$0,001
$0,00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$24,835.48
$24.835.48
$24835.48
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$460.25
$460.25
$460.25
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1 667.75
-$460.25
-$460.25
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$73 388.52
-$24 835.48
-$24 835.48
Storm Sewer Re airs/U rades
$5 376.00
$0,00
$0.00
TOTAL
$105,728.00
$0.00
$0.00
Distribution Percentages:
Special Assessments
23.93%1
#DIV/0;
#DIV/0f
City Street Share
76.07%1
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
TOTAL
100 C%1
#DIV/0!
#DIV/01
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
11 Ii7011if:
Page 4 of 4
January2g,2001
PETITION FOR LOCAL'IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTER
We the undersigned owners of property in R oclt este �- in Olmsted County, Township,
Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to construct the following local improvement project
Commencing at
r
and Ending at 6 S f S• .
We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to
special assessment charges according to the City of Rochester's Comprehensive Pavement Management
Program.
Page 4 of 4
January 29, 2001
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTER
We the undersigned owners of property in R 0C p1 ES' in Olmsted County, Township,
Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to construct the following local improvement project
^fin Ave SE
f
Commencing at % 4 St, S' E.
and Ending at / 41, S% S ' E
We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proocsed local improvement project, we are subject to
special assessment charges according to the City of Eochester s Comprehensive Pavement Management
Program.
Name (please print) Address Signature
Se*n 6:v)� I gant WtMfSrroM 7t V 7fb AJG S£ _, �lii
�1' ;��l-. Q. lL`zt�.��,.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
W DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 7th Ave SE from 16th Street to 16'% Street SE
(J9840)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6307-2-02 (J9840)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 7th Ave SE from 16th Street to 16'% Street SE
ITEM NO.
oLJ
PREPARED BY:
r R. Kelm
Project Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1973. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PC]) rating of 75.
A petition for said project was referred to Public Works at the May 1, 2001 City Council meeting. An informational
meeting was held with the abutting property owners on October 9, 2001. Their support for a rehabilitation project
resulted in this preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report and request for project and assessment hearing.
Estimated Project Costs
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$87 700.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1,900.00
Storm Sewer Repair Urades
$4 800.00
Sub Total
$94,400.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 12%
$11,328.00
TOTAL
$105,728.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$24 835.48
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$460.25
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$1,667.75
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$73 388.52
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5,376.00
TOTAL
$105,728.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map, Petition
%,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /
DATE: 11 /19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 5th Place NW from 16th Ave NW to
Civic Center Drive NW (J9540)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6205-4-99A (J9540)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 5th Place NW from 16th Ave NW to Civic Center Drive NW
ITEM NO.
Z—�—
PREPARED BY:
R.
Kelm
Project Background
The existing street was reconstructed with sanitary sewer in 1961. Since then several rehabilitation projects have
added new concrete curb and gutter to portions of the street. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) rating of 30.
During a small project in October 1996 a request was made to complete the entire street segment. A survey of the
existing owners indicated fair support at that time. Based on the result of that meeting a second meeting was held
on October 9, 2001 with only one of the six owners present. The results from the meetings indicate support by the
abutting property owners.
Estimated Project Costs
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$34 300.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$500.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$6 200.00
Sub Total
$41 000.00
lEngineering, Interest Contin envies 12%
$4 920.00
TOTAL
$45,920.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$7 240.62
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$0.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$560.00
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$31 175.38
Storm Sevier Repairs/Upwades
$6 944.00
TOTAL
$45,920,00
Assessment Period
G (� All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map
_—JNCIL ACTION: Motion
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
CURB, GUTTER & OVERLAY ON 5TH PLACE NW
FROM 16TH AVE NW TO CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NW
October 9, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A request proposing the following project: Curb. Gutter & Overlay on 5th Place NW from 161"
Ave NW to Civic Center Drive NW, was referred to the Public Works Department on October 23,
1998, for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibilitv Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2002 based on the
current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was reconstructed with sanitary sewer in 1961. Since then several
rehabilitation projects have added new concrete curb and gutter to portions of the street. During a
small project in October 1998 a request was made to complete the entire street segment. A survey
of the existing owners indicated fair support at that time. Based on the result of that meeting a
second meeting was held on October 9, 2001 with only one of the six owners present. The results
from the meetings indicate support by the abutting property owners.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-
effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) rating of 30, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
4. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
5. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Feasibility
Cost
Construction: _
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0.59
$34,300.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$500.00
Stone Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$6,200.00
Sub Total
$41,000.00
En ineerin , Interest, Contingencies 12%
$4,920.00
TOTAL
$45,920.00
— 2 — OCTOBER 9, 2001
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2002 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones ............ $15.98 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones........... $23.97per assessable foot
Residential comer lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2062
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.98
Commercial Zones
$23.97
302.071
$7,240.62
Subtotal
I $7,240.62
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential)................................................. $5.31 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$6.12 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.92 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)...............$7.46 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach(residential)............................ $31.95 per square yard
Residential comer lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2002
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk residential
$5.33
5" Sidewalk commercial
$6.12
6" Sidewalk at residential drive approaches)
$6.93
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.46
Subtotal
for Ion side
rcredd
Subtotal
Proiect Distribution:
Distribution:
S ecial Assessments - Frontage
$7 240.62
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$0.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$560.00
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$31,175.38
Storm Sewer Re airs/U rades
$6,944.00
TOTAL
$45,92D.00
Submittedfor your consideration:
\ /
Russell Kelm, PE
Douglas Nelson, PE
Design Engineer
Engineering Manager
Pt%PROJECTSW-PROJU9540%Design',Dres'dessibility Repod.DOC
357'
- 3 - OCTOBER 9, 2001
CUR$, GUTTER & OVERLAY ON 5TH PLACE NW
FROM 16TH AVE NW TO CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NW
P:SPROJECTSU-PROJU954OTesignk0ocstfeasibility Report.DOC
3�-&'
— 4 — OCTOBER 9, 2001
A
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6205-4-99A Date: October 9 2001
J No: 9540
Description: Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 5th Place NW
from 16 Ave NW to Civic Center Drive
Feasibility
Cost
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ G 0-59
$34.300.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$500.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$6,200.00
Sub Total
$41,000.00
g0.00
$0.00
En ineedn , Interest Con tin envies 12 %
$4,92D.00
'ti
TOTAL
$45,920.001
$0,001
$0.00
istribution:
ecial Assessments - Fronta a
IS
$7,240,62
$7,240.62
$7,240.62
ecial Assessments - Sidewalk
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
307 Sidewalk Replacement
$560.00
$0.00
$0,00
2200 Bitum!nous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$31,175.38
-$7,240.62
-$7,240.62
Storm Sewer Re2airs/UE2Tdes
$6,944.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$45,920.001
$0.001
$0.00
Distribution Percentages:
Special Assessments
15,77%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
City Street Share
84,23%
#DIV/01
#DIV/O!
TOTAL
100.00/6
#DIVlO!
#DIV/0!
Notes:
Notes
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
P:tPROJECTSW-PROJ\JS540%Deslgn\Docstfeasibility Repcn.DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 5th Place NW from 16th Ave NW to
Civic Center Drive NW (J9540)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6205-4-99A (J9540)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 5th Place NW from 16th Ave NW to Civic Center Drive NW
ITEM NO.
Z�--aa
PREPARED BY:
R Kelm ►"
Project Background
The existing street was reconstructed with sanitary sewer in 1961. Since then several rehabilitation projects have
added new concrete curb and gutter to portions of the street. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) rating of 30.
During a small project in October 1998 a request was made to complete the entire street segment. A survey of the
existing owners indicated fair support at that time. Based on the result of that meeting a second meeting was held
on October 9, 2001 with only one of the six owners present. The results from the meetings indicate support by the
abutting property owners.
Estimated Project Costs
Feasibility
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$34 300.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$500.00
Storm Sewer Repaim/Upgrades
$6 200.00
Sub Total
$41 000.00
JEntlineeiing, Interest Contingencies 12 %
$4 920,00
TOTAL
1 $45,920.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$7 240.62
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$0.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$560.00
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! ci 0-59
$31 175.38
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$6 944.00
TOTAL
$45,920.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map
- - JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
J
DATE: 11-19-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
HEARINGS
City Clerk
—
N DESCRIPTION: Hearing for Assessing Weed Removal, Snow Removal, Debris Removal,
PREPARED BY:
Tree Removal, Impound Towing, Secure Property, and Sidewalk Repair
Eileen Schneider
This is a hearing to pass on the proposed assessments for the following projects:
Project 7021 - Weed Eradication $ 1,265.36
Project 7022 - Snow Removal $ 192.50
Project 7023 - Debris Removal $ 17,279.23
Project 7024 - Tree Removal $ 1,285.32
Project 7029 - Impound Towing $ 1,461.14
Project 7030 - Secure Property $ 75.00
Project 7035 - Sidewalk Repair $ 3,171.63
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to approve the prepared resolutions assessing properties for Weed Removal, Snow
Removal, Debris Removal, Tree Removal, Impound Towing, Secure Property, and Sidewalk
Repair
ent INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/19/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
G
t
M DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY AQKINS
h�
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
i
I
i
a) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 198.21 Acres of Land Legally
Described as a Part of the South Half of Section 4 and a Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4,
Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located North of
65t" Street NW along the West Side of Highway 52; North of Bandel North First Subdivision along
the East Side of Highway 52.
I+""b) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 134.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
I tin g to Prohibited Parking. .c)
An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 58.05 Acres of Land Located in
a Part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter and the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 29, Township 107 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property
Located South of Viola Road, East of Century Hills and West of Haverhill Subdivision.
jAn Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 98.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
Relating to the Electric Utility Franchise.
G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS
i
I
JNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: