HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2001_Regulara
CJ
CITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL
COUNCIL/BOARDBOARD CHAMBERS l
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 24
Regular
PAGE
1 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
December 3, 2001
7:00 P.M.
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
2-6 1. Funding Request/Rochester Area Housing Council
7-8 2. Petition for Curb/Gutter and Overlay— 16'/2 Street N.W.
D)
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1.
Approval of Minutes
10-11
2.
Appointment to Housing Board of Appeals
12-23
3.
Appointments to Newly Organized Historic Preservation Committee
24-29
4.
Study of High Speed Rail Connection Between Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport and Rochester International Airport
30
5.
Revised Weatherstone Phase 1 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond
Resolution
31
6.
Revised Weatherstone Phase 2 Final Bond Resolution
32
7.
Licenses, Bonds, & Miscellaneous Activities
33
8.
On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor for Dos Amigo's Mexican
Restaurant #2, Inc.
34
9.
Accounts Payable
35
10.
Approval to Advertise for Bids for Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and
Anhydrous Ferris Chloride
36
11.
Mileage Allowance
37
12.
Request to Initiate Rezoning to a Special District (SD) in the 55t'
Street Estates Subdivisions
38-39
13.
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
40
14.
Donation for Police Department Honor Guard Unit
41-48
15.
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
49-54
16.
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: Curb, Gutter, &
Overlay on 17'/z Street NW from 215t Ave NW to 19t' Ave NW (J9842)
55
17.
Advertise for Bids/Purchase of up to 28 Buses
(Federal Project #MN-03-0076, MN-90-x131, MN-90-x142
56 18.
Advertise for Bids: (J2467) Construction of Regional Stormwater
Pond at IBM, south of 415t Street NW
57 19.
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Dr. Sean Breanndan Moore &
Mary T. Moore
58 20
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Richard A. & Judith Loomis
59 21.
Stormwater Management Agreement
60 22.
Interim Development Agreement — Buddhist Support Society, Inc.
61 23.
Municipal Parking Lot Ordinance Amendments
62 24.
Parking Restrictions on Highland Court SW
63 25:
Land Acquisition — Settlement for Forest Hills Sewer Project (J9748)
64 26.
Engineering Service Agreements for City Traffic Signal Project at
CSAH 22 & 8
E) HEARINGS
65-81 1.
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-06,
by Western Walls, Inc. to amend the Plan from "Medium Density
Residential" to "Commercial' on property.
82-92 2.
Zoning District Amendment #01-13 by Western Walls, Inc. to rezone from
the B-5 to the B-4 land.
93-114 3.
Amendment to General Development Plan #155 by Western Walls, Inc.
known as Grandville at Cascade Lake to change the commercial use in
the southeast corner of the development.
115-145 4.
Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon Oaks
First Subdivision.
146-151 5.
Final Plat #01-33 by Todd Ustby to be known as Cedar Creek
Townhomes CIC 183 First Amended CIC Plat.
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
152-180 1, Request by North American Realty to Appear Before the City Council
regarding Stormwater Management Issues Surrounding Essex
Estates 5"' Subdivision
G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
181
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
MEETING
DATE: 1:
0
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 fast to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this foru n 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.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
E DASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions Administration
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Funding Request/Rochester Area Housing Council PREPARED BY:
s. Kvenvold
The Rochester Area Housing Council is requesting $5,000 from the City of Rochester to help fund their
2002 activities (see attached). Mary Vlazny is the chairperson of this organization and will be present to
speak to this request.
I am hesitant to recommend approval of the request since I can envision this entity becoming another
annual funding commitment for the City organization.
I recommend that the council deny this request. The money to carry out the Housing Councils' activities
should be funded by the dues from member organizations, which may cause the Housing Council to
increase their membership fees.
COUNCIL ACTION: Moeon by: Second by: to:
RochesterArea Housing Council
Rochester Area Housing Council
2002 Proposed Budget Revenue
Dues Fees from Member Organizations $1,700.00
Grant Reauests
Mcknight Foundation
2,000.00
Minnesota Housing Partnership
1,500.00
SE/SC Initiative Fund
1,000.00
Rochester Area Foundation
1,000.00
City of Rochester 5,000.00
Total Proposed Revenue $12,200.00
In Kind donations 6,750.00
j
Council Members:
Area Faith Corm.... nitics
Cin Admir"I'ol un
Cnnunumt, Ihm,mte Parm,,,mp
Dnrmha nub Hume
Hahimt litr Humanity
OlnWed Cnunt, Huosing Rcdoelopmem Auih,,m,
Olntsmd Comt, S"ial .Senia.•s
Planning and Zuninp Cumntis.iun
Nnide Industry Ctumcil
RtahcsLL•r Arcn Chmnher ul Cumntera
Rodtesler Aren Rmndatinn
Rochester City Council
Southern MN Regional Lqul Services
The SAantiun Army
Weis Management Cmpmation
Winner'. Shelter
500 1/111 nyenue JUL kilo 114 • llooberler. lllintiomea 55901 • (507)292-5147 a email: jliil���emnpio,or2
Rochester Area Housing Council
October 17, 2001
Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator
Room 266, City Hall
201 Fourth Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mr. Kvenvold:
Council Members:
Area Faith Cnnnnunitien
City AJmini.trniun
Cot nd, Rowing Pannenhip
Dnruth} Da, Hour
Hantat for Romani,
Urnmed Caunly Hnuning R,de,al,pitenl Authorn%
Dlin..t'd Count, Stwial Set, ice,
Planning and Zoning Cunnnis.ion
Prictnc Intltutry Cnu nail
Ruchc.lrr Amu ChamherulCnninterce
Rocha,ler Ama Fmndatinn
Rnchemer City Council
Southern ,NIN Regional Legal Services
The Salvation Army
Weis Management Carpamtinn
Wnmen's Shelter
On behalf of the Rochester Area Housing Council, I would like to submit this request for
funding during the 2002 fiscal year.
We are asking for $5,000.00 in support to be funded from the City's Contingency fund.
With the in -kind contributions and membership fees, the City Contribution would amount
to approximately 30% of the overall budget for 2002.
While it is understood that the budget process is underway, discussions held with City
Staff indicated that forwarding this information to you now would be helpful. Included
you will find an Executive Summary about the Rochester Area Housing Council, its
activities and funding supporters.
If you have any questions regarding the information, please contact myself at 281-7396
or Mary Vlazny, Chairperson at 288-7372.
Thank you for your considerations in this matter.
Sin rely,
Dary Jensen
500 IIIh i7m.wo 114U. XV110 114 • '74cheller, 011nnem1a 55901 ^ (507,42925167 • email. jtrlliz>r r �>a.arJ
5
ROCHESTER AREA HOUSING COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Rochester Area Housing Council was originally conceived and formed around the
Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and a grant from the Mcknight
Foundation. This grant to Olmsted County continuing through December 2001 was to
create a partnership of organizations that assists working families to make a transition
from welfare to work. This effort included resources for transportation, childcare,
mentorships, on the job training, access to affordable housing and other support items.
The Rochester Area Housing Council formed in late 1998. It adopted a vision, mission
statement, goals and membership criteria in June of 1999. The primary focus of the
council is to ensure that housing resources are available at all economic levels with a
focus on low and moderate -income households.
Membership for the council is drawn from a majority of organizations and groups most
affected or having an impact on today's housing issues. Organizations include the
Salvation Army, Community Housing Partnership, Olmsted County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Rochester
Administration, Women's Shelter, Dorothy Day House, Rochester City Council,
Rochester Area Builders, Southeastern Minnesota Realtor Association, Habitat for
Humanity, Church of St. John's, First Homes Olmsted County Social Services, Rochester
Area Chamber of Commerce, Community Net, Interfaith Hospitality Network.
Informational copies of meeting notes, agendas and issue papers are provided to RAEDI,
The United Way and the Rochester Area Foundation.
The Council has focused on issues of raising community awareness to housing issues
through sponsorship and coordination of many local, regional and statewide efforts.
These individual efforts are annotated on the following page.
ROCHESTER AREA HOUSING COUMCIL
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
Community Outreach
• Organized and sponsored forum discussions on Community Land Trusts and Inclusionary Housing
• Co -sponsored the play "Like Waters Rolling Down" combined with panel discussion regarding
Affordable Housing efforts in Rochester
• Provided recommendations to Rochester City Council on individual housing organization's needs
and summary views of housing activities
• Sponsored seminar on housing development, design and planning for local developers, bankers
and builders in partnership with CUDE
• Coordinated and produced video about affordable housing collaborating with students from
Century High School and the RITS system. Video is used for educational presentations combined
with handouts.
• Local membership in "Housing Minnesota" a campaign designed to raise awareness of Public
Officials, Community Members and Policy Makers to the importance of providing and funding
affordable housing development.
• Annually sponsor recognition awards to area organizations who support, produce and develop
affordable housing in our community
Community Support
• Provided contribution to First Homes housing development project
• Provided support to Interfaith Hospitality Network which provides overnight shelter space and
daycare facilities to homeless families
• Provide support to the Olmsted County Homeless Response Team's efforts to create a tenant
education program for households wanting to amend their past rental history.
• Acted as local representative for Statewide conference of Minnesota Rural Partners organization.
Manned informational booth about Rochester and its housing programs combined with visitor
information.
• Served as sponsor for local Workforce Development Conference while staffing informational
booth.
• Provide Community Housing Resource Book to Social Service Providers
• Represented SE Minnesota at housing rally in the Capital Rotunda, St. Paul
Funding
The Housing Council generates operating funds through membership fees, grants and operating support
requests. In addition, it receives in kind contributions from member organizations in the following
estimated amounts:
Workforce Development
$ 1,500
OCHRA
1,200
Rochester Area Chamber
750
The Salvation Army
goo
Community Housing Partnership
1,500
City Administration 1,000
Through these in kind donations, memberships fees and our grant request we estimate that our operating
budget for 2002 will remain as it has
for previous years.
//
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
A )A 5ECTION: wMwli r 1 nw ., . 1. .. _._..._.
Letters and Petitions City Clerk �2 _ —2
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Curb/Gutter and Overlay - 16 1/2 Street N.W. PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
A petition was received from property owners whose homes face 16 '/2 Street N.W. requesting the
City to initiate a curb/gutter and overlay project for the street.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition for curb/gutter and overlay work
on 16 '/z Street N.W. to the Public Works Department for a feasibility report.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to:
C urb / iv-14 OveYl4y
/G y sri /f/✓✓ l
N
�•-Jam..-E.r L� ..�d ���d���sr ,- ���
/e %z Sr.
/Vi
Qr�rY\el
t2�
'Awes
�aC- lcl ST - �vrt� .a:f J n�e. ✓ J�v c�l� /3
✓ � YI G yQi / r+L' � �M G J i�Y ltt� (j'/G�r% L✓k' y r
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
C.
Meeting
DATE: 12-03-01
Ae'rNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO:
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D -1-26
ITEM 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. Appointment to Housing Board of Appeals
D-3. Appointments to Newly Organized Historic Preservation Committee
D-4. Study of High Speed Rail Connection Between Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport and
Rochester International Airport
D-5. Revised Weatherstone Phase 1 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Resolution
D-6. Revised Weatherstone Phase 2 Final Bond Resolution
D-7. Licenses, Bonds, & Miscellaneous Activities
D-8. On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor for Dos Amigo's Mexican Restaurant #2, Inc.
Accounts Payable
). Approval to Advertise for Bids for Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Anhydrous Ferris Chloride
D-11. Mileage Allowance
D-12. Request to Initiate Rezoning to a Special District (SD) in the 55th Street Estates Subdivisions
D-13. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
D-14. Donation for Police Department Honor Guard Unit
D-15. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
D-16. Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 17Y2 Street NW from
21't Ave NW to 19t" Ave NW (J9842)
D-17. Advertise for Bids/Purchase of up to 28 Buses
(Federal Project #MN-03-0076, MN-90-xl31, MN-90-xl42 't
D-18. Advertise for Bids: (J2467) Construction of Regional Stormwater Pond at IBM, south of 41 Street
NW
D-19. Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Dr. Sean Breanndan Moore & Mary T. Moore
D-20. Pedestrian Facilities Agreement— Richard A. & Judith Loomis
D-21. Stormwater Management Agreement
D-22. Interim Development Agreement— Buddhist Support Society, Inc.
D-23. Municipal Parking Lot Ordinance Amendments
D-24. Parking Restrictions on Highland Court SW
D-25. Land Acquisition — Settlement for Forest Hills Sewer Project (J9748)
D-26. Engineering Service Agreements for City Traffic Signal Project at CSAH 22 & 8
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
4`140A SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational Business
Mayor's Office
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Appointment to Housing Board
of Appeals
ayorCanfield
I hereby submit for
appointment to the
your approval the following
Housing Board of Appeals:
Thomas E. Maddock
2509 6th Avenue NW
Mr. Meddock will fill
the expired term of Sylvia Quirk
The two year term
will run to 4/l/03
COUNCIL ACTION: mmian ey:
S*=4 by: m:
/-?/=A;i' - J9017',z1
\lacer Chuck Canfield how
201 Ith Street SE - Roum 231 W.- NEW a cm
RnrlteNwi, NIN 5590.1-3782
'ILi� 607i '45-, 080 Fax: 6071 287-i9i9
�! �Y �J ROCHLETER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME: /QMAS C. /V�hocK — --------
ADDRESS: 05-09 6Tif A✓E lIJW
PHONE: BUS. LY :OME L,--P lcLg -
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER Lr_i!ITS- Y73 ?!0
FL -_-
q - 144G T�.a, ry *PLACE C5 EM?LOYbIEDiT: ll4tiG /-4�IT�{._-7���f,tiK-(..in(l-U, ' L,/�JGtJ
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE 0:1 -7-ticQ�(.Sl.6p:c�[L1Z
BECAUSE: .�r Am )/JTGg,--57%-7� JN 66��11C. A)cc)tli'L-'D
WI-r4 lW Clr4 A-7uB A-S A LOLA:L cLoj C7OiL_Lg LX6
-
ra i r elAr t) Q EFEL EX 0R.t aX C-c_
' iy r'HW S 6-TU%L P ,
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFOR!A-TION a;TFPZ�TS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PRE'vIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMN.(;b:I?Y INVOLVEMENT) Atta.:n addi'i ai
information, if desired.
,A,5, i�i G,,a, rn QccrG • ' ',y/10E.7� 7L� i. I N��Zi �'TCCYIo,tJ
��SIC>.0 � L-`�MFLLt/L`'1S iJ/Tl� VIJU,UG�S�i __L3 f y AOJstA�t
p!-hri5Z5. !LIOUOI lil I : (--tfe'SrcyL--_ J°I J{ ^r"Ot-i - GSA 117c:1.(•L
!� lz
L r'fV cC, �'�t li�C�L c�'F ICOCrit3TL:7t_,. FJ idc C.ACILi L.XC %�A�� &ZtA;(-
LN 9 7
�!.1V-Si.l: G-lS-M1W C.1->titPifllG 1 �rs�-�i,��.
DATE SUBMITTED: 11-30--4$ SIGNED:-S(
Return to: Office of the Mayer
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 559u=-3783
."i0"*FY1i♦<:+t.#Y.ii."iY"�i+i Yk�iA4Y*t.♦Rw♦•#.-....-.:I.af+1:-.r♦
DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
TERN EYPIRATION:
DYkER DATA: '
:NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
Organizational Business Mayor's Office
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Appointments to Newly Organized Historic Preservation Com
DEFnNG
A12/03/01
ITEM NO.
-�1
PREPARED BY:
Mayor Canfi
I hereby propose that the Historic Preservation Committee be
reorganized to develop a new mission and purpose that will
include the preservartion of our history by honoring our
pioneers, early settlers and historic figures, and also to
act as advocates for re -use of historic buildings so that they
remain economically viable.
Council approval is requested for appointment of the following
volunteers to serve as members of the Historic Preservation
Committee:
Jeff Allman
323 South Broadway
Lora Beaupre'
1104 SW 6th Street
Christopher Colby
1925 Baihly Esrtates Lane SW
Larry Gifford
317 6th Avenue SW
Richard Hanson
1505 15 1/2 Avenue NW
Timothy Hornseth
4425 Copperfield Lane NW
Donna Melin
1211 First Street NW
Sylvie Nickel
125 NW llth Avenue
(Two to three persons will be named by the Olmsted County
History Center)
COUNCIL ACTION: Mcdon cy Second
Nlayor Chuck Canfield blftd
201 •tth Street SE - Room 281 ett-+NERIG CITY
Rochester, %IN 55904-3782
Phone: (507)285-8080 Fax: 1507) 287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPL%C�.TTON
NAN
A=zES3: .'y _ ` . r•t'Ufti:�t)IW r auv ar_r� > __
2HOZ;E: BUS. Z�= 'i HOME 21L)2-1 •1
�ESIOE W-TriCIT_` LIM!IS YES NO!
PLACE OF EMPLO'YMENT:'VI`•l-'�"'� i �'`�f�l�-f"�.; 1y
Ef—
I ?N SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON Al'..j TT.L,
3E:AC3E• ,�h '.�-EUd'cC.Or'(%,�Lj`u7i 1. 5i(:hFii•T{.____.__
Gs- i'�; , ,�.1�'.i w_i... Vt�. ..{!`�C•J��.•l�•'i�Ti.-1 �:y:_ �" Lir a'A'��n i�^.'Rj �.� F.�-�.i.J
�,.G �.u>-'-� T Yt�.E*'> ;:.C.zr. F•rur. 1u�t,�•\..+:,-Fr, _U_tv_uI-7iv C
?LASE P?:i!IC� i3ACKGdGU;dO I'NF�2*'L1T_JN ('Wi TIttzch
=; E'iEMENTS, 7RE�i70G5 Et".2L07>'.EN:, COMtSJiiI;Y ,�iEMEtd':) Atta:._h dddl:'anal
.. ^.'orTdt iOri, if d25:rE:CI..
j:1:, ^:r: �� �tilJ ��, - Y'i...- '�•r;'•rG�:.J Y{c:iL'.i,:' l:A% .af f4'r• Li T}"-•7i_.ti L6-�
JJ'i..Ll
-� E.uJ r [_.r:- cyG i [7r Al :.ErS f) :k.D�.t't't1 rt'-� t �:1'..P-'f'S f�tE1-i.P�t.1t�E{� P•0 F rci'�C•t i��S
1
�•. c.�.r�sz�� �.iG; ,.rr�� '�: �r2_--�'__,��-£�r'1 �,_c'.v1.'.E�.
GATE SUBMITTED: ,•I %A.''i SIGNED:
t/
Return to: Office of the Mayor
201 4th Street BE
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
raasaaa•arr•aaaea.a�•aar raaaa•aaaa as ra aaaa as as raa as as rars•r•a aaaa
CATS OE APPQINTNENT:
TEA.•1 f.X?IAATION:
.� 0,. it -..r i = t ' _ hl ya-�`•;v".
OTH t1z
1 l a W 1 a "'R'�If i ez n, w vm rsL i
r -i -nl r -. ty -r f �.+ i.'��''�'�tt •.Y+. ; 1 I I f .I �I11 l
�'_ I if K'^ Ki �� s- i It lt�f s„<Z iiE i'�.��,�•ey�}. y„ �u �,� yJ� .y; .��
. i^r -- .. �. �*l. -.... ._v .,. � .- -1 .�-�� ..�ii.'t��s..t•-.il:..'S . _ ). . �-.. a3° ><F-w� t �`2�4L?_`+�.Y i+.Y.t4i�'a..'.. i .: i ._
%41
`(IevatcA-e'
,Tr• �-rl,7J'''r�
Mayor Chuck Canfield
201 Ith Street SE - Rootn 281 « wre¢.rrm'
Rochester, MN 5590.1-9782
Phone:(507)285.8080 Fay:15071'287.7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME:
ADDRES
PHONE: BUS. HOME _ �b -.•S .� /�G'Ci
is-/-1�1/ -
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES NO_
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT:_1h Cl INL ,.,i _
L AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON Ke.SF���� I luL1 o'f 6ILLZLS IN C•C.`1
S LCk &e., "d I.-e
(L LL 6L
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROON5 INFGR"1A%r CJa (EDOCATLON, S?ECIAL. INTERESTS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INriOLVc"ME?IT) nttach additional.
information, if dasired.
t 4- 4K•- 1
f ' lid.
r r tI I'
fir,
AV
�.-�1•� 1 L Via,, tr, ter,
DATE SUBMITTED: b SIGNED:
4
turn to: Office of the Na_Dr
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, NN 55904-3762
.#iYi#rr#♦/++#f1#+#4v+i.+4#+#i#+4#}##Mfi #+i4#+#M+Y
l++kt+fY i#t#+4r,Y#
;DATE OF APPOINTMENT:_
TERN EXPIRATION:
'
OTHER DATA:
`
T
�I•
� - 4 1� I I
1�� t
"s
f�)
Mayor Chuck Canfield
201 -Ith Street SE - Room 281 Au-AMENIEA (M
Rochester. %I\ 55904-3782
Phone: (507)28..5-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME; Christopher W. Colby
:,DDRESS: 1925 Baihly Estates Lane SW - Rochester, MN 55902.
PHONE: BU5.288-6464 HOME -2$0-8176
CO YOU RESIOE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES X NO
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: Yaggy Colby Associates
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON Rochester Public Library Board
BECAUSE: I am currently a member of the Li brar #y FD_QnAg -jMj_jjD rd-_
and have found it to be an interesting and challenging area to
provide volunteer service to the Rochester community._ -
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY .INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional
information, if desired.
See attached Resume/Binaranhv
DATE SUBMITTED: 11/09/01 SIGNED:
Return to: Office of the Mayor
201 4th Street ISSSSSE
Rochester, MN {55904-3 92
- ii•Yiie*sY�i Yii*i iYYYYi YY iii*i�iit*iiiiii ii11i4i iii iiili ii i*i 4iiYii
DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
TERM EXPIRATION!
l HER DATA:•.' _
r` r `
`_. .�ii. .'}s }. '..r-.)?1.�. .._ � ,... .. __. .._ $} rl....?jA.Nf ,. .. T ... c.: "`�T. �..-...•p. �.t^�J ,�..)>��. r.:.�i.��, Y..
November 9, 2001
CHRISTOPHER W. COLBY, AIA
PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY
PROFESSIONAL
Chris is Director of Architecture and Executive Vice President of Yaggy Colby Associates, a Rochester
based architecture and engineering firm in Minnesota.
Prior to becoming a partner at Yaggy Colby Associates, Chris had his own architectural firm in Rochester.
Before that he worked for Weis Companies, HGA, and KKE Architects of Minneapolis.
EDUCATION
1966 - Graduate of Coon Rapids High School (with his wife Suzanne)
1972 - Graduate of University of Minnesota with Bachelor of Arts in Design and Bachelor of
Architecture degrees
Chris is a registered Architect and Interior Designer in Minnesota. He also holds architectural registration in
14 states in the north central and western United States.
ORGANIZATIONS
Chris is a member of the following:
• American Institute of Architects
Construction Management Association
Minnesota Shopping Center Association
Advisory Board for the National Trust for Historic Preservation
• Rochester Chamber of Commerce Ambassadors
Board Member, Baihly Estates Homeowners Association
Member, Rochester Committee on Urban Design and Environment (CUDE)
Member, Rochester Public Library Foundation Board
Chris is a former member of the following:
President of the Minneapolis Chapter, American Institute of Architects (AIA)
Board Member of the AIA Minnesota
Member and Chairperson for the Rochester Planning Commission
Rochester Mayor's Committee on Urban Environment
Rochester Chamber of Commerce Ambassadors
PERSONAL
In 1977, Chris moved his family to Rochester to work for Weis Companies. He briefly lived in Eagan and
has been back in Rochester since 1944. He married in 1968 (yes, 30+ years!) to Suzanne, who is the Owner
and Stylist at Images Hair Artistry of Rochester. Chris and his wife have one daughter, Kelly, who is
married and lives in the Twin Cities. Grandchildren are in the works. Chris and Suzanne designed and built
a new house in southwest Rochester in 1999.
Chris is an avid sports fan. He played softball, hockey, and tennis until his knees recently force retirement.
Because of this, he now enjoys golf and biking and being a spectator fan for all kinds of sports.
Mayor Chuck Canfield how
201 40h Street SE - Room 281 ALL-AMFR1CA C7r1'
Rochester. %l V 55904-$782
Phone: (507)285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME: AD
ADDRESS:
PHONE: BUS. HOME
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YESNO_
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: !'r'.7ys ! i'6 9 •%Ir d! i Tl .L-f• '< -'J �'Z-Li-`.�i1)
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON
BCA E U'E"
� J
44 -% �fJ. ��✓'LL. �y
% .� Esc Z� 4 •z c Diu lit: LC [ CAL lLCAGZ <ti GY L. Lc �//
f r C-C•.L,r c'L...i: i.f[ c. LLB .t �L(/ : %�LL.CcLe'/4o •'cC1,c.�-
'.j
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGR ND FOPTI N EDUCATION, SPECIAL INT.cREST3r //,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EM OYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additicna'_lL t .
if desired.
infor-atio^, r
„
LL c^..r_ L�_r'r+-.e. '-•-��-t.l' _t/Ecr ['
LLI-
-(' 7"
If
�4
a
DATE SUBM: -mTED:SIGNED: �.
'
Return to: Office of the r_..-c
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
aaaaaa aaaaaafaaaaaaa a�aaa ra aia Loaf aaaaaa as iiiaaaiwaa�akfaMa kaaaaa
DATE of AP?oia'TMENT:
i
TERM EX MTI00
f
OTHER Oa A.
' t.
T t a 1 i
NAME:
_-9 -
ROCHESTER
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
RICHA.RD A HANSON '
1505 15' AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901
PHONE: HOME 507 291 2971 BUSINESS 507 288 6611 _
DO YOU RESIDE IN THE ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES X NO
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: OWNER - HANSON BUILDERS & REMODELERS
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
BECAUSE I am i.nterested i.rl iii.stori.c preservati.oll, arid because
of my business I am interested i.n preservi.ng our lieri.tage both _
i.n resi.denti.al and the business aspects of Rochester. _
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF
IRED
DE5
I have lived my enti.re life i.n Rochester, and have been i.n busi-ness
here since 1962 In oast years I vas Veryin movie❑ and re-
R i'ori ilQ t}le HEritaG2 Hnii82 i_j] �'�*�*rat Park. S7a;;a_Gt_l.SS1Il-r}� •nnl. rig
+t,P r hoar at
Board. lnc nl�ed in the � rnent ry �rngram and cat ^• � d-
the �ommuni.t_Colleae, Member of the Chamber of Commerce and a_very
active memh r of th RochPat'- A nnildS.
--�P
� r�inrr as brPsidPnt from 19Fi7-1g6q. sPrvPd nitrnnntlr rn-^ es
or1P tiny or annthrr chaired moat of them .. ?rn an a"*ALP
member of. Bethel Lutheran Church, and am interested i.n the past and
future of this city.
G
Date Submitted: 5/22/00 Signed:
Return to: Office of the Mayor
201 4m Street SE
Rochester, Mn 55904-3782
\\\\\\\\\Y\\YY\\\\\Y\Y\\\\\Y\\\\\Y\\Y\\\Y\\Y\\\Y\\\\Y\\\\YY\\\YY\\Y\\\\Y\\Y\\\1
Date of Interview:
Other Data:
\facer Chuck Ha nma
Room 200. City H. ll
Rochester, Minnesota %chPffei-
CSTY OF � OCHESTER —�,
J O L UN T E E R
NAME:
AP P L S CAT S O N •,
ADDRESS: `ILI15- �oldc� P�c� L 2? tiA✓
PHONE: BUS. ),N-3,3'1$ HOME 5-36- 034c(
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YESLY NO_
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: Ib4}nl5 4 /1/wbL
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON 5+Q t't'r pre 5cl✓A Cd 1 �^"? t�lra
BECAUSE:
A
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL
INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information,
/if1 desired.. /
A4 V,n e i`-ti
0
0L a's I � 05 <C r lO�ts
✓e /4
DATE SUBMITTED: 1111 1,)j SIGNED:
OATS OT AppOIFPf 2
TM X"1MTTWI:
mn DATA:
Return to: Office of the Mayor
Room 200, City Hall
Rochester, MN ' 55902
{
s3�
}
i-�z
7I I
�t-1
\(acor Chuck Canfield haft
201 IEh Sweet SE - Room 281 ALL-ANERICA CITY
Rorhesrer, JIN 55904-3782
Phone:(5071285-8080 .Fas:(507)287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
A:
ADDRESS:
PH ON BUS. HOME
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES /NO
() P /
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT'
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON :7j?'f''•', �liC�'.= AI•':�r�':"IC CC'%�//'' .'/-
BECAUSE: A
l(�r= ��•:'C�%?�:i %s fi� %":..a'%i/=i {%hrY I I _.� -
Ar'vi. r,/A,.
a
- C 7 IN Z::
PLEASE PROVIDE HAC.'.GRCUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS,
ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional
informatio.n, if desired.
DATE SUBMITTED:
G r: i' SIGNED:
Return co: Office of the
201 4th Street
Rochester, MN
55904-3782
ra a: a: aaa:a a.iaa•aa aafaaaf♦
t _;+
jVi ./'� S <. I ( � ,' I. .' !. -L. �'_ C'. �/ r �u �'v /. �'! \r f• �;..
.) y �1::•'. Lif':.'•/
j
~( i f.'i;(: ct, _Iv7G',!:.�_e /J,".t�;u'iLTr.L•'f--. i `:.:�(L4 J7ffJl: ,i.%; 1:11• r.�i'C i, c..
�/'��(.L.,'/.. f�• rro:li!r!n'C.
'j C't2 Ott r'f'
,G'
f 11••„ Y:'-- =7 h:1�. •�;. !L1 -(,.� ^,1>f
1
_—
to j-=.. � ;.ry; i..., i ta•F.I : cc%.rl��._ c.
VA R Frl
'� (}, {.17'�?�j•i! � jir.�n�i, r'.t61.r,'�`i.`•A,('M'-�!t�f4F �l [I � �l_ LZ %!'ii:;
�✓/SL
+ .I
!a"/:!
�•�r•
'' � rt1.L'ivc7 i� �, �'.�L CA{,•'iL `'•F:t� .,,,
f -ate_. - '.
1 �_ • A. /.r cl
—
17
i:.(,..: /iF:.l' ,`'r.'(Jil..,�.:%:.,
%
6L"s' « '•„7 n! rs' .
� /.
E (°fit; _ ,,':.!':2ct.:•:' ., y'/�. ;p. !i :.c:�>>,u,.i /a. n�::�
"dn;
7�ct.,c/L.
•Llf
f
'' f I•.(�.i.. Lit.ti. ci' Ib I+ ow, l'•'. •.C' 1}.f_.'.L't.. i/`• �'L.�'h �'1.�::
I
r !
!
, r
�L= �iY�i °: !lyric+: /.4Gp� L/Kr.! �r�C<.. i l.' �•:�ri:> %�;; '�.�
/1 �'hG..SLi{r�-f2in'iti7i 'LG+n;rr'a�'[�!,' {% �iG76�!'�.:. �'G"G,�•34��` 1,:�4:.;/ C6j7�` :i :,:Y^:::rif G��4::
tin I i
}�� 7%:d!
.'Nijli-� ��:�%il�ii-c��l•Y.(.�'�, L%'!!.:% !'1;i7? !r'�14'G✓ � %r[,'t.'�'G,:t7c'Y` .LI%rlJz:'. /L' 'r''Y ?_� Gri',
�i,(.� ,j'rrv_�/ ;'4; !�!:".:Y ry/I,�}, (,GCCI�l�%L7 t' �.!i-�d>'ur !/ 'L':��L'77." •env 3 V
"..� j^i::'; d ./,� i2 YGF' <n CL- �?�.JLL' I;tGGY�1.�'/sJ•1 .''/'�l1 � G'iZl'�,</-� ! � i .�:j'�k, � GI !]c��/f'•�=� i
G!' r1}!+.' ��Gi�Li �c� /j`�_�$ [�j.ZL'Sl.C%— xi'%�G�ft'.� .�:cLC!,' .��1'i•sl�rJsZfi�..!� ��? %`� /fi•.T��
w L n 4 N ✓ e•--t. � .r. ,!
=��tr✓�•.J Vj �7j�.:C ,_ Sr• ;lry 44('.i%�
la. J✓%'1;,(i.: /,'..J. (.�t�/Y///rY:�6i:!%L G.:./G''. LL� %`, �•� �!•YCi'- r.`L�'� uL'n, �Z /:li 7'Il �, �.(/�i.' yti:?'i
L:l•C�.'. i`s ��E7 ;�lcc�'�L@.'' y%' (�I,' 7r']Yr.:'✓3Fj.rr GAL G!icZ•1(o "✓Jr"1'c%^:(G�/7/ fit',: /`i e(74
1 r ••l p
(rlGk�,�i.'%r' �ti�7i 1 Q�:CCi.:i/ G9af�G
7/i
/; ''Sri-• -&, '.t (,. ., :��: Ssl. ! �'. �3' /i?i; �r �.lr f�' Lfid`./,Sri i. o-rs1 ., v' 1. •r • <L%� ..
r
r_1 k;. �r ) J L'/J4.: % '�i .4 I f ` •wiin' i _:/'' ',1�'/ n�"rr'r/.f � .p'`j.
,f: ., irn,J!�1/ L ,/� . ; w /`�'f:./.. .�'.+' .G'•r:"'fJC2'7? � :,.,....< w '-/j,: ,. �..lV ! /iJ.o. ,.E. r�
!.t•Iti 4e
\14" fiP./ GC`%!:' i%7 U.? s;�/:{.G�7 `li /Lv.�lru-tG/i CrtL.''>/:�<•
�., t' f .../J' '�i q /,l! .J, /. i �S •�' C.r ^y� r nt r ny' riil�'
'C�J•. 'U c;.✓r (, .�C":•-� G1. ,�•'S.l•!�!,,.. 0� g: f,Gg1�:ns-_•,J�•-� � LC`M,CY/�Ci .c.!ryr1 i� `(¢
'1�lL�ll�n�%�<+IDii?!iL!IG�iU' L!Gil/G41i�c �V(t/ii�Giylil l�:l, l!G2
" Y
\-JYm"� �
MEETING -�?
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 1213/01
A DA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NAEBY
CONSENT AGENDA
Administration
_
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Study of High Speed Rail Connection Between Minneapolis/St. Paul
PREPAInternational
S. KveRepresentatives
Airport and Rochester International Airport
from the Rochester area and the Minneapolis/St. Paul area have been
the past couple of years to review how the Rochester Airport and Minneapolis/St. Paul airport would
meet the long range demand for regional air services by linking and utilizing the existing airport
facilities.
A study is proposed to determine the feasibility of connecting the above referenced airports with a
high-speed rail line to move passengers and cargo. The primary purpose of the study is to determine
if such a rail link can provide a viable transportation option for the Rochester and Minneapolis/St. Paul
metropolitan areas.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will serve as the contract administrator and
project manager for the study. The cost of the study is not to exceed $125,000, with MnDOT
providing $100,000 and the City providing $25,000.
The City's share of the project cost would be appropriated from the Airport profit/loss account.
Council Action Requested:
Request a motion adopting the prepared resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
an agreement with MnDOT to do the study and authorizing the City's share of the expenditure.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to:
Twin Cities to Rochester -A High Speed Rail Connection
Mn/DOT Office of Passenger Rail Transit
Problem Statement:
The growth in passenger air travel at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport
(MSP) is increasing. More than 30 million travelers use the airport each year, and by the
year 2010 more than 40 million travelers will use MSP. To accommodate this growth,
existing airport facilities are being renovated and expanded not only in the passenger
market but in the air cargo markets, as well.
MSP serves as an important gateway to the region, the nation and to emerging global
markets. At some point the current facility, even with all the planned improvements, will
reach its practical limits, Adding additional runways, gates, parking lots and air cargo
facilities is expensive and raises many environmental issues.
A possible solution to this problem is the development of high-speed rail service to
move passengers and cargo to a less congested reliever airport. The question to be
addressed is whether a high-speed rail link between MSP and Rochester International
Airport can attract sufficient ridership to warrant public capital investments and results in
tangible reductions in airport congestion.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of connecting Minneapolis -St.
Paul International Airport to Rochester International Airport with a high-speed rail line to
move passengers and cargo. The primary goal of this study is to determine such a rail
link can provide a viable transportation option for the Twin Cities and Rochester
metropolitan areas.
Area of Study:
The area of study is from the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport in the Twin
Cities to the Rochester International Airport, seven miles southwest of the City of
Rochester, MN. The east and west boarders of the study is a broad swath from TH 52
to 1-35, respectively.
Study Costs and Timellnes:
Funding for this study is linked to Hwy 52 Inter Regional Corridor from Rochester to St.
Paul, Funding for the study came from the transportation funding package approved by
state legislature in 2000. The study has been earmarked for $125,000 and must be
completed by June of 2003.
Study Methodology:
The study will assess the viability of a high-speed rail link between the two airports
within existing freight rail corridors and new right-of-way. The study will identify of
capital issues in terms of appropriate technology and facilities, and determine the
transportation impacts of a high-speed rail link.
Study Tasks:
1. Corridor Assessment
2. Technology/Equipment Assessment
3. Capital Infrastructure Needs Determination
4. Transportation System Impacts
5. Implementation Strategy
6. Final Report
Study Tasks, Cost Estimates and Timeframe:
TASK
COST ESTIMATE
% OF STUDY $
TIMEFRAME
1. Rail Corridor Assessments
$25,000
20%
4-6 weeks
2. Technology/Equipment
Assessment
$25,000
20%
4-6 weeks
3. Capital Infrastructure Needs
Determination
$37,500
30%
8-10 weeks
4. Trans ortation System Impacts
$12,500
10°k
6-8 weeks
5. Implementation Strategy
$7,500
6%
4-6 weeks
6. Final Re ort
$7,500
6%
4 weeks
7. Travel
$10,000
8%
STUDY TOTALS
$125,000
100%
30-40 Weeks'
* Some tasks will be performed concurrently.
Relevant Transportation Studies and Data Sources:
• Minnesota State Aviation System Plan —1999, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Office of Aeronautics
• MSP 2010 Plan, Metropolitan Airports Commission
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process — 1996, Metropolitan Airports Commission
• Tri-State High Speed Rail Stud y-2000, Mn/DOT
• Mayo Studies
• Rochester International Airport Studies
• Mn/DOT District 6 Studies
STAKEHOLDER AND PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS
Study Structure:
The contractor will be working with Mn/DOT's Project Manger regarding day-to-day
study activities. A study Steering Committee comprised of Mn/DOT and study
stakeholders will review the contractor's work products and share with the constituent
groups they represent, receive updates on a periodic basis and act as a guide for the
study. The contractor will be expected to make presentations to the Steering
Committee.
Study Stakeholders:
• Metropolitan Airports Commission
• Rochester International Airport Management
• Met Council
• Mn/DOT: Office of Passenger Rail Transit, Office of Freight, Railroads and
Waterways, Office of Aeronautics, Metro Division, District 6
• Area Planning Organizations (RCOG)
• Local Cities and Counties
• Elected Officials
• Business and Community Groups
External Communications:
All media requests for information or formal comments regarding the study will be
handled by Mary McFarland, Office of Communications. Project information will be
posted on Mn/DOT's external website and updated as needed.
Twin Cities to Rochester -A High Speed Rail Connection
MnIDOT Office of Passenger Rail Transit
SCOPE OF WORK
1.1 Corridor Assessment
The study team will use the RightTracV Interactive Analysis to assess the potential for
conventional, high speed (125-185 mph) and Maglev 300 mph in the corridor. The
TRACKMAN' program will be used to assess the existing and potential corridors for the
study. The database for the TRACKMAN° program will be obtained from existing
corridor studies (Tri-State High Speed Rail study) and other potential alignments
required to implement the high speed rail link from Twin Cities to Rochester Airports.
The proposed corridor alignments will be entered into the TRACKMAN' program and
will provide the baseline for the potential upgrade for conventional, high speed (125-185
mph) and 300 mph service.
1.2 Technology/Equipment Assessment
Once the database for existing conditions and the engineering conditions for
conventional, high speed (125-185 mph) and 300 mph Maglev service are estimated,
the LOCOMOTION program will be used to identify train times and schedules. The first
step in this process is to determine the latest performance criteria for the selected
technologies in terms of performance parameters; acceleration, deceleration and
horizontal curving; seating and other amenity criteria (e.g. on -board services); and as
operating and maintenance standards and needs (power supply, cleaning, crew needs,
on -board services, supply heeds, etc.).
Once the standards for the equipment are established, the LOCOMOTION TPC will
calculate train running speeds and train times. Using this information, basic schedules
will be developed using broad estimates of market potential. Schedules will reflect likely
levels of service needed to support the intercity inter -airport markets for passengers and
freight traffic. In developing these board market estimates, output from the Tri-State
High Speed Rail study — 2000, MnDOT will be used to prepare these preliminary
estimates.
1.3 Capital/Infrastructure Needs Determination
In this task, the team will assess the likely levels of Capital Infrastructure and Equipment
costs for the levels of service proposed in Task 2. The broad market assumptions will
be determined using TEMS Bell Curve Analysis of intercity ridership to identify at a
concept level the need for a double/triple track and the amount of equipment needed to �j r
meet service needs. /
The infrastructure costs will be estimated from unit costs previously developed by the
study team for the Tri-State High Speed Rail study — 2000 MnDOT, plus recent Maglev
study estimates developed by the study team for the recent FRA Maglev Demonstration
Project and specifically the Baltimore -Washington, Pittsburgh, Florida, and New Orleans
Maglev Feasibility Studies.
1.4 Transportation Systems Impacts
The analysis will identify the transportation system impacts associated with 'build' or'no
build' of the High Speed Rail Link. These build and no build alternatives will allow the
team to assess the transportation, financial, economic, and environmental benefits. The
transportation impact analysis will show the potential impact on highway and air
transportation modes, assess the financial costs of the system including capital and
operating costs, and will estimate FRA-approved economic benefits in non -parametric
terms. A full feasibility user benefit analysis will need to await a market study for the
corridor of both freight and passenger traffic.
1.5 implementation Strategy
In this task, the most appropriate steps for implementing a high-speed corridor link will
be assessed. This will set out the planning, engineering, and construction process
needed for the successful development of the corridor. The implementation strategy will
be defined by specific milestones and a critical path assessment of the requirements for
the implementation plan with next step recommendations will be prepared.
1.6 Final Report
The team will compose a final report will be prepared describing the study, its
databases, its methodologies, and its findings and conclusions. The report will be in
black and white with appropriate graphics and tables. The report will be 50 —100 pages
in length with a short two page executive summary that will provide a free standing
project description that the steering committee can use independent of the report.
Technical appendices will be provided as required. The final report will contain color
maps and will be made available in electronic format to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
5
MEETING
�C
DA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: REVISED WEATHERSTONE PHASE I MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BOND RESOLUTION
DATE: 12/3/01
IREPARED 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.
On November 19, 2001, the Council approved a resolution providing for this bond approval. Because of the
unique situation in the bond market at this time, the developer has found a bond purchaser that will allow a
floating interest rate and positive arbitrage that assists the developer by not requiring an up front payment to the
bondholder on a negative arbitrage.
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 the phase I multifamily housing project on behalf of Weatherstone Townhomes Limited
Partnership.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
AfDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM NO.
-D._ j(
ITEM DESCRIPTION: REVISED 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.
On November 19, 2001, the Council approved a resolution providing for this bond approval. Because of the
unique situation in the bond market at this time, the developer has found a bond purchaser that will allow a
floating interest rate and positive arbitrage that assists the developer by not requiring an up front payment to the
bondholder on a negative arbitrage.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
•Approval of Resolution for Tax Exempt Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond issuance of $20,000,000 to
Weatherstone Townhomes Limited Partnership - IL
•
COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: I
A( A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA ------------[CITY CLEKK D - i7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS AC fIVITIES PREPARED O
DONNA J SCHO fT
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 oolstandim,
debts with the City of Rochester.
GAMBLING — RENEWAL PREMISE
Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie #2228
409 151 Ave SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Creative Learning Ideas for Mind & Body (CLIMB)
6415 Carmen Ave E
Inver Grove Heights, Mn. 55076
PREMISE AT:
Colonial Lane
1828 14' St NW
Rochester, Mn 55901
MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
Compassionate Friends
Candle Lighting Memorial — Parents of Deceased Children
Peace Plaza-12/9/01 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM
Rochester, Mn. 55901
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses and miscellaneous city activities.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
N SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY CLERK
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ON SALE AND SUNDAY INTOXICATING LIQUOR FOR
DOS AMIGO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT #2, INC.
MEETING
DATE. 12.i'01 _
ITEM NO.
--
PREPARED BY:
DONNA J SCIIOII'
Application for an On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License has been received from Ruben
Leon. The name of the restaurant will be Dos Amigo's Mexican Restaurant #2, Inc. located at 20 41" St SF,
(Old Depot House) Opening of the restaurant is scheduled for the middle 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 has been satisfactorily returned.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License for Dos Amigo's Mexican
Restaurant #2, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ��
DATE: 1213/01
A( A 5LU I IUN:
Consent Agenda Finance Department T� _ C
Approval of Accounts Payable
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $2,095,544.32.
Less: Any exceptions
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
Dale Martinson
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 12/3/01
I DA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent agenda
Finance Department
ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE FORBIDS FOR LIQUID
PREPARED BY:
ALUMINUM SULFATE AND ANHYDROUS FERRIC CHLORIDE
Jennifer King
The Water Reclamation Plant requests approval to advertise for
furnishing the City ONE YEAR'S SUPPLY of ANHYDROUS FERRIC CHLORIDE
and LIQUID ALUMINUM SULFATE, according to the specifications.
Proposed bids will be opened at 11:00 a.m., on December 19, 2001, and
considered by the Common Council at 7:00 p.m., on January 7, 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for
bids for the Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Anhydrous Ferric Chloride.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
IDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Human Resources
") __ 11
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Mileage Allowance
PREPAREDJEBYLinda Gilsr
The IRS has increased the allowable deduction for reimbursable mileage effective 1/l/02.
In order to provide a competitive mileage allowance rate to City employees who drive their own vehicles for
work -related purposes, we recommend an increase in the City's mileage reimbursement rate from $.34/mile to
$.36/mile effective 1/l/02.
Council Action Requested:
Resolution authorizing an increase in the mileage reimbursement rate from $.34/mile to $.36/mile effective
111/02
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:-
MEETING 1
AGENDA SECTION:
ITEM
November 28, 2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
kevest to Initiate Rezoning to a Special
District (SD) in the 55th Street Estates
DATE: 12/3/01
ITEM NO.
'IL
PREPARED BY:
Phil Wheeler, AICP,
Background
I have been working with the 55`h Streets Estates Neighborhood over the past few months on a special zoning
district addressing most of the neighbor's desires to maintain a large lot lifestyle (accommodating horse
ownership, for example), while still allowing enough lot splits to justify municipal service extension. A majority
of the residents have signed a petition supporting the attached Special District language. There are a few
property owners who would prefer the R-1 zoning designation. At my suggestion, they are submitting the
petition tonight as a request for the Council to initiate the zoning district amendment.
The 55d' Street Estates Special District is an overlay district with the R-1 district as an underlying zoning
district. R-1 standards remain in effect except when altemate standards are specified in the Special District.
There are several Special District standards that differ from R-1 standards, including
> Permission to keep horses, goats, ponies, and/or llamas (with a requirement for adequate pasture area);
> Restrictions on accessory structure size matching the County's RA district;
> Accommodation of pasture in yard areas;
> Prohibition on office, medical, nursing, funeral home, and sand and gravel extraction uses;
> Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet;
• Maximum density and lot subdivision restrictions permitting only one additional lot per existing lot (one
alternative under consideration would allow two additional lots where the existing lot is abutted by
public roads for over 70% of the lot periphery); and
> Relaxed standards permitting easier creation of zero -frontage and flag lots.
Recommendation:
In order to address all of the zoning requests from the neighborhood at one hearing, the Council should initiate
an amendment to the zoning map to designate all of the property on the attached map as part of the Special
District. The Council should direct the Planning Department to publish the hearing notice for this matter in such
a way as to make it clear that the Council may also consider the R-1 or R-Sa Districts for properties covered by
the Special District. This will enable the Council to address the concerns of those neighbors who would prefer a
different designation for their properties without requiring a separate hearing. If the Council acts at the
December 3 meeting, the Planning Commission could conduct its hearing on January 9, 2002.
This matter will not be resolved at the time the annexation of this area takes effect, so the area will need to be
brought into the City in the H District.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
MEETING
X
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Reports and Recommendations I POLICE
Block Grant
DATE: 12/3/01
ITEM NO.
Roger Peterson
The Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES) has made funds available to the City of
Rochester Police Department through a federal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
(JAIBG) program authorized under Public Law 105-227. This program is intended to help reform
the juvenile justice system and to provide greater accountability for juveniles involved in the
juvenile or criminal justice system. The amount allocated to the City is $35,116 which is
based on a formula prescribed by federal law: two-thirds (2/3) is based on our expenditures for
law enforcement, corrections and court -related activities. The remaining one-third (1/3) is
based on our share of the average number of Part I crimes committed between 1997 and 1999.
In the past, the Police Department has allocated these funds to the Olmsted County Attorney's
office. The Olmsted County Attorney's office has used these funds to hire additional juvenile
prosecutors so that more cases involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and
backlogs reduced. The funds have enabled the juvenile prosecutors to address drug, gang and
youth violence problems more effectively.
Ray Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney, has stated that Olmsted County would be willing to pick
up the City's 2001-2002 hard cash match of $3,902. The County would also act as administrator
of the grant, completing the grant application and fulfilling any further requirements of the
c --` including but not limited to administrative and financial reporting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to accept $35,166 in JAIBG funds and to enter into a multi -jurisdictional agreement with Olmsted
County . This agreement would transfer the funds to be used by the Olmsted County Attorney's Office to
Rind positions for juvenile prosecutors. Olmsted County would be responsible for paying the City's hard
cash match of $3,902 and fulfill the remaining requirements of the grant including administrative and
financial reporting.
COUNCIL ACTION: Modonby: Second by: lo:
13 November 2001
Rochester City Council
Government Center
Rochester MN 55904
RAYMOND F. SCHMITZ
CRMANAL OPOSPON
JAMES S MARTINSON
COUNTY ATTORNEY
SENIOR A SSISTAPH
JAMES E HAASE
151 4TH STREET SE
KAARIN s LONG
ERICJ OLSON
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-3710
JAMESP SPENCER
Email: county.attorney@co.olmsted.mn.us ERIC M. WCOOFORD
507/285-8138 FAX 507/281-6054
WITNESS LINE / CHILD SUPPORT
287-2060 285-8381
Re: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant 2002
CIVIL DIVISION
ROBERT W. AICIN,wn
SENIONISS"I"I'll
KAREN ARTHORS
GEOFFREYA HJERLEIO
THOMAS P KELLY
LIZ LdROOOE
KATHY M. WALLACE
I am writing to request that the City of Rochester again agree to make available to the
Office of the County Attorney the portion of the funds allocated to the City under this
program. This cooperative effort by the City and County has been in place for three
years. It has enabled the hiring of an additional prosecutor and support staff in the
juvenile delinquency area.
This additional staff has allowed us to maintain a current status in juvenile cases and to
assist the court services department in the juvenile diversion program.
The diversion program allows minor juvenile offenders to avoid the court process and
still holds them accountable for their behavior through restitution and community service
programs. We also use educational programs in alcohol and tobacco cases. Since
several hundred of these cases are not in court we have the opportunity to focus on
serious juvenile matters and make timely disposition of them. The prosecutors work
closely with school liaison officers and POP officers to deal with the juveniles causing
problems in neighborhoods and schools.
Olmsted County agrees to assume responsibility for the administration of the grant, the
local match and for the fulfillment of the other requirements of the program.
Thank you for your cooperation in the past, if you have any questions please contact
me.
�Resp tfully:
Raymond F. Schmitz
Olmsted County Attorney
Cc: Sarah Clayton, RPD
A A SECTION:
Consent Agenda
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Police -T�) __ (Lt
ITEM DESCRIPTION: DONATION FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT HONOR GUARD UNIT
Roger Peterson
Strothers Communications Group has donated $500 to the Rochester Police Department Honor Guard Unit for
the purpose of equipping the Honor Guard Unit.
Rick and Beverley Drake have donated $100 to the Rochester Police Department Honor Guard Unit for the
purpose of equipping the Honor Guard Unit.
Mr. Michael Ketchum Group has donated $100 to the Rochester Police Department Honor Guard Unit for the
purpose of equipping the Honor Guard Unit.
Mr and Mrs. Robert Fj elsted have donated $50 to the Rochester Police Department Honor Guard Unit for the
purpose of equipping the Honor Guard Unit.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval to accept donations for the Police Department Honor Guard Unit.
COUNCIL ACTION: Moton by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A(;ENDA SECTION
Rochester Public Utilities
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Consent Agenda
Date. 1210101
ITEM NO.
ID I t)_
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson
Page I of
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on November 27, 2001 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with McFarland
Cascade for Western Red Cedar Poles. The amount of the purchase order
agreement to be $84,664.00 and McFarland Cascade being lowest responsible
bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Tri-State
Drilling for caisson foundations for the Ql/Q2 transmission line upgrade. The
amount of the agreement to be $78,454.00 and Tri-State Drilling being lowest
responsible bidder.
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with McLeod USA
Telecommunications Services, Inc, and that the Common Council authorize the
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement for attachment of
telecommunications facilities to poles. The amount of the contract agreement to be
based on unit pricing as established by the agreement.
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Norlight
Telecommunications and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute the agreement for attachment of telecommunications facilities
to poles. The amount of the contract agreement to be based on unit pricing as
established by the agreement.
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Charter
Communications and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute the agreement for attachment of telecommunications facilities to
poles. The amount of the contract agreement to be based on unit pricing as
established by the agreement.
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Minnesota Power
Telecom and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to
execute the agreement for attachment of telecommunications facilities to poles. The
amount of the contract agreement to be based on unit pricing as established by the
agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date_ 12/03101
Page 2 of 2
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Qwest
Communications and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute the agreement for attachment of telecommunications facilities to
poles. The amount of the contract agreement to be based on unit pricing as
established by the agreement.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Siemens
Westinghouse for combustor basket repairs — Cascade Creek Westinghouse 251B2
Combustion Turbine. The amount of the agreement to be $35,451.00.
GENERAL MANAGER: /tiyy 1 -4 a''V a �j poet
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:to:
Item # 3. a.
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
WOOD POLES
FPREPA�DY: Steven J. Cook 1
Senior Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
11/27/01
On November 15, 2001, three bids were received to supply 45 Western Red Cedar Poles for the QI/Q2
transmission line upgrade. The Q1/Q2 transmission line is located between Silver Lake Substation and
Chester Substation.
All Bidders submitted bid bonds or checks and met the requirements of the bid. The bids are listed below:
Bidder Bid Amount
Bell Lumber & Pole $130,324.00
North Pacific Lumber Co. $ 91,842.00
McFarland Cascade $ 84,664.00
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board approve a purchase order agreement with McFarland Cascade for
$84,664.00 for the purchase of 45 Western Red Cedar Poles.
wt- 11 ac
Ge ral Manager ate
Agenda Item # 3. b.
KEVISEU
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
CAISSON FOUNDATIONS FOR Q1/Q2
PREPARED BY: Steven J. Cook
Sr. Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
11/27/01
On November 27, 2001, three bids were received to provide labor, material, and equipment to install four
concrete foundations for self supporting steel transmission poles on the Q1/Q2 Transmission Line Project.
Q1/Q2 transmission line is between Silver Lake Substation and Chester Substation.
All bidders submitted bid bonds or checks and met the requirements of the bid. The bids are listed below:
Bidder Bid Amount
Tri-State Drilling, Inc. $ 78,454.00
Excel Energy $ 109,900.00
Layne Minnesota Co. $ 120,757.00
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board approve a purchase order agreement with Tri-State Drilling for $78,454.00
for the installation of four concrete foundations.
Wderal Manager
Ae a
ate
ROCHESTER PUBLIC
,�yh i
l.of 3
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agendaltem# 4. Meeting Date: 11/27/01
SUBJECT: Pole Attachment License Agreement for Non -Electric Utilities
PREPARED BY: Greg Woodworth, Engineering Manager
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RPU currently has five agreements with five separate telecommunications providers allowing them to
attach their facilities to our distribution poles. Currently four of those companies have facilities attached to
our poles and the fifth has specific plans to install equipment in the near future. The original two joint use
agreements were with the phone and cable utilities, now known as Charter and Qwest. These agreements
are identical and were originally signed in 1991 with provisions for five year renewable terms, if the
renewal was agreeable to both parties. These agreements were renewed in 1996 and RPU supplied notice
of termination in early 2001 effective December 31, 2001 due to significantly changed conditions that
occurred upon passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened our system to use by new non -utility providers
supplying a wide range of services. These providers are often absentee owners that have no permanent
service personnel located in Rochester. Since 1996 we have negotiated and executed agreements with three
additional companies, Norlight, McLeod and Minnesota Power Telecommunications. Only MP Telecomm
has not yet attached any of their facilities to our distribution poles.
RPU staff has worked with Terry Adkins and Brian Grogan of the Moss and Barnett law firm in
Minneapolis to craft an acceptable agreement from both a legal and technical perspective. We have used
the services of RW Beck in Minneapolis and Seattle to perform the rate calculations for the new joint use
rates in the agreement. The rates utilize the "FCC Formula" contained in the 1996 Act.
The process up to this point has been:
9/6/01 We sent the draft agreement to all five parties requesting written comments by 9/28.
9/28/01 We received voice mails from Charter and Qwest essentially stating that they had received the
agreements but their comments would be later than 9/28.
10/12/01 We sent out the same agreement requesting execution and return by 11/15/01 in order to have a
valid agreement in effect on 1/1/02.
11/16/01 The McLeod and Norlight agreements were received and properly executed by this date. No
additional comments or voice mails have been received from any of the five companies
subsequent to September 28`s.
A copy of the executed contract with Norlight Telecommunications is attached for your review and
information. The historical data regarding number of poles and attachments as of December
2000 is listed below.
/l ac
Gen al Manager bate
2 of 3
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 4. Meeting Date: 11/27/01
Number of distribution poles on the RPU system. 11,816
Total number of poles with attachments 9,529
Total Attachments by Telecomm Provider
Qwest 2,485
Charter 6,580
Charter and Qwest are attached to a total of 6,961 poles
Both Charter and Qwest are attached to 2,104 common poles (two connections on each)
McLeod 495
Norlight 10
MP Telecomm 0
The agreement is different from previous agreements and is based on a model that has been used before by
the Moss -Barnett law firm. The primary changes from previous agreements are listed below:
Exhibit A shows the new attachment rates. The pertinent information regarding rates is:
a. The 1996 agreement had a rate of $5.75 per pole per year.
b. The previous contract formula would have yielded anew rate of $12.50 per pole per year.
c. The new "FCC Formula" rate is $16.50 per pole per year.
d. There are different types of attachments detailed beyond the standard cable (wire) attachment to
the pole.
e. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are new and are intended to cover administrative, engineering and record -
keeping costs associated with the various requests.
f. A rate of $31.20 for a single attacher on a pole can be substantiated using the FCC Formula and
the standard rebuttable presumptions assumed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
2. The process for applying for new attachments has been detailed more precisely than in the past.
3. Responsibilities of the licensor and licensee have been clarified more completely than in the past to
deal with absentee owners of attachments.
4. Attachments are required to be labeled since we do not always know immediately whose attachments
we are dealing with.
5. Time frames for applications and relocations of facilities have been identified for clarity.
6. Fees associated with additional administration and relocation have been identified.
7. The initial agreement term is for five years and is annually renewable after that time and rates may be
adjusted after the initial five year term.
Only two of the five telecommunications providers, Norlight Telecommunications and McLeodUSA
Telecommunications Services, Inc., have executed and returned the agreement. Based on input from the
City Attorney, we are requesting approval for all five agreements for three reasons. First, without Board
approval at this time, there will be no valid agreement in effect on January 1, 2002 with the other providers
with facilities currently in place. Second, there is an economy in having identical agreements in the
General Manager
Date
3 of 3
FOR BOARD ACTION I1/27/0I
Agenda Item # 4 Meeting Date.
ongoing administration of the agreements and approval of all five will help to accomplish that economy.
Finally, it keeps us from repeating this process at some future date.
Staff will be available at the Board Meeting to answer your questions and discuss relevant issues.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board approve the Pole Attachment License Agreement for Non -Electric
Utilities with the following five telecommunications providers.
McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc.
Norlight Telecommunications
Charter Communications
Minnesota Power Telecom
Qwest Communications
General Manager Date
- HPV1CPfi -
Agenda Item# 5.
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Meeting Date:
Westinghouse Gas Turbine 251B2
Combustor Basket Repairs
Wally Schlink, Manager of Power Production
11/27/01
The RPU Utility Board approved a modified combustion inspection on the Cascade Creek Unit 1
Westinghouse 251 B2 combustion Turbine at the August 2001 Utility Board meeting. The purpose of
a combustion inspection is to disassemble, inspect and perform an engineering evaluation on the
various combustion section components that are exposed to the extreme thermal cycles and firing
temperatures contained in that section.
Upon removal from the machine and visual inspection, it was determined that the eight (8)
combustor baskets were damaged and would require significant repair. The baskets are comprised of
a primary and a secondary section that make up each combustor basket unit. The baskets were
packaged and shipped to an authorized Siemens Westinghouse combustion turbine component repair
facility for inspection and advisement on the scope, cost and schedule of repairs required.
The repair recommendations report has been received and it recommends the repair scope required as
defined in the attached matrix identified as Attachment A. The quoted repair costs are $27,270 with a
lead-time of 14 —16 weeks. It is anticipated that the utility may require an expedited schedule, which
is offered for a 30% premium, increasing total cost to $35,451, and reducing the lead-time to less
than 10 weeks. Staff will only approve the expedited costs and schedule if several other repair
components can be procured in a similar time frame.
The Cascade Creek Unit 1 combustion turbine combustion components were last repaired in 1993
and since that time the unit has undergone a significant number of starts and operating hours. These
repairs are considered normal and typical under these operating conditions. The repairs are required
to return the unit to operating condition.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution requesting the Common Council to approve a
purchase order agreement with Siemens Westinghouse for professional services to perform repairs to
the eight -combustor baskets in the amount of $35,451.
Gene Manager Date
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
-�k i
12/03/01
4DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: PREPARED BY:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 17'/ Street NW from 21st Ave NW to 19th �, R. Kei
Ave NW (J9842) �t
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Prolect Number
6217.54-02 (J9842)
Prolect Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 17'/ Street NW from 21st Ave NW to 19th Ave NW
Prolect Background
A petition for the project was referred to Public Works on May 7, 2001 for preparation of a feasibility report. A
neighborhood information meeting has been scheduled for October 11, 2001.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curb in 1958. The roadway section has a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) rating of 34.
Estimated Protect Costs
F a a a lb I11ty
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab wl ei 0-59
$58,500.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$2 800.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$8 000.00
Sub Total
$88,200.00
lEngineering, Interest Contin encies 12%
98184.00
TOTAL
878,384.00
Prolect Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Fronle a
$10 713.31
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
81 776.07
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
1 359.93
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab w! el 0-59
54 805.89
Storm Sewer Repairs/Uporadas
$7 728.00
TOTAL
$76,384.00
g3, 0/a
— /�' el
Recommendation
We report the project is feasible as a concrete curb and gutter and overlay project and recommend its construction
in 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution ordering a Project Hearing to be held for January 7, 2002.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for January 7, 2002.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map, Petition
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
rC
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
CURB, GUTTER & OVERLAY ON 17 1A STREET NW
FROM 215T AVE TO 19T" AVE NW
November 28, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 17''A Street NW from 21"Ave NW to 191' Ave NW, was
referred to the Public Works Department on May 7, 2001 for preparation of the Engineers
Feasibility Report.
Feasibility 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 1958.
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 34, 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
$58 500.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
$2 800.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$6 900.00
Sub Total
$68 200.00
Engineering,Interest, Contingencies 12%
$8 184.00
TOTAL
$76,384.00
_ 2_ Noy Iaallsrlt 28, 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 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.
Year
Total
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
2002
feet
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.98
1
670.42
$10,713.31
Commercial Zones
$23.97
Subtotal
1$10,713.31
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" Cone. 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. It
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk residential
$5.33
115.66
$616.47
5" Sidewalk commercial
$6.12
79.42
$486.05
6" Sidewalk at residential drive approaches
$6.93
64,49
$446.92
7" Sidewalk at commercial drive approaches)
$7.46
30.38
$226.63
Subtotal
$1,776.07
credit for long side
Subtotal
$1,776.07
Project Distribution:
a." U
know=#
iu :I a.• .'r., cua :.a.• .n. a: a
:.- :1. ::
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
D uglas Nelson, PE
Enn neexing Manager
I11\ PR(If I IIIt)'`.fAY.S�`,Uttiti,"1',DO«\C=1i1AkLy It�Poit I)()('
- 3 - No%ummit 28, 2001
CURB, GUTTER & OVERLAY ON 17 % STREET NW FROM 21 ST AVE TO 19TH
AVE NW
r:V`Ko�r=.r. t�`�-Nito�`�98i?`,Dcei��iDn�a�iuuirri�i[p 14por�000
Page 4 of 4
April 10, 2001
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTER
We the undersigned owners of property in Roc �{ s4,ein Olmsted County, Township,
Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to construct the following local improvement project:
17112 Street NW
Ccmmencing at l y '' * dry
and Ending at
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.
N.mn rnlaaca nrinil Aririrass - Slanature
4 _ NovnmeR 28, 2001
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6217.5-4-02 Date: I November 28 2DD1
J No: 9842
Description: Curb, Gutter 8 Overlay an 17 112 Street NW
from 21st Ave to 19th Ave NW
Feasibility
Cost
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
2200 Bituminous Pavement Rehab wl ci 0-59
$58 500.00
8307 Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/ pgrades
$2,8OOrOO
$6 900.00
Sub Total
$68,200.001
so.001
$0.00-
Engineering Interest Contingencies 12%
TOTAL
$8.184.001
$76,384.00
$0.001
$0.00
$0.00
$0.0o
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$10 713.31
$10 713.31
$=713.31S
ecial Assessments - Sidewalk
1 776.07
$1 776.07
8307 Sidewalk Re lacement
$1 359.93
-$1 776.07
-2200
Bituminous Pavement Rehab w/ ci 0-59
$54 806.69
10 713.31
-$Storm
Sewer Re airs/U rades
$7,728.00
$0.00
TOTAL
$76,384.001
$0.00
$0.00
ution Percents es:
Assessments16.35%
#DIV/01#DIV/01
eet Share
K
83.65°%
#DIV/01#DIV/01
1000%
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
cop;c;rsJ-rizc?)\.J98; `I)csitii Discs\Ic;uil'iliy R�1lim,DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12-03-01
DATE: hJ
A nA SFMM,
(0RIrINATINr, DFPT!
PUBLIC WORKS
ITFM Nn.
�D-- L
CONSENT
ITFM ADVERTISE FOR BIDS / PURCHASE OF BUSES FOR
PRFPARFn RJ..
REGULAR ROUTE
A KNAUER
This is a request for authorization to advertise for bids for the purchase of up to 28 buses
year period. The first order would be for 8 buses to be delivered the end of 2002 and first part of
2003. The remaining buses would under an option to be exercised in quantities of 4 to 5 buses per
year thereafter. The specifications will allow for price adjustments based on the producer price
index and changes in bus technology. Each years order will be subject to Council approval.
The City has retained First Transit Inc. to assist in this procurement. Staff is proposing that an
evaluated bid process will be used that includes price, qualifications, delivery, use of components
and capacity. (The criteria is still under discussion but will be completed to be included in the
request for proposals.) This process has been used by St Cloud, LaCrosse and consortium of
Wisconsin cities and the Minneapolis MTC.
Funding for the first eight buses has been secured from a combination of federal, state and local
sources. (Federal Project Numbers MN-90-X131, Mn-90-X142 and MN-03-0076.)
Under the proposed schedule first offers will be due January 29, 2002 with final and best offers
due February 13, 2002.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing the advertisement for request for proposals for the
purchase of up to 28 buses over a five year from 2002 through 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Sly; �--
DATE: 12/03/01
TEM
O.
FJ DA CTION:ONSENT AGENDA IECTION ORIGINAPublic Works I I' J N
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J2467) Construction of Regional PREPARED BY:
Stormwater Pond at IBM, south of 41st Street NW I i,,> D. Kramer
Construction of regional stormwater pond kr-p2.2a has been proposed to serve existing and future
development of the IBM property, as well as other upstream property west of the pond.
A development agreement between the City and IBM indicates that the City will provide the pond design,
IBM will dedicate the land for the pond to the City, and the City and IBM will share in the pond
construction costs. The $500,000 pond cost is included in the 2001 — 2006 CIP, item #12, page 50.
Funding for the project is: $200,000 private funding from IBM, and $300,000 from voluntary stormwater
management contribution reserves (J2137).
14
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid
opening on January 16, 2002 at 11:00 a.m.
Note to City Clerk: Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /
DATE: 1 Z/3V
'NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement— Dr. Sean Breanndan Moore & PREPARED 13Y:91-'%.
Mary T. Moore /) M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council
• or. Sean Breanndan Moore & Mary T. Moore are the Owners of Lot 55, Belmont Slope, Olmsted
County, Minnesota. Through the permitting process for a new driveway approach, the Owners have
requested that a Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway Approach Agreement be approved to address the
their obligation for providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of the
Property abutting Plummer Circle SW.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway
Approach Agreement with Dr. Sean Breanndan Moore & Mary T. Moore for Lot 55, Belmont Slope,
Olmsted County, Minnesota.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Richard A. & Judith Loomis PTARED BY: D-`,
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
Richard A. & Judith Loomis are the Owners of Lot 3, Schoenfelder's First Subdivision, Olmsted
County, Minnesota. Through a Metes & Bounds Conveyance Request (M&B#01-24) the Owners
have requested that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be approved to address the their obligation
for providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property abutting
22nd Ave SE.
RD'sF
w
'ap aff�0ux.v..!
N
8
8
T
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with Richard A. & Judith Loomis for Lot 3, Schoenfelder's First Subdivision, Olmsted County,
Minnesota.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
IDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works n 1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT PREPARED BA
K Bake
The Department of Public Works has received a request on one (1) property, to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). This department
has reviewed the information for this property and has determined that there is support for
participation. The Owner has requested to voluntary participate in the City's Plan, with the
applicable participation fee as follows:
Thomas Tool Building (Lot 2, Block 1, Radichel Second Replat)
(SDP#01-77) $5, 545.23
The Owner of this property has already provided payment for its respective charge. These
funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in the
City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted property, in the City's
Regional Storm Water Management Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6L
DATE: 12/3101
NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING ❑EPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Interim Development Agreement — Buddhist Support Society, Inc. 7PARED BY: 9
M. Baker
The Buddhist Support Society, Inc. owns approximately 10 acres in the S'/:, SW'/., Section 16, (Marion
Township) T106N, R13W, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a Condition of Olmsted County Conditional
Use Permit #00-13, the Owner was required to execute an Interim Development Agreement with the City
of Rochester. An Agreement has been drafted by City staff, and executed by the Owner.
The main components of the Agreement relate to:
• The timing for Annexation of the property
• The timing for connection to City sewer & water
• Development Charges related to the connection of the Property to City sewer & water
Staff recommends the Council approve the Interim Development Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Interim Development Agreement for the Buddhist
Support Society, Inc. property.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6,
DATE: 12-03-01
NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
P
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Municipal Parking Lot Ordinance Amendments
PREPARED BY1,se
D. RossmaThis
is a recommendation to change the R.C.O. #133 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS to clarify t
of Reserved Parking Hanger Tags. Reserved parking spaces are offered in several of the City of
Rochester's Municipal Lots. Rates for the reserved spaces are established by the Common Council and
listed in Section K "Municipal Lots". Hanger tags are issued to customers to identify that the vehicle is
in the correct lot and has paid the current fee. At the current time, the Parking Ordinance does not
provide for a penalty for failure to display the proper hanger tag.
Staff recommends adding criteria to the ordinance requiring owners of vehicles to display a valid hanger
tag when parking is a Reserved Parking Space. Vehicles parked in a reserved pace that do not display a
hanger tag, or display an invalid hanger tag will be subject to issuance of a No Parking Ticket. The
current ordinance reads:
133. MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS
133.01. Establishment. The words "municipal parking lot" as used in this chapter shall refer to the
parking lots or parking structures owned or leased by the City and which are established by resolution of
the common council.
133.02. Municipal Parking Lot Rates. A person using municipal parking lot shall pay a fee for the
use of said lot as may be established by resolution of the common council.
133.03. Collection of Fees. Fees for parking in any municipal parking lot may be collected by the use
of parking meters, a collection box system, or by attendants, or such other method as the common
council may direct.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Amend the ordinance 133 to include subdivision .04 to read as follows:
133.04. Violations. No person shall park a vehicle in a municipal lot without paying a fee for the use of
that lot as required by this chapter. When a hanger tag, window sticker or other form of permit has been
issued as evidence of payment of the required fee, the hanger tag, window sticker or other form of permit
must be properly displayed in or on the vehicle. Failure to pay the fee or to display the hanger tag,
window sticker or other form of permit, is a petty misdemeanor.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12-3-01
4DASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction on Highland Court SW PREPARED BY:
sw D. Rossmnr
The City has received a request, from residents who live nearby, to restrict parking on the east side of
Highland Court SW between Aspen Lane and 41h Street SW. Contributing factors to this request are
narrow street width and a steep hill which makes winter driving difficult. In addition, the residents state
that there is now more traffic on Highland Court with the recent western connection to the new
neighborhood.
The pavement on Highland Court SW is 26 feet wide. This width allows 2 narrow thru 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. Survey of the abutting property owners was
conducted with the following responses:
In favor of the restriction
Against the restriction
4 residents
2 residents
No response b
The residents that are against stated that the on -street parking tends to reduce the travel speed on
Highland court. There will still be some of this if parking remains on the west side. Staff would
recommend it
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (308.1) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read;
(308.1) Highland Court SW on the east side of the street from Aspen Lane to 4'h Street, at all times.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:_ Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
JCA SECTION: ORIGINATING ❑EPT: ITEM NO. _
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition - Settlement for Forest Hills Sewer Project. PR PARED BY:
(J9748) a M. Nigbur- t* �
City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property for the WQPP project serve Forest Hills
Subdivision using the state acquisition requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the
City and the Owner a preliminary settlement has been reached. 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 sanitary sewer easement in exchange for
payment:
• Minnesota Bible College - settlement amount $10,000
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Payment for the needed land rights for the above referenced property owner
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12-3-01
VDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Agreements for City Traffic Signal Project at
PREPARED BY:
CSAII 22 & 8
D. Rossman
This is a recommendation to retain Short, Elliot, Hendrickson Engineering Consultants to provide
professional engineering services for City Project J-6391 Traffic Signal Installation on County State Aid
Highway 22 & 8 (Salem Road & Bamber Valley Road).
Short, Elliot, Hendrickson of St. Paul work will consist of prepare the construction plans, specifications
and cost estimate for this project. This is a joint City —County Project. The County will provide 100% of
the funding, and the City will administer the contract and maintain the signal under contract for the
County. The County will reimburse the City for the maintenance expenses. S.E.H. has completed the
same type of work on other joint City —County Signal projects in a very satisfactory manner.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City Officials to accept the proposals of "Short, Elliot,
Henderson of 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul 55110-5196 to provide Professional Engineering
Services for the City Project J-6391 Traffic Signal Installation on County Road #22 & County Road #8
Bamber Valley Road.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12-03-01
A`9A SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-
PREPARED BY:
06, by Western Walls, Inc. to amend the Plan from "Medium Density Residential' to
Brent Svenby,
"Commercial" on 2.69 acres. The property is located along the north side of 2nd Street and
Planner
along the west side of 23rd Avenue SW. The property is identified for residential
commercial uses on the General Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake,
November 29, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 14, 2001, to consider the Land Use Plan
Amendment request for the property. The applicant is requesting to designate approximately 2.69 acres be designated for
"Commercial" on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
The Commission discussed whether the area proposed to be designated "Commercial' is appropriate based on the criteria as
included in the staff report. The Commission recommended approval, with the following findings.
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve Land Use Plan Amendment #01-06 by Western Walls with the following
findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Quinn voting nay.
a) The property has frontage on an arterial street, though it Is not located at the intersection of a collector or other
nigher level street. The development agreement executed for the property requires that controlled access be
edicated along the entire frontage of the property adjacent to 2nd Street SW. This means that no access to be
to or from 2nd St. SW to this site. With the upgrade of 23`d Avenue SW that needs to occur for the park
,.ermitted
system and other development in the area, the property will have adequate access to support commercial uses
at this location.
b) The property has relatively flat terrain.
c) With the upgrade of 23'd Avenue SW that needs to occur for the park system and other development in the area,
the property will have good vehicular and pedestrian access to support commercial uses at this location.
d) The property has a project service area population of approximately 4,649 households within a one mile radius
of the property. This service population Includes 3,308 existing residential units and 1,341 future residential
units. ,
e) While on its own this site does not have enough land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood at a rate of
Street SW
2.5 acres of land per 1000 neighborhood households, when examined with respect to the adjacent 2nd
commercial area as a whole this criterion will be met.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated November 9, 2001
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
Page 2
RCA
November 29, 2001
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 November 9, 2001
2. Minutes of the November 14, 2001 CPZC Meeting are attached to the LUPA RCA
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, December 3, 2001 in the Council / Board
Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building
6. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
ZONE CHANGE EXH
DESCRIPTION:
SEE ATTACHED
NORTH
SCALE 1 " = 100'
S��p03�E'
� o
Lit (4jJj
� O
Q r
O
N 87'34'45" W
259.67 N
B5 TO B4
t 2.69 ACRES
LU
�0
v
9 ¢a F
2 4 SOB �53�
2Np ST S ,3g -06
(COUN
SEC 33-107-14
a
w
IBIT
SHOREWOOD
SHOREWOOD
RETAIL
REPLAT
iNALLS, INC.
11TH AVE. NW
MN
i."a wmMY i=W �c
J ;' Tc-=
C.uh"Nas W4tltlWESTERN
+ . YY.ty.
u=.°"y ��'�``,� =hx
?'`1 i k,J
JJJ
KSCALE.'FORum"—i..a
10/l0,604
/01ROCHESTER,
1013/15B4
rwd No1584ZOHE
PG.
55901
MJ.M.Ip YI01i
:w:mBK.
�M
nnrOVID
ma lllly dl r -..i
Gm
A� �-
-
�I pileeinnaouei1011iia ��, *,�
smlutill ni i
VOW-
Cz !!11{Il41{I!BlRli ..i"4 �1
r� rip ♦6 �� �� es Milli
n e !
ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPAR"PNIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Q a u "i r of www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 9, 2001
RE: Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-06,
by Western Walls, Inc. to amend the Plan from "Medium Density
Residential' to "Commercial" on 2.69 acres. The property is located
along the north side of 2nd Street and along the west side of 23rd Avenue
SW. The property is identified for residential commercial uses on the
General Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Western Walls, Inc.
804 11th Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Property Owners: City of Rochester
C/o City Administration
401 City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Westem Walls, Inc.
604 1Ith Ave. NW Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultant:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located along the north side of 2"d
Street SW, west of 23rd Avenue SW and east of the
Mayo surface parking lot.
Requested Action:
The applicant requests to amend the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate
approximately 2.69 acres of land for "commercial"
uses. The property is currently designated for
"medium density residential" uses. A Zoning District
Amendment and an amendment to General
Development Plan #155 are being considered
concurrent with this application.
Existing Land Use:
The property is currently used by the City of
Rochester Park and Recreation Department as
soccer fields.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDHESSINGlMAPPING 50712B5-e232 - HOUSING/HHA 507/285.8224
kw--wnr PLANNING20NING 507/285.8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FA%507/287-2275
Arnnnr.11.1 nVFM
Page 2
LUPA 01-06 Western Walls, Inc.
November 9, 2001
Proposed Land Use: The applicant has also filed a zone change petition
and an amendment to General Development Plan #
155 known as The Grandville at Cascade Lake to
change the zoning on 2.69 acres from the residential
commercial district to the general commercial district.
No specific use is identified on the GDP, however, the
highest intensity of use proposed on the property
would be equal to that of a convenience retail use.
Adjacent Land Use and East: Property to the east, across 23 d Ave., is zoned
Zoning: B-4 (General Commercial) and R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) and includes the Shorewood retail and
senior housing development.
South: Property to the south, across 2"d Street, Is
zoned PUD and R-1 (Mixed Single Family), Further
to the west is the indoor tennis club which is zoned B-
4 (General Commercial).
North: Property to the north which is included in GDP
#155 is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and
is proposed to be developed with multi -family
dwellings. Beyond the GDP boundary, the property is
zoned R-1 and is the location of on -going mining and
the future Cascade Lake.
West: Property to the west which is included in GDP
#155 is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and
is proposed to be developed with multi -family
dwellings and a possible fire station. Beyond the
GDP boundary, the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family) district and is the location of the Mayo
surface parking facility.
Transportation Access: Access to this property will be from 23m Ave. SW. No
access will be permitted to or from 2"d Street SW to
the site.
It is expected a traffic signal may be warranted in the
future, at the intersection of 23`d Avenue SW and 2"d
Street SW, as development occurs. This location is
consistent with general guidelines on signal spacing
needed to maintain adequate traffic flow along the 24
Street SW corridor.
A Development Agreement has been executed
between the developer and City for the development
of this property. The Development Agreement
outlines requirements for contribution toward a future
traffic signal on 2"d St. SW and reservation of land for
23'd Ave. SW.
Please see the traffic analysis prepared by Charlie
Page 3 0
LUPA 01-06 Western Walls, Inc.
November 9, 2001
Reiter regarding transportation issues.
Wetlands: A wetland delineation has been carried out for the
property and is on file with the Planning Department.
Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29,
2001. A summary of the meeting is attached.
Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department - John Harford
2. Charlie Reiter - Senior Transportation Planner
3, Rochester Public Works
4. RPU - Water Division
5. RPU - Operations Division
6. Fire Department
7. Olmsted County Public Works
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 "commercial"
types of uses as follows:
a) Located at the intersection of a collector street and/or higher level streets.
b) Having relatively flat terrain.
c) Having good vehicular and pedestrian access.
d) With a projected service area population of at least 1,500 households with a radius of
one-half to one mile.
e) Having at least enough land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood at the rate
of 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households.
Staff Suggested Findings:
a) The property has frontage on an arterial street, though it is not located at the
intersection of a collector or other higher level street. The development agreement
executed for the property requires that controlled access be dedicated along the entire
frontage of the property adjacent to 2°d Street SW. This means that no access to be
permitted to or from 2"d St. SW to this site. The only access that will be permitted, will
be from 23 d Ave. SW, a limited local street, which aligns with the access to
Shorewood.
b) The property has relatively flat terrain.
Page 4 _
LUPA01-06 Western Walls, Inc.
November 9, 2001
c) The property has limited access to it No access will be permitted to fd St. SW.
Depending on the type of commercial development on the site the Level of Service of
the intersection of fd St. SW and 23`d Ave. SW may not met the standards in the Land
Development Manual, which establishes a Level of Service CID as the threshold for
intersection operations. Currently the intersection operation at a Level of Service B.
According to the traffic analysis completed for the proposal, the additional traffic
produced by the potential development drops the current Level of Service at the
intersection to F. With the full build -out of Grandville at Cascade Lake and a signalized
intersection, the Level of Service for the intersection meets the standards of the LDM.
However, when other potential development is added, including lands north of
Shorewood and a potential parking lot for a future Cascade Lake Recreation Area, the
Level of Service for the southbound left turn drops to an OF, which again fails to meet
the standards of the Land Development Manual.
d) The property has a project service area population of approximately 4,649 households
within a one mile radius of the property. This service population includes 3,308
existing residential units and 1,341 future residential units.
e) While on its own this site does not have enough land area to serve the fully developed
neighborhood at a rate of 2.5 acres of land per 1000 neighborhood households, when
examined with respect to the adjacent 2"d Street SW commercial area as a whole this
criterion will be met.
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 suggested findings don't support amending the Land Use Plan.
Findings to criteria a and c don't support the amending the Land Use Plan of the property
from "medium density residential' to "commercial". The current zoning of the property
does allow for some commercial uses. The B-5 zoning requires that purposed
development proceed through a type If process which requires approval by the CPZC.
Based on the fact that findings can not be made to support criteria a and c, staff
recommends denial of the Land Use Plan amendment.
Page 5 0
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001
ANNEXATION:
Mr. Brent Svenby pr nted the staff report, dated Noverilper 7, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning De artment.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-06, by Western Wallis
Inc to amend the Plan from "Medium Density Residential" to "Commercial' on 2.69
acres. The ro ert is located alongthe north side of 2" Street and alon the west side
of 23` Avenue SW The property is identified for residential commercial uses on the
General Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake.
AND
Zoning District Amendment # 01-13 by Western Walls Inc to rezone approximately 2.69
acres from the B 5 (Residential Commercial) Dtstnct to the B-4 {General Commercial)
District The property is located along the north side of 2"° Street and along the west
side— of 23rAvenue SW. The property is identified for residential commercial uses on the
General Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake.
AND
Amendment to General Development Plan #155 by Western Walls, Inc. known as
Grandville at Cascade Lake The proposed amendment is the change the commercial
use in the southeast corner of the development The approved plan allows for residential
commercial uses. The petitioner wishes to amend the plan to identify the corner as
being developed with uses permitted in the B-4 zoning district with a intensity of use
i
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001
of 2"° Street and alonq the west side or zs- Avenue avv.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, each dated November 9, 2001, to the
Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Discussion ensued regarding what types of uses are permitted in the B-5 zoning district.
Mr. Quinn asked which type of uses would be permitted for the site in question in the B-5 zoning
district.
Mr. Svenby responded a medical facility, nursing home, daycare facility, and funeral home.
Ms. Wiesner asked how the Shorewood development was zoned B-4, when it had a controlled
access off of 2"d Street.
Mr. Svenby responded that the property was rezoned in 1997 and gave a brief history. He
explained that the Shorewood development has an access point onto 2"d Street. He further
explained that the Zoning Ordinance had been revised since that rezoning.
Ms. Wiesner asked if the City would be responsible for upgrading 23'd Avenue SW.
Mr. Svenby responded that he did not know.
Mr. Svenby responded that one condition that staff recommended on the general development
plan, if the Commission feels the criteria is met, is that the applicant would need to amend the
Development Agreement to include language on the improvements that would be required to
23`d Avenue SW.
Ms. Wiesner asked if staff would have a different opinion on the proposal if the petitioner were
to work with Public Works on the Development Agreement and the street were widened.
Mr. Svenby responded that the proposal still would not meet the criteria for a land use plan
amendment with regard to access.
Mr. Quinn asked how large the parking lot would be.
Mr. Svenby responded that it would hold approximately 200 cars.
Ms. Petersson stated that the parking lot would make a larger impact than retail.
Mr. Svenby explained that collector roads do not end in parking lots.
Discussion ensued regarding uses allowed in the B-4 zoning district.
The applicant's representative, Ms. Julie Leisen of 604 11 t" Avenue, Rochester MN, addressed
the Commission. She explained that, when the property (Shorewood) was rezoned in 1997, it
was done under the Land Use Plan adopted in 1978, which she explained is still in affect now.
She handed out previous minutes of the City Planning and Zoning Commission dated July 9,
1997 and exhibit describing the restrictive covenants.
Page 7 0 •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001
Ms. Leisen stated that the City Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of July 9, 1997 state
..when the land development manual was drafted, it was not the intention that they never have
commercial on the middle of the block." It was further stated by Ms. Goslee that "Mr. Wheeler
has mentioned this to Jeff Ellerbusch, who is handling the land use plan update, as a locational
criteria that should be dropped." She stated that the locational criteria was never reviewed and
dropped as was indicated.
Ms. Leisen showed a map of the area and its current zoning. She explained that the proposed
zone change is in relationship with what is currently zoned around it.
Ms. Leisen stated that 23`d Avenue has a 66-foot right-of-way and is 36 feet wide. Therefore, it
is already a larger street than what is normal for a residential area. She indicated that it was
built with the intention of carrying commercial traffic.
Ms. Leisen asked where the traffic counts came from. She stated that the level of service is
fine, until the townhome development and parking lot traffic is considered.
Ms. Leisen questioned the setback requirement of the access opening onto 23" Avenue from
the intersection of 21d Street.
Ms. Leisen stated that the Land Development Manual states streets get classified by the zoning
administration in consultation with the City engineer. She questioned if the street was
accurately described as a local street. She stated that Mr. Reiter showed both a signaled and
non -signaled intersection. She also explained that, if a site is in the CIP, they could proceed as
if it is there. She indicated that she knows that money has been collected to put in the signal.
Ms. Leisen stated that the applicant does not have a problem revising the Development
Agreement. However, to gain permission to change the Development Agreement, they would
need to have approval for the zone change.
Ms. Leisen stated that staff has mainly given that the land use plan amendment should be
denied because it is not on an intersection of higher level streets. She explained that it is not
good to limit it only to intersections, as per stated in the July 9, 1997 City Planning and Zoning
Commission minutes. She stated that there are already commercial uses on the same road that
are on low class intersections.
Ms. Leisen stated that the east side of 2"d Street, east of 23Id Avenue, has a 100-foot right-of-
way. This street is currently built with 5 lanes. The west side of 23`d Avenue was built as a 4
lane because it was a county road. However, they have acquired 100 feet right-of-way for the
west side of 2nd Street which enables the left turn lane and same width of street that is built to
the east of 23" Avenue.
Mr. Quinn stated that the intent is go from 23" Avenue SW to West Circle Drive,
Mr. Quinn stated that Mr. Reiter is stating that the roadway needs to be even wider so that there
is a right -in right -out situation. This would enable people to slow down to make a right hand turn
to the park or, if coming south on 23 d Avenue, to be able to enter in and accelerate in a lane
going west onto 2nd Street.
Ms. Wiesner questioned the reasoning of having a right turn lane into a lower hierarchy street.
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001
Discussion ensued regarding the reasons for having a wider roadway.
Ms. Leisen asked that all three applications be approved as the roadway is designed for more
than a local street.
Ms. Rivas asked if the entrance to Grandville on 2nd Street would be signalized.
Ms. Leisen responded no.
Ms. Rivas asked what the distance was from the entrance to the commercial parcel and the
frontage road running east -west.
Ms. Leisen responded that she did not know.
Ms. Rivas asked Ms. Leisen if the applicant had given thought to appearance standards so that
it may blend more with the appearance of the Shorewood complex and the Mayo Credit Union.
Ms. Leisen responded that there isn't anything in place right now.
Mr. Robert DeWitz, of 604 1 Vh Avenue NW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He
stated that, when he was on the Commission, the road classifications would be reviewed and
changed because the intent was not disallow commercial in the middle of the block.
Ms. Rivas asked Mr. DeWitz if he was concerned about being responsible for the necessary
roadway improvements cost if the zone change is approved. To her, the roadway needs to be
improved either way.
Mr. DeWitz responded that he has already given up right-of-way. However, he believes it can
all be worked out with the City.
Mr. Svenby gave the history of the commercial uses along 2nd Street. He explained that the
commercial uses shown on the land use plan adopted in 1978 were designated as such since
the uses were already there. Therefore, some of the properties do not meet the locations]
criteria that were adopted with the Land Use Plan.
Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Reiter's tables on page El of the staff report.
Mr. Svenby indicated that the Commission would need to make findings if they were to approve
the three requests.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Slaver asked if she was stating that the road would become a higher service level road.
Therefore, the criteria would indicate that it would be located at an intersection of a higher -level
street.
/) q
• i
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001
Ms. Wiesner responded yes.
Mr. Stever stated that it has flat terrain, good vehicular and pedestrian access.
Mr. Svenby stated that the staff -recommended findings neither support approval or denial of the
general development plan.
DeWitz Construction 507 282-7380
Mar 20 01 05:04p
p.b
Uy� Loll
� C
EXHIBIT "B" k
r -t
No portion of the Premises shall be used or occupied as a movie theater, theater;
bingo hall; a place of public assembly, except in connection with a restaurant or hotel;
automobile repairs (mechanical or otherwise); bowling alley; sales or automobiles or
other vehicles; street bar serving alcoholic beverages, except in connection with a
restaurant or hotel; massage parlor, discotheque; dance hall; tattoo parlors; skating rink;
off track betting establishment; amusement or garne room, except in connection with a
restaurant or hotel; so-called "flea market"; for industrial purposes; private or public nail
facility; check cashing store; pool room; so-called "head shops"; night club; nothing
herein shall prohibit Purchaser from presenting classes and demonstrations within the
related to or use of any products sold from the Premises so long as some are incidental to
Purchaser's primary retail use; gun range or gun shopi or use which -units offensive
odors, fumes, dust or vapors, is a public or private nuisance, emits loud noise or sounds
which are objectionable, except under controlled situations such as witlt a gas station;
creates fire, explosive or other hazard, except under controlled situations such as with a
gas station; warehouse, except as incidental to a retail business; adult bock store or store
selling or exhibiting pornographic materials. If the City of Rochester agrees to a
rezoning to B-4 designation, the Seller would add funeral parlors to the lisp: of restrictions.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 9, 1997
Ms. Goslee explained that the applicant is Mathy Construction Company and the property is
located along the north side of 2nd Street SW, west of the West Zumbro Addition and east of
23rd Avenue SW.
Mr. DeWitt pointed out that Mathy Construction Company purchases sand from his mining
operation, and stated that does not constitute a conflict of interest.
Ms. Goslee explained that the petitioner is requesting to amend the land use plan designation
from 'low -density residentiar to the 'medium -density residential' (11.62 acres) and
'commercial' (6.9 acres). The northern portion of the property would be the residential and the
commercial along 2nd Street SW. Two single family homes are now located on the property,
which was also the site of a driving range. The property is designated for 'low -density
residentiar types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and is proposed
to be used for medium -density residential development and a neighborhood shopping center.
Ms. Goslee explained the adjacent land uses and went over the transportation access, stating
that the property has frontage on 2nd Street SW, which is labeled as an arterial street on the
ROCOG Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant, is proposing to channel traffic
through an internal driveway system leading off of an extension of 23rd Avenue SW at its
intersection with 2nd Street SW. This extension of 23rd Avenue SW is also proposed to be
used as a haul road for the mining operation.
Ms. Goslee presented and explained a zoning map of the area. She pointed out that many of
the properties that front along this stretch of 2nd Street SW are currently zoned and designated
on the land use plan for commercial purposes, with the exception of the Brink's property. The
other properties fronting along 2nd Street SW are primarily used for multiple family residential
uses, as well as a mobile home park. The neighborhood that is found to the east of the
proposed medium -density residential location is zoned a mixture of R-1 and R-2 zones used
primarily for single family residences.
Ms. Goslee went over the locational criteria and staff -suggested findings, as contained in the
staff report. She noted that Staff recommends approval as submitted. Ms. Goslee commented
that the area directly to the east of the proposed site never got redesignated on the land use
plan as far as commercial. At some date, the Commission may want to initiate that change so
the appropriate land use designation for that area is carried throughout that stretch of 2nd
Street.
Mr. DeWiitz commented that when the land development manual was drafted, 9 was not the
intention that they never have commercial on the middle of the block. He stated that should be
brought up under "other business' to change that.
Ms. Goslee explained that Mr. Wheeler has mentioned this to Jeff Slerbusch, who is handling
the land use plan update, as a locational criteria that should be dropped.
Dan Bemdt of the Dunlap and Seeger Law Office, 505 Marquette Bank Building, addressed the
Commission. He stated that Mr. Steve Beech of Mathy Construction and Mr. Bill Tointon of
McGhie and Betts are here also. He stated there are two pieces, each containing a house,
within the proposed B-4 designation, that are owned by other individuals, Mrs. Wheelock and
Mrs. Maxon. They have both signed the petitions for the land use plan and zone change.
11
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 9, 1997
the needs of the population area. Mr. Bellinger pointed out that, conceptually, he likes the
project.
Ms. Goatee added that later on in the land use plan amendment they discuss the concept of
frontage roads. In a way, this conceptual internal driveway system leading to 2nd Street SW is
serving that purpose. It may not be called a frontage road, but is acting as that collector street.
Ms. Baker clarified that the Commission needs to vote on the land use plan amendment first,
otherwise the zoning wouldn't comply with the amendment.
Mr. Patterson withdrew his earlier motion.
Ms. Goslee presented the staff report, dated July 2, 1997, to the Commission. The staff report
is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Goslee explained that the applicant is Michael Younge and the consui6ng firm is Yaggy
Colby Associates. She indicated there are a number of referral comments in the packet Ms.
Goslee pointed out the location on a map of the Arboretum General Development Plan and
explained that this development consists of 13.87 acres to be subdivided into 3a single family
residential lots. The plat dedicates right-ef-way for two streets, which Ms. Goslee outlined.
In reference to utilities, Ms. Goslee stated that water service and sanitary sewer will extend
from existing lines located in 35th Avenue NW and run down both proposed streets. An
additional existing water line located in a 20' utility easement to the east of this plat will extend
along the unnamed cul-de-sac. An existing 18* storm sewer file will extend north through plat
along 35th Avenue NW. The property generally drains in a southerly to northerly direction.
Ms. Goslee noted that in the original general development plan, parts were noted as being
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING _SS
DATE: 12-3-01
p^a"'DA SECTION:
PCBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment # 61.13 by Western Walls, Inc. to rezone PREPARED BY:
approximately 2.69 acres from the B-5 (Residential Commercial) District to the B4 (General Brent Svenby,
Commercial) District. The property is located along the north side of 2nd Street and along Planner
the west side of 23'd Avenue SW. The property is identified for residential commercial uses
on the General Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake.
November 29, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 14, 2001 to consider this zone change. The
Commission also reviewed a Land Use Plan Amendment and GDP amendment for the property.
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 Mr. Burke, seconded by Mr. Staver to recommend approval Zoning District Amendment #01-13, with
the following findings. Motion carried 8.0.
1. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "medium
density residential' types of uses. A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this
-pplication. if the Land Use Plan amendment from "medium density residential" to "commercial" is approved,
oning the 2.69 acres of land to B-4 (General Commercial) would be consistent with a "commercial' land use
uesignation.
2. The B-4 zoning district allows a wide variety of uses, ranging from day care facilities to convenience retail
which includes gas stations. Uses in the B-4 zoning district have specific site location requirements. Certain
types of uses are found to be acceptable within given zoning districts only at certain sites which exhibit
locational characteristics unique to the needs of the given use or sites which are less desirable to develop and
thus are granted more latitude In development options, or which, while being compatible with the predominant
land uses permitted in the underlying zoning district, have traffic generation characteristics of a different nature
which require special consideration In locating the use. The purpose of the site location requirement is to
identify those locational restrictions necessary for certain types of permitted uses which will insure their
compatibility with surrounding land uses. Some of the uses permitted in the B-4 district would not be able to be
located at this site because the site location requirement would not be met.
With the upgrade of 23'd Avenue SW that needs to occur for the park system and other development in the area,
the property will have adequate access to support commercial uses at this location.
3. The amendment to B-4 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:
See attached staff report dated November 9, 2001.
ACTION:
pre,Jtt9-vw�
Action:
Motion By:
Seconded By:
Page 2
RCA
November 29, 2001
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law to amend the Zoning District.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 9, 2001
2. Minutes of the November 14. 2001 CPZC Meeting are attached to the LUPA RCA
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2001 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. McGhie & Bettis, Inc.
•
is
sVrt
Rout PLANNING DEPARIAIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U N„ OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
o� 40Cr8•Esrea•srr.ot�r.
i•. r•�
R�7ED.AUG UST.
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 9, 2001
RE: Zoning District Amendment # 01-13 by Western Walls, Inc. to rezone
approximately 2.69 acres from the B-5 (Residential Commercial) District
to the B-4 (General Commercial) District. The property is located along
the north side of 2nd Street and along the west side of 23`d Avenue SW.
The property Is identified for residential commercial uses on the General
Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Western Walls, Inc.
604 11th Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Property Owners: City of Rochester
C/o City Administration
401 City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Western Walls, Inc.
604 11rhAve. NW Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultant:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3 d Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located along the north side of 2nd
Street SW, west of 23r° Avenue SW and west of the
Mayo surface parking lot.
Requested Action:
The applicant is requesting to rezone 2.69 acres of
land from the B-5 (Residential Commercial) to the B-4
(General Commercial). This property was rezoned to
the B-5 district in 2000 when GDP #155 was
approved.
Existing Land Use:
The property is currently used by the City of
Rochester Park and Recreation Department as
soccer fields.
Proposed Land Use:
The applicant has also filed a Land Use Plan
amendment and an amendment to General
BUILDING CODE 507/285-6213 • GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2 /
ZC #01-13 Western Walls Inc.
November 9, 2001
Development Plan # 155 known as The Grandville at
Cascade Lake to change the commercial designation
on 2.69 acres from the residential commercial to
general commercial. No specific use is identified on
the GDP, however, the proposed highest intensity of
use on the property would be equal to that of a
convenience retail use.
Adjacent Land Use and East: Property to the east, across 23 d Ave., is zoned
Zoning: B-4 (General Commercial) and R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) and includes the Shorewood retail and
senior housing development.
South: Property to the south, across 2°d Street, is
zoned PUD and R-1 (Mixed Single Family). Further
to the west is the indoor tennis club which is zoned B-
4 (General Commercial).
North: Property to the north which is included in GDP
#155 is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and
is proposed to be developed with multi -family
dwellings. Beyond the GDP boundary, the property is
zoned R-1 and is the location of on -going mining and
the future Cascade Lake.
West: Property to the west which is included in GDP
#155 is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and
Is proposed to be developed with multi -family
dwellings and a possible fire station. Beyond the
GDP boundary, the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family) district and is the location of the Mayo
surface parking facility.
Transportation Access: Access to this property will be from 23`d Ave. SW. No
access will be permitted to or from 2"d Street SW to
the site.
It is expected a traffic signal may be warranted in the
future, at the intersection of 23 d Avenue SW and 2"d
Street SW, as development occurs. This location is
consistent with general guidelines on signal spacing
needed to maintain adequate traffic flow along the 2"d
Street SW corridor.
A Development Agreement has been executed
between the developer and City for the development
of this property. The Development Agreement
outlines requirements for contribution toward a future
traffic signal on 2"d St. SW and reservation of land for
23'd Ave. SW.
Please see the traffic analysis prepared by Charlie
Reiter regarding transportation issues.
Page 3 •
ZC #01-13 Western Walls Inc.=�
November 9, 2001
Wetlands: A wetland delineation has been carried out for the
property and is on file with the Planning Department,
Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29,
2001. A summary of the meeting is attached.
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
7. Olmsted County Public Works
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Area Zoning Map
3. Referral Comments — see GDP report
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 "medium density residential" types of uses. A Land Use Plan
amendment is being considered concurrent with this application. If the Land Use Plan
amendment from "medium density residential" to "commercial' is approved, zoning
the 2.69 acres of land to6-4 (Genera/ Commercial) would be consistent with a
"commercial" land use designation.
Page 4
ZC #01-13 Western Walls Inc.
November 9, 2001
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by
formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the
subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and
The B-4 zoning district allows a wide variety of uses, ranging from day care
facilities to convenience retail which includes gas stations. Uses in the B-4
zoning district have specific site location requirements. Certain types of uses are
found to be acceptable within given zoning districts only at certain sites which
exhibit locational characteristics unique to the needs of the given use or sites
which are less desirable to develop and thus are granted more latitude in
development options, or which, while being compatible with the predominant
land uses permitted in the underlying zoning district, have traffic generation
characteristics of a different nature which require special consideration in
locating the use. The purpose of the site location requirement is to identify those
locational restrictions necessary for certain types of permitted uses which will
insure their compatibility with surrounding land uses. Some of the uses
permitted in the B-4 district would not be able to be located at this site because
the site location requirement would not be met.
According to the GDP submitted with this rezoning petition, the intensity of use
would be equal to that of a convenience retail. In reviewing the site location
requirement for convenience retail, this site will not meet the location
requirement to locate a convenience retail store.
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 then 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 B-4 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 and suggested
findings to the criteria for a rezoning, Staff suggests that the findings don't support
rezoning the property to the B-4 district. Also, if the Land Use Plan is not approved, the
rezoning petition would need to be denied as the zoning would not be consistent with the
Land Use Plan designation. The current zoning of the property does allow for some
commercial uses. The B-5 zoning requires that purposed development proceed through a
type 11 process which requires approval by the CPZC. Based on the fact that findings can
not be made to support criteria a and c, staff recommends denial of the Land Use Plan
amendment.
•
Minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting
for
Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the 2.69-Acre Commercial (B-5)
Parcel on Granville
In Attendance: See attached attendance list.
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to explain the application to change the land use
to commercial and zone change to B-4 from the B-5 designation on 2.69-acre tract of
commercial property in the Granville general development plan.
General Discussion:
Mr. Tointon of McGhie & Betts, inc., was present and made a brief and informal introduction
of the request to change the zoning and land use and to also discuss the development process.
Mr. Tointon explained that Western Walls is the applicant. They have current control over
the property via the purchase agreement. It was explained that Del American and LeCesse
Development originally controlled the commercial lot as a part of their development plan but
since the time of approval by the city of Rochester Del American is no longer a part of the
development team. When this occurred, Lecesse became uncertain as to how they would
develop the commercial component of the site since they are basically residential developers
and builders. They did not elect to exercise their option to own this parcel and Western
Walls retained ownership through the purchase agreement.
The zone change to a B4 district will allow for a wider variety of uses. Mr. Tointon
presented copies of the zoning ordinance relative to the B-4 and B-5 districts for the
attendees to review. These sections of the code provided information on allowable uses,
intensity of development, and appearance standards.
Mr. Tointon noted that the zone change request would be consistent with the character of
what has occurred along the 2nd Street corridor as the neighborhood has transitioned from
residential uses to commercial. Mr. Tointon presented a rendition of the zoning map and
noted all of the various zoning districts along the corridor.
It was noted that signalization at 23rd Avenue S.W. will occur in the near future. Some of
the previous developments along 2nd Street SW have contributed monetarily towards the
construction cost of the signal.
Questions/Comments
Question 1: Mr. Gordon Schwacke who lives in Wimbledon Hills made several
comments. He questioned whether the commercial parcel was or had been a
part of a larger general plan when it was previously approved in the past and
questioned the allowable uses versus the restrictive covenants.
%l
Response 1: Mr. DeWitz responded that the commercial parcel was approved with the
general development plan for Granville approximately a year and half ago.
The restrictive covenants prohibit certain uses even if they were allowable in
the zoning ordinance. These restrictions were placed on the property by
Western Walls.
Question 2: Mr. Glen Miller who owns property across the street from the site questioned
whether or not a billboard could be placed on the site.
Response 2: Mr. DeWitz responded that billboards would be controlled by the zoning
ordinance.
Question 3: Mr. Schwacke questioned what would go on the former soccer fields.
Response 3: Mr. Tointon indicated that at this time LeCesse has not designed this phase of
the site but indicated that the use would be residential as it is zoned for R-3.
Comment 1: Mr. DeWitz briefly explained the condemnation process that was occurring
and the tri-party agreement with the City, LeCesse, and Western Walls.
Question 4: Mr. Schwacke noted that since he has moved to Wimbledon Hills the traffic
on 2nd Street has increased and wondered what measures would be taken to
alleviate the situation.
Response 4: Mr. Tointon indicated that the city is planning on installing a traffic signal at
23rd Avenue SW in the near future. Traffic from various commercial
facilities, such as, Mayo Credit Union, Shorewood, Corporate Gardens,
Granville, and the new commercial area could access 2nd Street at the
signalized intersection.
Comment 2: Mr. Schwacke stated that he recognized this parcel was an infill area.
However he is concerned that the 2.69-acre parcel could be split again.
Response 2: Mr. DeWitz indicated that it was possible but not probable given the shape
and size of the parcel with only one direct access to 23rd Avenue. Mr.
Schwacke also indicated that he was concerned with appearance and
orientation of structures and parking on the site. Mr. Tointon indicated that
whatever final use was planned that a site plan would be developed and
formally submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works for review
and approval. He also noted that that Land Development Manual contains
certain minimum standards and design criteria that must be adhered to when
designing the site. Mr. DeWitz noted that most new developments along 2nd
Street SW either met or exceeded the minimum standards of the ordinances.
There being no other comments or questions Mr. Tointon closed the meeting at 8:20 PM with
the notice that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on November 14th at
the Government Center. The meeting would start at 7:00 PM but the agenda is not available
until the Monday before the meeting.
Nov 05 01 11:42a MCGHIEL3ETTS INC 507-289-7333 p.2
R o c h e s t e r
Minnesota
1648 Thtre Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
•
0
Attendance Roll
Neighborhood Meeting
for
Proposed Zone Change to B-4
On 2.69 acre tract
By Western Walls Inc.
Along 2°d St. SW and 23rd Ave. SW
Tel. 507,289.3919 Monday,October 29 2001
Fe& 507.289,7333
e-mall. mcghiehem.com 6:30 PM
Estahlhhatl 1946
Shorewood Place, Building 2205
NAME
�tSe
ADDRESS
beW+-6- CAno-rt�cil'o
PHONE NO./FAX NO.
n 1'
yZIS zNp sT��i`scc�
.r
7g2- �6%4
�� or %�►1
�`�' $B .�"'l �
O'� 89- 3419 Co�Frz��
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING -
DATE: 12-3-01
VDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING )
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan #155 by Western Walls,
Inc. known as Grandville at Cascade Lake. The proposed amendment is the change the
commercial use in the southeast corner of the development. The approved plan allows for
residential commercial uses. The petitioner wishes to amend the plan to identify the
corner as being developed with uses permitted In the B-4 zoning district, with a intensity of
use equal to that a of a convenience retail use. The property is located along the north
November 29, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
PREPARED BY:
Brent Svenby,
Planner
On November 14, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this amendment to the General Development
Plan.
The applicant's representative, Ms. Julie Leisen, addressed the Commission. She explained the proposed amendment
and the rezoning of the Shorewood property (located to the east).
The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual and based on their recommendation to approve a land use plan amendment and zone change
on the property, the Commission recommends approval of the proposed GDP Amendment.
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the amendment to General Development Plan #155, known as Grandville at
;cade Lake, with staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion
•ied 8.0.
Conditions:
t. The GDP be revised to show:
• Controlled access along the entire frontage of 2nd Street SW and north along 23 d Ave. SW to a point which
aligns with the access to the Shorewood development.
• Pedestrian facilities be identified along tad St. SW and 2P Ave. SW
• The intensity of use notation on the plan be replaced to say uses permitted in the B-4 zoning district which
meet the site appearance standards for the specific use.
2. This property shall be platted. Controlled access will need to be provided along tad St. SW and 23'd Avenue SW.
3. The executed development agreement shall be amended to include to language on the obligation of the
applicant relating to the necessary roadways improvements which would be required to accommodate higher
commercial uses than what is permitted in the S-5 zoning district.
4. The previous conditions of approval placed on the General Development Plan still apply to the development.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated November 9, 2001.
Nam; GPI min,aa�
Prevlaw- LttPi� 11E�
Council Action Needed:
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.
z. 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.
I COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: I
i�V�i,
_t: is
NOTES
9IES TO SERVE Z S1TE WQ.L BE FRO
BY
THE SAME UTIIST'LES PROP05ED TO SERVE TAE REST
OA TEE GRANDVrt * n AT CASCADE LAKE DEVELOPME14T-
.N'rs'NS JTY OP DSS
W[ENSfTY OP USE WILL EQllALTHAT OF A CONYEF7ffiNCE
RETAIL USE
A mWQ.LTOTHESTAEWII.LBE OFF 01!7310AVE. SWAND
ATCASCADECASCADE LAKE DEVUDpNM4TT TpROpOSED ROAD CONNECTING O "AVE. REST OFSWW. /GJ/RANDVIIIE
It
c'0walI(-lN-
PMGel'
�4.1A1 Att"s
Z3 Avr S1�
5HcftwOa? ptvel-OPMA%r
\� - _
'��/` 6 L,
\\ Ak.
1 ewDor fmzmr-nlr
MFA
NORM O
6
SCALE 1" - 60'
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN "` " . WESTERN WALLS, INC ,,„ „ jjj
604 17TFi AVE. NW qrt• ]O/IS/01
FOR m ® �==r ROCHESTER, MN
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ROCHESTER•OUNISTED PLANNING DEPARTINIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C o L, x r, O! www.cimstedcounly.com/planning
City Planning and Zoning Commission
Brent Svenby, Planner
November 9, 2001
iN �V
Open- EE -man*
, swa
,
Amendment to the 2.69 acres located in the Southeast corner of
General Development Plan #155 "Grandville at Cascade Lake".
Planninn Department Review:
Petitioner: Western Walls, Inc.
604 11a' Ave. NW, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Property Owners: City of Rochester
• C/O City Administration
401 City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Western Walls, Inc.
60411.. Ave. NW, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property. The property is located along the north side of 2 d St.
SW/Country Club Road, west of the 23 d Ave. SW
intersection and the new Shorewood senior housing
and commercial development. The Mayo shuttle
parking lot is adjacent to the west of the site.
Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment to this approved General
Development Plan #155 is only to the 2.69 acres
located in the SE comer of the site. The amendment
doesn't affect the remainder of the GDP. This
application is a major amendment, as referenced in
sub -paragraph 61.217(2) of the LDM, requiring
reconsideration by the CP&ZC and City Council at
public hearings.
. This amendment to the GDP only pertains to the 2.69
acres zoned B-5 (residential commercial). The
remainder of the GDP, which was amended in
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
,..q,...P, PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELl/SEPTIC 507/285-B345
FAX 507/287-2275
CCC777 AN FOI JAI nPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
..
Page 2 • `
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
September of this 2001, is not proposed to be
changed with this application. Nothing is changing on
the residential portion of the property.
No specific use is identified on the 2.69 acre parcel.
However, the GDP list the intensity of use on the
property as that being equal to that of a convenience
retail use. The applicant has also petitioned to
rezone the property to the B-4 zoning district. In the
B-4 zoning district, convenience retail has a site
location requirement standard "E". By having a site
location requirement "E", the use needs to be located
so as not to take access from or channel a majority of
the traffic generated by the use onto a limited local or
local residential street. Twenty-third Avenue can be
classified as a limited local roadway. It is anticipated
the 23 d Avenue will eventually end into a parking lot
for the Cascade Lake Recreation Area. Thus a
convenience retail use would not be permitted at this
site. According to the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual the
purpose of the site location standard is to identify
those locational restrictions necessary for certain
types of permitted uses which will insure their
compatibility with surrounding uses.
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
was amended last September to designate this
property as suitable for "medium density residential"
use. This re -designation was approved at the same
time as the original GDP. The applicant has filed a
Land Use Plan Amendment to change the
designation from "medium density residential" to the
"commercial" designation.
zoning: The portion of property which is effected by the
application submitted is the property which is
presently zoned B-5 (residential commercial). The
applicant has filed a rezoning petition to rezone the
land from the B-5 zoning district to the B-4 (general
commercial) zoning district. The remainder of the
property is zoned R-3 (medium density residential).
The commercial portion of the project along 2nd Street
in the southeast corner of the development is zoned
B-5 (residential commercial). These districts were
established last year at the time of consideration of
the GDP.
Streets: The GDP proposes to take access from the public
street 23'd Ave. SW. No access will be permitted
from 2n4 St. SW (CSAH 34). The access from 23'd
Ave. SW aligns with the access to the Shorewood
development. The GDP also purposes to take
Page 3
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
access to a private roadway within the residential
development.
Sidewalks:
Pedestrian facilities will be required along 2nd St. SW
in the form of a 10-foot wide bituminous pedestrian
path, as well as typical city sidewalk along 23 d Ave
SW.
Drainage:
According to the submittal, the methodology of storm
water detention has not changed in the amended
plan. The storm sewer system will collect surface
storm drainage and direct it into the two, wet
sedimentation ponds proposed in same general
locations as shown on the approved plan. The shape
of the ponds is slightly different, and as previously
noted, still situated to far onto the City land. The wet
ponds will drain to Cascade Lake. The previous plan
showed four other potential detention areas in Phase
IL i
Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be
required when the property is platted or developed.
Wetlands:
A wetland delineation was previously carried out for
the property. No wetlands exist, based on the on -site
surveys conducted several years ago.
Public Utilities:
The purposed amended does change the routes of
service for utilities. Services are, or will be, available
to serve this property.
Parkland Dedication:
Since this is a commercial development, there are no
parkland dedication requirements.
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Works
2. Rochester Park & Recreation
3. RPU Water Division
4. RPU Operations Division
5. Rochester Fire Department
6. Olmsted County Public Works
7. Planning Department - Wetlands
8. MnDOT
9. Charlie Reiter — Senior Transportation Planner
Report Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Copy of Proposed Amended GDP
3. Reduced Copy of the Approved GDP
4. Referral Letters (6)
Page 4
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
Analysis:
Note: This amendment is only to the 2.69 acres of land located in the SE corner
of the development. The remained of the development is not affected by the
application.
No specific use is identified on the 2.69 acre parcel. However, the GDP list the intensity of use on
the property as that being equal to that of a convenience retail use. The applicant has also
petitioned to rezone the property to the B-4 zoning district. In the B-4 zoning district, convenience
retail has a site location requirement standard "E". By having a site location requirement "E", the
use needs to be located so as not to take access from or channel a majority of the traffic
generated by the use onto a limited local or local residential street. Twenty-third Avenue can be
classified as a limited local roadway. It is anticipated the 23nd Avenue will eventually end into a
parking lot for the Cascade Lake Recreation Area. Thus a convenience retail use would not be
permitted at this site. According to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual the purpose of the site location standard is to identify those locational
restrictions necessary for certain types of permitted or conditional uses which will insure their
compatibility with surrounding uses.
The current zoning of the property, B-5 (Residential Commercial), does allow for commercial
uses. According to the LDM the B-5 district is intended to provide for limited low intensity
business uses that are located within residential areas, but in a manner which buffers the adjacent
residential area from the effects of the commercial activities. The majority of the uses permitted
in the B-5 zoning district requires approved through a type II conditional use permit.
The applicant is a party to an executed Development Agreement for this property which specifies
uses allowed in the commercially designated area of this development. The agreement specifies
that the commercially designated property is limited to those uses allowed in the B-5 (Residential
Commercial) zoning district. If the zoning of the property is changed from the B-5 to the B4
zoning district, the executed Development Agreement will need to be amended. If the Agreement
is not amended, there will be a breach of contract.
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
Criteria for approval of a general development plan. The criteria and the staff suggested findings
are as follows:
Criteria 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 S-4 zoning district would be consistent with the land
use designation for the property. However, some of the uses permitted in
the B-4 zoning district will not be allow on the property because of the site
location standards of certain uses will not be met.
Page 5 ,C
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, accesses 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 B-4 zoning district would be consistent with the land
use designation for the property. Certain uses within the B-4 zoning
district have site location standards, which may not be able to be met for
this site.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
Not applicable to commercial development.
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.
Currently the traffic control at the intersection of 2"d St. SW and 2P Ave.
SW Is a stop sign on the side street approaches to 2"d St. SW. The
intersection currently operates at a level of service B. With the additional
traffic as assumed in the traffic analysis, the Level of Service for the north
approach drops from a Level of Service B to a Level of Service F. This does
not meet the standards in the Land Development Manual, which establish
Level of Service CID as the threshold for intersection operations.
Assuming signalization does occur at the Intersection of 2"d St. SW and 23'd
Ave. SW, the Level of Service for the intersection assuming full build -out of
Grandville at Cascade Lake is found to meet standards In the Land
Development Manual. However, when other potential development Is added,
including lands north of Shorewood and a potential parking lot for a future
Cascade Lake Recreation Area, the Level of Service for the southbound left
turn drops to an E/F, which again fails to meet the standards of the Land
Development Manual. The addition of a separate southbound left turn lane
would raise the Level of Service to meet the standards of the ordinance.
A Development Agreement has been executed between the developer and
City for the development of this property. The Development Agreement
outlines requirements for the contribution toward a future traffic signal on
2"d St. SW and reservation of land for 23'd Ave. SW. If the rezoning petition
Is approved, the development agreement will need to be amended to
include to language on the obligation of the applicant relating to the
necessary roadways improvements which would be required to
accommodate higher commercial uses than what is permitted in the B-5
zoning district.
Page 6
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will
provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those
adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
based on
e street system's
1 safely accommodateatr pshfrolmeex sting and hplan planned laability
Street system adequcy land uses the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in
the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of
adequacy.
Access to this property wilt be from 2P Ave. SW, is a limited focal street.
Currently the traffic control at the Intersection of Znd St. SW and 23 d Ave.
SW is a stop sign on the side street approaches to 2nd St. SW. The
intersection currently operates at a level of service B. With the additional
traffic as assumed in the traffic analysis, the Level of Service for the north
approach drops from a Level of Service B to a Level of Service F. This does
not meet the standards in the Land Development Manual, which establish
Level of Service CID as the threshold for intersection operations.
SW and 2P
Assuming signalization does occur at the intersection of 2nd St.
Ave. SW, the Level of Service for the intersection assuming full build -out of
Grandville of Cascade Lake is found to meet standards in the Land
Development Manual. However, when other potential development is added,
Including lands north of Shorewood and a potential parking lot for a future
Cascade Lake Recreation Area, the Level of Service for the southbound left
turn drops to an UP, which again falls to meet the standards of the Land
Developmt Manual. The would rase the Level of Serviceaddition to meet the standards of the ordinance lane
While the Level of Service analysis suggests that the delay and congestion
levels with current the addition of a southbound left turn lane and a traffic
signal would meet the standards In the ordinance, there is also a safety
factor that must be considered when left turn traffic has to share a lane with
through traffic under heavy traffic volumes, as occurs on the eastbound
approach to the intersection. While the current level of 5-10 left turns
during the peak hour does not create a significant level of traffic conflict,
the future estimated level of 120-125 left turns sharing the Inside of two
eastbound lanes with a through movement of 525-550 vehicles per hour will
create significant potential for conflict.
Based on the findings of the traffic analysis, in order to support the
development of higher, intensity commercial use improvements to the
intersection including a traffic signal and the addition of eastbound and
southbound left turn Janes would be warranted. The abilityto achieve in the this
intersection design will require expanding the roadway surface
northwest quadrant of the intersection to provide added width to the west
side of north approach and along the north side of rd St SW. This design
will need further detailed engineering analysis before development is
Page 7
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
permitted to insure that minimum standards for curves can be met and
appropriate lane alignment through the intersection can be maintained.
A Development Agreement has been executed between the developer and
City for the development of this property. The Development Agreement
outlines requirements for the contribution toward a future traffic signal on
2 d St. SW and reservation of land for 2P Ave. SW. if the rezoning petition
is approved, the development agreement will need to be amended to
include to language on the obligation of the applicant relating to the
necessary roadways improvements which would be required to
accommodate higher commercial uses than what is permitted in the B-5
zoning district.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
Services are, or will be available to serve this property. This development
makes accommodations for construction of a trunkmain sanitary sewer
through the site. The City has hired an engineer to design relocation of the
existing trunkmain that dissects the future Lake.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Pedestrian facilities will be required along 2"d St. SW in the form of a 10-
foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, as well as typical city sidewalk along
23'd Ave S W.
No stormwater management facilities are identified on this portion of the
GDP. Stormwater management facilities are identified on the residential
portion of the development.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
A storm sewer system will be designed for the site that will collect surface
storm drainage and direct this drainage into the wet sedimentation basins
that will attempt to clean the runoff before entering Cascade Lake.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property
is platted or developed.
ra
Page 8
General Development Plan
November 9, 2001
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.
Roadway design layout would need to be reviewed in further detailed at the
time specific development is purposed to insure that minimum standards
for curves can be met and appropriate lane alignment through the
intersection can be maintained.
At the time a specific use is proposed on the site, the site appearance
standards of the LDM will need to be checked to determine if the proposed
uses meets the standards of the LDM. A number of uses in the B-4 zoning
district have a site location requirement "E". it appears that this site will
not accommodate all of the uses listed In the B-4 zoning district.
Recommendation:
Note: This amendment is only to the 2.69 acres of land located in the 5E corner
of the development. The remained of the development is not affected by the
application.
The previous conditions of approval still apply to the GDP.
If the CPZC and Council decide that the 2.69 acre site meets the criteria for B4 commercial
zoning, Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance
with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable
criteria.
t. The GDP be revised to show:
• Controlled access along the entire frontage of 2nd Street SW and north
along 23'd Ave. SW to a point which aligns with the access to the
Shorewood development.
• Pedestrian facilities be identified along 2"d St. SW and 2P Ave. SW.
The Intensity of use notation on the plan be replaced to say uses permitted
in the B-4 zoning district which meet the site appearance standards for the
specific use.
2. This property shall be platted. Controlled access will need to be provided along 2"d
St. SW and 2P Avenue SW.
3. The executed development agreement shall be amended to Include to language on
the obligation of the applicant relating to the necessary roadways improvements
which would be required to accommodate higher commercial uses than what is
permitted In the B-5 zoning district.
4. The previous conditions of approval placed on the General Development Plan still
apply to the development.
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507)285-8232
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission / City Council
FROM: Charles Reiter
Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: November 7, 2001
RE: Amendment to GDP #155 / Grandville at Cascade Lake Commercial Center
The proposed amendment is for change in zoning for 2.69 acres of land from B-5 (Residential Commercial) to BA
(General Commercial). In order to assess the impact of this rezoning on the street system in the vicinity of the site
staff completed a Traffic Impact Analysis focusing on the operation of the 2°d St SW / 23 d Ave SW intersection. The
results of that analysis follow.
The current intersection provides for a mixture of geometries on the four approaches to the intersection, as illustrated
in Figure 1. On the east side of the intersection there are a total of six full lanes plus a parking/shoulder lane, with
two through lanes in each direction, a center lane that serves westbound left turns, and a westbound right turn lane.
On the west side of the intersection there are only four lanes (two through lanes in each direction), with a transition
area in the center of the pavement that serves to narrow the pavement width from the six lane width east of the
intersection to the four lane width west of the intersection. This results in eastbound left bums sharing the inside lane
with through traffic on the west approach. The north and south approaches provide one lane in each direction, with
the south approach also having extra width as the for parking which can serve to facilitate right turns along -side
through or left tam movements.
Figure 1
W
NORTH
t
t
t
*• 4TCombil
rtil f I Itl.j jrAM777
CurrentiT
Intersection
Configuration
23HIAve
S
L
f--
�_ _ _ -rwan _ �. E
Based on current peak hour traffic, we would estimate that daily traffic on 2"d St is about 10,500 - 11,500
vehicles per day. Currently peak hour volumes on the north and south approaches are very light, as
shown in the following peak hour traffic data:
SB Right SB Thru SB Left
EB Left WB Right
EB Thru WB Thru IN
EB Right WB Left
NB Left NB Thru NB RKighlt�
In order to complete the analysis of future traffic operations with development, the following
assumptions regarding future land use on the site and in the vicinity that would contribute traffic to 23 d
Ave were made:
On the site:
Convenience Retail Center with 12 Vehicle Fueling Stations
• 4000 Square Foot Video Store
• 12,000 Square Feet low intensity retail / office center
In the vicinity of the site
• Phase I of Grandville at Cascade Lake — 264 mixed townhouse/condo units
• Phase II of Grandville at Cascade Lake— 150 mixed townhouse/condo units
Land north of Shorewood — 54 townhouse units
• 200 space parking lot for Cascade Lake Recreation Area
The traffic impact of the development associated with Grandville at Cascade Lake (residential
and commercial areas) during the PM Peak Hour is estimated to be as follows:
SB Righ� t SB Thru SB Left
EB Left WB Right
EB Thru W B Thru
EB Right
W B Left
NB Left NB Thru NB Right
The impact of the additional traffic generated by the Grandville at Cascade Lake development was
analyzed based on current traffic control at the intersection, which is stop sign control on the side street
approaches to 2nd St. With the additional traffic, the Level of Service' for the north approach drops from
a Level of Service B to a Level of Service F. This does not meet the standards in the Land Development
Manual, which establish Level of Service C/D as the threshold for intersection operations. We next
analyzed Level of Service assuming traffic signalization at the intersection. Assuming signalization does
occur, the Level of Service for the intersection assuming full build -out of Grandville at Cascade Lake is
found to meet standards in the Land Development Manual. However, when other potential development
is added, including lands north of Shorewood and a potential parking lot for a future Cascade Lake
Recreation Area, the Level of Service for the southbound left turn drops to an E/F, which again fails to
meet the standards of the Land Development Manual. The addition of a separate southbound left turn
lane would raise the Level of Service to meet the standards of the ordinance.
While the Level of Service analysis suggests that the delay and congestion levels with current the
addition of a southbound left turn lane and a traffic signal would meet the standards in the ordinance,
there is also a safety factor that must be considered when left turn traffic has to share a lane with through
traffic under heavy traffic volumes, as occurs on the eastbound approach to the intersection. While the
current level of 5-10 left turns during the peak hour does not create a significant level of traffic conflict,
the future estimated level of 120-125 left turns sharing the inside of two eastbound lanes with a through
movement of 525-550 vehicles per hour will create significant potential for conflict. The following chart
illustrates commonly accepted thresholds for when a left turn lane should be provided, with the projected
conditions at this intersection (marked with an X) indicating that a separate left turn lane should be
provided.
Values falling above the
curves indicate that a left
turn lane should be provided
344 Veh per lane estimated
10 20 30
SS
40 50
Left Tum Volume
(Design Hour Volumes)
*I Advancitig volume � opposing volumey(2 x number of through lanes
X
122
Left
Turns
Estimated
'See Attachment A for a description of Level of Service ratings A through F .
Based on the findings of this analysis, in order to support the development of higher intensity commercial
use such as a convenience store and some associated retail/office use on the site, improvements to the
intersection including a traffic signal and the addition of eastbound and southbound left turn lanes would
be warranted. Figure 2 illustrates the ultimate layout of the intersection that is recommended if higher
intensity retail use is proposed for the site:
New
JFigu�el Thru / Current
Right Lane
Turn becatnes
Lane Left
IlNORTH
Hanlone e' 1
New roadway I '
edge
VY - Existing roadway - 1'
edge
Add ------------
Turn
IrWCLTL
Intersection
Configuration
to support
High Intensity 23rd, Ave
Commercial S
The ability to achieve this intersection design will require expanding the roadway surface oach and
the
northwest quadrant of the intersection to provide added width to the west side of north app
along the north side of 2' d St SW. This design will need further detailed engineering analysis before
development is permitted to insure that minimum standards for curves can be met and appropriate lane
alignment through the intersection can be maintained.
It should also be noted that development of the site will also require further analysis of access spacing at
the time a site development plan is submitted to determine the adequacy of proposed driveway locations
relative to intersection queues and the handling of turns into the site.
-TABLE3 0
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIFtION
ATTACHMENT A
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
AVERAGE
LEVEL
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION
STOPPED
ERVE
CAPACITY
IMPACT ON
DELAY
SERVICE
MINOR STREETTRAFFIC
PER VEHICLE
DESIGNATION
(PCPH)
SECONDS
- Good progression with condition of free flow
accompanied by low volumes and high speeds.
- Major movements have low percentage of stops.
< 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 m 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.
.tmber of vehicles stopping is significant at
still through without
I5.1 - 25.0
C
200 - 299
Average traffic delays
vel, although many pass
stopping.
- Individual cycle failures (waiting for more than one
green) may begin to appear.
- Acceptable intersection operation during peak
hours.
- Congestion becomei noticeable, and traffic is
high V/C
approaching unstable flow with ratios.
23.1- 40.0
D
l00 - 194
Lang traffic. delays
- Drivers 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
i
- At or beyond limit, of acceptable delay.
..
40.1 -60.0
E
0.99
Very long traffic delays
- Volumes are at, Or near, capacity.
t
- Individual cycle failures am frequent
d flow operation at low speeds where
Volumes exceed capacity of
tes are over capacity.
each lane. Extreme delays with
- Unacceptable to drivers with all vehicles stepping.
> 60.0
F
queuing causes congestion
affecting all movements in the
intersection
- Cycle failures are maximized,
V/C a Volume to capacity,
ROCHESTER
inneJota
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street BE Room 108
TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740
07-287-7800
2122 Campus Drive SE 5-507-281-6
p FAX — 507-281-6216
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 1112/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for an AMENDMENT to General
Development Plan #155 Zone Change #01-13 & Land Use Plan Amendment #01-06 on the
Grandville at Cascade Lake (tka—The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake) property. The following
are Public Works comments on the proposal to designate 2.69 acres for B-4 development:
The applicant is a party to an executed Development Agreement for this property
which specifies uses allowed in the commercially designated area of this
development be limited to those allowed in the B-5 District as defined in the Land
Development Manual. Trip generation from a B-4 parcel can be significantly greater
than from a B-5 parcel. The development of the parcel for a use such as a
convenience store / gas station may impact the current street function of 23 d Ave and
necessitate the need for access control, widening, turn lanes, and medians to mitigate
the impacts of increased peak hour traffic impacts. The proposed LUPA, Zone
change, and GDP Amendment are contrary to the agreed upon land use provisions in
the executed Agreement, and should not be approved.
N
C:\WINDOW 5\Temporary Internet File5\OLKB022\GDP155 AMENDMENT Grandville at Cascade Lake - LUPA01-06 -
ZONE01-13.doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT
October 23, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Amendment #01-06 Land Use Plan
Amendment #01-13 Zoning District
Amendment to Grandville at Cascade Lake GDP #155
The 2.69 acres to be re -zoned is currently owned by the City of Rochester. The current
use of the property is an unpaved parking lot and soccer fields.
The 2.69 acres is included in a land exchange agreement between the applicant, the
City and Lecesse Development Corporation. The Park Board has previously
recommended approval of the land exchange.
The Park and Recreation Department has no concerns / comments regarding the
zoning, land use or GDP amendment requests.
a S
October 25, 2001
Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
5071285-8231
Dear Jennifer:
The Public Works Department has reviewed the General Development Plan #155 by
Western Walls, Inc. and has the following comments:
Access control shall be shown along 2"d St. SW (CSAH 34).
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
t%engindocVlanxone.doc
Mrw w.•
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
....��.onon,o survevino and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
�7
rpu
we nledie, we deliver
October 31, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Amendment to General Development Plan #155 by Western Walls, Inc. known
as Grandville at Cascade Lake to change the commercial use in the SE corner from residential
commercial to B-4, with an intensity of use equal to that of a convenience retail use.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. The Main Level Water System is available for connection on the east side of the site and
must be extended through this area to serve the balance of the Grandville development.
2. 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-JA p
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Western Walls, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ALROCHESTER
4AMERICA CETY
Vv �rredoLa
DATE: October 31. 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
0
J, xa CN C��TE R�•li�l\lrS
0OU51'C^
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904.3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
SUBJECT: Zoning District Amendment#01-13.
Amend. to General Development Plan #155
Urban Service Area Amend #01-06, by Western Walls for property known as Grandville
at Cascade Lake, located north of 2nd Street SW and west of 23rd Avenue SW.
With regard to the above noted general development plan, the fire department has the following
requirements:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located
and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place
prior to commencing building construction.
2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be
serviceable prior to and during building construction.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any residential
buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4"
high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail
box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Western Walls, Inc. 604 11s' Avenue NW, Rochester, MN 55901
McGhle Betts, Inc, 1648 P Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12-03-01
1 DA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
( 17INUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
z� —
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon
PREPARED BY:
Oaks First Subdivision. This Plat proposes to subdivide 32.94 acres of land into 44 lots for
Mitzi A. Baker,
single family development and 4 outlots.. The applicant is also requesting approval of a
Senior Planner
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 27, 2001
NOTE: This plat was previously continued to provide additional time for the Development Agreement to be executed by
the developer.
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated November 27, 2001, recommending approval subject to the following
condition:
1. The Final Plat shall be revised as follows:
• To dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of Viola Road(CSAH 2 and also along
"Shannon Oaks Boulevard NE" from CSAH 2 south to 'Limerick Lane NE""
• To modify roadway names as specified in the attached memorandum from the Planning Department
Addressing staff dated November 8, 2001.
2. The applicant is responsible for identifying wetlands that may exist on the site.
3. The applicant shall construct a right turn lane from Viola Road(CSAH 2, which shall be coordinated with the
County Engineer.
4. Shannon Oaks Boulevard from Viola Road NE to Limerick Lane NE and shall be posted "No Parking".
5. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalks) are required, at the expense of the Developer, along both sides of
all new roadways within this development, and in addition, a 10 foot wide bituminous path is required along
the entire frontage of Viola Road NE.
6. Private drainage facilities that serve less than 50 acres shall remain private and execution of a Maintenance 8
Ownership Declaration shall be required. Storm Water Management shall be provided for this development.
A Voluntary Stormwater Management Fee shall apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when grades, do
not drain to the proposed detention facility.
7. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $15,515, per the
November 9, 2001 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation Department.
8. Approval of the Substantial Land Alteration Permit is required prior to approval of the grading plan. The
plans are subject to revision to comply with any approval conditions of the Substantial Land Alteration
Permit.
COUNCILACTION: Moeonby: Second by: to:
Page 2
RCA / / r'
November 27, 2001
9. Access to CSAH 2 shall initially be provided through a temporary access to be located across from Oslo Court
NE, as specified by the road authority (County Engineer). "Shannon Oaks Boulevard NE" at CSAH 2 shall not be
opened to motorists until after reconstruction of this section of CSAH 2 or until authorized by the road authority
(County Engineer).
10. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall provide a surety to the City for the Substantial Land Alteration,
which guarantees the site will be fully restored after the 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.
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, December 3, 2001 in the Council Chamb
at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
Final Plat #99-40
Shannon Oaks First
900' Notification Distance
Ward 5 Evans
11 /02/01
Q - J
Q a w
U
LU
Q
S
h
W
Z
W
Q
S
F
O
S)IVO NONNYHS
'NVIdiN3NdOl3A3(11"3N3'
YJOUNNIWHUBH�Old
CO
'lq7
Jr�
0
i
wens wens aN033S SI�IH 83AVH
152j13 STAR 63AVH
Lb'Mi .� ys nx e„w M . .S1.SS9C[ Illy a trn a
m� ara j +n
W4 s J
11W�� flLd
a
z
x
a
• `o � ,� �P�F vy �r
{j \ � B 111""���111w���' � • y � e( h
d WP ®v I +os L a vnloc.,C19S _l
Z
4311V1dNn `n
1/W OMI \
VIOS3NNll j-S3H]CY
!1r' ..19 1 'I s iili I Ill 1S211j SNV� . )NNVHS ilili,
:l ;I 11ii I Iil
/
/
/
/
/
,P
�a�
/
ARCHITECTS
,-
L /
S N A EYC A
October 31, 2001
Mr. Brent Svenby
Olmsted County Planning
2122 SE Campus Drive
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Substantial Land Alteration
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
Rochester, Minnesota
LANESCAPE ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
Dear Mr. Svenby:
ROCHESTER OFF
This letter is to serve as a request for substantial land alteration approval for the above
nu -
referenced final plat. The existing agricultural land will be regraded to be suitable for
2vTnTdnve
residential applications. Generally, the area of fill is to provide for two more suitable lot RYAchesler, MN 55
grades, two dam embankments, and a roadway embankment. Cut will provide for site
drainage and detention pond storage, as well as preliminary pad preparation on the 507-266-6
adjacent school site within the quantity limitations associated with the sale of the
property. Materials will stay on site. Fax 507.28e-5
Grading is anticipated to be completed in the fall 2001, with streets and utilities to be
completed in the spring or summer 2002. Slopes greater than 3:1 and drainage swales
will be stabilized with wood fibre blanket or permanent turf reinforcement mat and
seeded per the grading plans.
Please call if you have any questions.
MASON CITY OFF
Sincerely, 641.424-E
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES
lee4�
DELAFIELD OFF
Robert G. Larget, PE
262-646-E
RGLwms
YCA 47541
Equal Opportunity Employer
yaggy.com
, ± N O l¥: 311V Oml vIN! VimS ■�� \/\ •�q. ] � i.•�� _. ma
Roewms isBso NO.NNV
./ | H!S
�! ' |
1 �
!
.
|!
®
!�
•
-
a!a
)
\
m)
§ �§§
! �;|■
. :
.
w, z «!
-- DLA'ISTED PLANNING DEPARTNIENT
)rive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
www. of m stedcounty.co m/planning
ut uocttesrex•irrrtix.c
h
ORa TED•AUGUSS •'
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: November 27, 2001
RE: Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon
Oaks First Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 32.94 acres of land into 44 lots for single family
development and 4 outlots. The plat also proposes to dedicated
right-of-way for six new 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 d east
of Century Hills Drive NE and is within part of the approved
Shannon Oaks General Development Plan.
Plann_ing pepartment Review:
Ilcantlowner: Arcon Development
App Larry Frank
7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 350
Edina, MN 55439
surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Assoc.
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 559040
Referral Comments: 1. John Harford, Planning Dept.lWetiands LGU
2. Rochester Department of Public Works
3. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept.
4. RPU Water Division
5, Olmsted County Public Works
6. Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (6 Letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Copy of Final Plat
5. Memo from Yaggy Colby Associates, dated
October 31, 2001.
6. Copy of Substantial Land Alternation Map
BUILDING CODE 507/2P �NRA 5071285.8224
ANN NGRONING 5071285 8232 . WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
�y FAX 5071287.2275
ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
Development Review:
Location of Property:
Zoning:
Proposed Development:
Streets:
This plat is located, east of the Century Hills
Development, south of Viola Rd. (CR 2).
The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family).
This development consists of 32.94 acres to be
subdivided into 44 lots for single family residential
development and 4 Outlots.
The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of-
way for six (6) new roads.
This Plat dedicates approximately 80' of right-of-way
for Viola Rd. (CSAH 2). This roadway is incorrectly
labeled. The roadway designation needs to be
changed to VIOLA ROAD NE (C.S.A.H. NO. 2) CSAH
2 is scheduled to be reconstructed to a four -lane
facility in the year 2004, a right turn lane will be
required from CSAH 2.
Dedication of Controlled Access is required on the
plat along the entire frontage of Viola Road NW with
the exception of the access shown for Shannon Oaks
Boulevard.
The main entrance into this development from CSAH
2 will be via "Shannon Oaks Blvd. NE'. This roadway
will be designated as a Collector, platted with 80'
right-of-way. This roadway will include landscape
medians. This roadway Is incorrectly illustrated. The
BLVD needs to be spelled out so the roadway
designation reads SHANNON OAKS BOULEVARD
NE and expands the text to include the roadway
segment north of Limerick Lane NE and south of
Tralee Lane NE. In addition, no parking shall be
allowed on Shannon Oaks Boulevard from Viola
Road NE to Limerick Lane NE.
Two cul-de-sac roads will be dedicated just south of
Viola Road. Each will have a 56' right-of-way with a
32' roadway. They are proposed to be named
"Limerick Lane NE" and "Trailee Lane NE".
Another roadway being dedicated is "21" St. NE", an
east -west roadway that will eventually connect with
21 °' St. NE in the Century Hills Development. This
road will be a Major Local road designed with a 60'
right-of-way and 36' surface. This roadway is
incorrectly illustrated. Drop the "st" behind 21, the
roadway should be illustrated as 021 STREET NE"
and expand the text to include the roadway segment
Page 3
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
west of Galway Lane NE.
Also being dedicated is a short segment of what will
be a local through street. This roadway is named
"Kerry Drive NE" and is designed with a 56' right-of-
way and a 32' roadway.
The last roadway being dedicated is a segment of a
future cul-de-sac proposed to be named "Galway
Lane NE". This roadway is designed with a 56' right-
of-way.
Roadway access to this development will initially be
via a temporary road that will be located through Lot7,
Block 5, and not from Shannon Oaks Boulevard.
Once Viola Road/CSAH 2 is reconstructed adjacent
to this development, the temporary road will be closed
and the access at Shannon Oaks Boulevard will be
opened. Reconstruction of Viola Road adjacent to
this development will improve site distance/visibility
problems.
Utilities:
The final utility plans have been approved for this plat.
Sidewalks:
Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalks) are
required, at the expense of the Developer, along both
sides of all new roadways within this development,
and in addition, a 10 foot wide bituminous path is
required along the entire frontage of Viola Road NE.
Drainage:
The property generaily drains to the south. There will
be several ponds within the development to collect
stormwater. Private drainage facilities that serve less
than 50 acres shall remain private and execution of a
Maintenance & Ownership Declaration shall be
required.
Approval of the Substantial Land Alteration is required
prior to approval of the grading plan. The plans are
subject to revision to comply with any approval
conditions of the Substantial Land Alteration Permit.
wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils on this portion
of the property according to the Soils Survey.
However, due to the location in the landscape, the
property owner should examine the site for wetlands.
The applicant is responsible for identifying wetlands.
Spillover Parking:
The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be 53 parking spaces. The
proposed roadways should be adequate to
accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Page 4
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
Parkland Dedication: 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.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the Shannon Oaks
General Development Plan which was approved in
July, 1999. The roadway alignments and lots are
generally consistent with the approved GDP.
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 on three portions of the site:
1) the southwest portion of the site (Lots 2 and 3, Block
undevelopedk2),thright-of-way of area south of
Street NE (along Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlet A),
Outlot A;
2) the southeastern portion (Outlet B); and
3) the northwestern portion (along the western right-of-way of Shannon Oaks
Boulevard and the unplatted area located west of Shannon Oaks Boulevard.
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 will be used to fill in
the low area in the southwest portion of the site (Lots 2 and 3, Block 2), the right-of-way of 21"
Street NE (along Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlet A) and the undeveloped area south of
Outlet A and the southeastern portion (Outlot B).
3) Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards.
Page 5
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27. 2001
4) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized
to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site. It will not be necessary to
truck in fill or haul fill from the site, which will minimize the impact on the surroundings roads.
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 fall of 2001.
9) The grading will only take place during one phase during the fall of 2001, There are homes in
the area to the east (Haver Hills Second Subdivision) 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 fall of 2001. 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.
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) Not applicable.
2) Not applicable.
3) Not applicable.
Page 6
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
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.
Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
99. The
ofpthelpreliminary iat for plat wls area was as subject topproved eight (8)by the Council on Octoer 18,condit conditions: The conditions ares listed below:
1. The Plat shall be revised to: 1) dedicate 80, right-of-way for CSAH 2 with any additional
needed right-of-way platted as Outlots and reserved for future purchase by Olmsted
County at market value; 2) identify controlled access along CSAH 2 and also alonngida
Shannon Oaks Boulevard NE" from CSAH 2 south to "Limerick Lane NE"; 3) p
rov
(water main and sewer main and associated easements to the northeast comer of the
plat; 4) provide sewer main and associated easements to the north property line across
from Oslo Cf. NE and water main and associated easements to the north property line,
the specific locations of which must be approved by RPU and Rochester Public Works.
2. Access to CSAH 2 shall initially be provided through a temporary access
Ineebe located
across from Oslo Court NE, as specified by the road authority(County Engineer).
).
"Shannon Oaks Boulevard NE" at CSAH 2 shall not be opened to motorists until after
reconstruction of this section of CSAH 2 or until authorized by the road authority
(County Engineer).
3. Easement sizes, locations and types will be reviewed in detail as grading, drainage,
and construction plans are further refined.
4. Storm water management must be provided for thiddevelopment.
and maintenance
Facilitiessrving 50
acres or less are private and must be covered by private
agreements. Post -Developments storm drainage impacts from the school site must be
accounted for in Outlot A, with the IDS 535 participation.
5. Dedication of the CSAH 2 right of way shall be provided with the first plat of this
development or when the City notifies the owner that a roadway improvement project
is programmed, which ever comes first.
6. Pedestrian facilities shall be graded and constructed concurrent with the Shannon
Oaks project along CSAH 2 within Outlot G & F.
nts via cash in lieu of
7 The applicant agrees to meet parkland dedication
amount of $14,500 as specified in the attached memo efrom the Roched
Rochester Park
in
and Recreation Department dated September 10, 1999.
Page 7
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
�
November 27, 2001
8. The roadway names "County Kerry Drive NE" and "County Galway Lane NE" shall be
modified to delete the word "County".
9. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall provide a surety to the City for the
Substantial Land Alteration, which guarantees the site will be fully restored after the
completion of the excavation activity.
Page 8 J
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
Planning Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for this Plat. Staff would
recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
t. The Final Plat shall be revised as follows:
• To dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of Viola Road/CSAH
2 and also along "Shannon Oaks Boulevard NE" from CSAH 2 south to
"Limerick Lane NE";
• To modify roadway names as specified in the attached memorandum from
the Planning Department Addressing staff dated November 8, 2001.
2. The applicant is responsible for identifying wetlands that may exist on the site.
3. The applicant shall construct a right turn lane from Viola Road(CSAH 2, which shall
be coordinated with the County Engineer.
4. Shannon Oaks Boulevard from Viola Road NE to Limerick Lane NE and shall be
posted "No Parking".
5. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalks) are required, at the expense of the
Developer, along both sides of all new roadways within this development, and in
addition, a 10 foot wide bituminous path is required along the entire frontage of
Viola Road NE.
6. Private drainage facilities that serve less than 5o acres shall remain private and
execution of a Maintenance & Ownership Declaration shall be required. Storm
Water Management shall be provided for this development. A Voluntary
Stormwater Management Fee shall apply to any areas of this subdivision that,
when grades, do not drain to the proposed detention facility.
7. Parkland dedication for this subdivision shall be met via cash In lieu of land In the
amount of $15,515, per the November 9, 2001 memorandum from Rochester Park
and Recreation Department.
a. Approval of the Substantial Land Alteration Permit Is required prior to approval of
the grading plan. The plans are subject to revision to comply with any approval
conditions of the Substantial Land Alteration Permit.
9. Access to CSAH 2 shall initially be provided through a temporary access to be
located across from Oslo Court NE, as specified by the road authority (County
Engineer). "Shannon Oaks Boulevard NE" at CSAH 2 shall not be opened to
motorists until after reconstruction of this section of CSAH 2 or until authorized by
the road authority (County Engineer).
REMINDER TO APPLICANT:
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract
that requires the developer to construct the public roadways and utilities.
Page 9
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2C01
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 64.12o 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 10
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
Effective May 15, 1999
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 11
Shannon Calks First Subdivision
November 27, 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.
621105 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;
Page 12
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
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;
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:
Page 13
Shannon Oaks First Subdivision
November 27, 2001
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards
to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will
be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose
undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public
facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that maybe
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 it site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised
plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
B) 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.
KOCHESTER
Minnedola
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 11/14/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4w 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
#99-40 on the Shannon Oaks First 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, substandard street reconstruction charges & Traffic Improvement District charges,
stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities,
right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure, including the
extension of Sanitary Sewer through this property.
2. Grading, Drainage, and Construction Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat
approval.
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 the proposed detention facility.
4. Any private drainage facilities that serve less than 50 acres shall remain private and
execution of a Maintenance & Ownership Declaration will be required..
S. Dedication of Controlled Access is required on the plat along the entire frontage of
Viola Rd with the exception of the access shown for Shannon Oaks Blvd.
6. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalk) are required, at the expense of the
Developer, along both sides of all new roads within this development, and in
addition, a 10 foot wide bituminous path is required along the entire frontage of Viola
Rd.
7. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public
infrastructure.
8. There should be no parking allowed on Shannon Oaks Blvd from Viola Rd to
Limerick Ln.
C:%WINDOWS\Temporary Internet FIIes\OLKB022\FP99-40 Shannon Oaks 1stdoc
ROCHESTLR
Vinne8ota
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
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the
Development Agreement and will include:
•'r J9218 Trunkline Sewer @ $1403.17 per acre + 7.5% interest from 514/98
J9288 Water Tower @ $1021.46 per acre + 7.5% interest from 5/4198
S• Signal Contribution
Contribution for Seal Coat @ $0.47 per square yard of public street surface.
❖ Street signs as determined by the Traffic Division:
8 Street name Signs
1 Street Ends Sign
1 Truck Limit Sign
CAWINDOWS%Temporary Internet FIIe510LKB022\FP9940 Shannon Oaks tst.doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND i REATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURI n STREET SE h
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 9, 2001
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Shannon Oaks First
Preliminary Plat #99-40
Acreage of
32.94 acres
plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units ............................................
44 units
Dwelling unit density...................................................1.33
units/acre
Densityfactor............................................................
.0244
Dedication.............................................................
I. 1.07 acres
Fair market value of land .............................................
$14,500
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $15,515 (1.07 a X $14,500/acre) with payment due
prior to recordation of plat.
Applicant:
Arcon Development
7625 Metro Bvld Suite 350
Edina MN 55439
0:\DST0TZ\2o01\DEDZCAT10N\NE 2a96\SHANN0N OAKS IST.DOC
e
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GISlAddressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507) 287-2275
PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: November 8, 2001
TO: Jennifer Gamess
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: SHANNON OAKS FIRST SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT
# 99-40
A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues:
1. C.S.A.H. NO.2 (VIOLA ROAD) is illustrated incorrectly.
RECOMMENDATION: Change roadway designation to be VIOLA ROAD NE (C.S.A.H. NO.2).
2. SHANNON OAKS BLVD. NE is illustrated incorrectly.
RECOMMENDATION: Spell out BLVD. So designation reads SHANNON OAKS BOULEVARD
NE, and expands the text to include roadway segment north of Limerick Lane NE and south of Tralee
Lane NE.
3. 21" STREET NE is illustrated incorrectly.
RECOMMENDATION: Drop the st behind 21 STREET NE, ROADWAY SHOULD BE ILLUSTRATED
AS 21 STREET NE, and expand the text to include roadway segment west of Galw
C i'0.'lypO1�5'r[:A9PORAILY' IN CGRNI_'I I'IL.LS OLKB11" SHANN)NOAKSFIRtiI IT I:NX
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
November 13, 2001
Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
Dear Jennifer:
The Public Works Department has reviewed the Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon
Development and has the following comments:
• CSAH 2 is scheduled to be reconstructed to a four -lane facility in
2004.
• Right turn lane will be required from CSAH 2.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:bw
tWntlindacolanzone.doc
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
m,11,11nn Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance
Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
MENT AP
Application Number: `t��Xr # 4 (,\'"d ��' � �,�� dC l t4
_ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
_ Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property
owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and
submitting the information as part of this application.
_ A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file
with the Planning Department
_ A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -
loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning
Department.
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
. orporates the approved wetland plan.
V No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However,
due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine
the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying
wetlands.
Other or Explanation
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
we pledge, we deliver
November 13, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon Oaks First
Subdivision and approval of 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 final utility plans have been approved.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
w
06vu�MA
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
rpu
IV,, ptfdy.e, we detwer
507/280-1579
November 14, 2001
TO: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Final Plat #99-40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon Oaks First
Subdivision. This Plat proposes to subdivide 32.94 acres of land into 44 lots for
single family development and 4 outlots. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for
six new 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.
RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this Final Plat and has no objections.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Engle
mje
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2613
telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.org
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-19-01 A�)
IDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
--'IC HEARINGS
PLANNING
-E_.. `
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99.40 by Arcon Development to be known as Shannon
PREPARED BY:
Oaks 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
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
12-3-01 �✓
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
_ Irrl
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-33 to be known as Cedar Creek
PREPARED BTownhomes
CIC 183 First Amended CIC Plat
Mitzi A. BaSeninr
Plan
November 27, 2001
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction of a concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Kenosha Drive NW and
Monroe Drive NW, concurrent with the development of the property.
2. The applicant agrees that the deferred parkland dedication requirement shall be reduced by.7 acres.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Attachment.,
1. Staff Report dated November 27, 2001
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday December 3, 2001, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
COUNCIL ACTION: Mctlonby. second by: to:
0
I`if i !•i,i1 jj� I i! a ;
�,�l�i '• � ��;�5S'�' i� �' is zl ,;
3 {x i� 1i �i iiE3' 2
'{ iall
E�i ��, =dE
d
x—
� 5
W
m
�.. u
�; �� 11i I I ia
+ 3 0
W Z
_ CL [ it
is
�>< 3
Lu
Ni I
aLU
.a W
W =
Z
N� o
Hlit
� 4
f 79 ♦� w
QLUfjy!
Z eaa�� Ise
W LL at {�1
O
1p / jg •i
J {1 N b�WP� ♦ m
N
,
„ 7� x�y l`p1 ;• ,
Sd.i
V YISYUYi11.M °�1i-11 LM W Y LIU f PM ]u v�rvic] .[Yi .V�+uYaM
n' aot s'.- srn
u �j �.
• �� I t ailtq t I j O
V l
a1 1,y
co #1 tt
1 i '_t1[iaa; @9 ai lii J t
r—
�, z
� � t
Yoo!
iy ;ii '� 1i d 1 t°f1
r t gg r s6 tt re �
W O B tit
LU
ce N
U w
11 sit,
W
vo
.q� 1� a �' •ems'` � /' � l' I71
'" +-1
M Y �
f .� Sa�ilillol3
m. awe1111
...w.. a.ew
k
2
L
J
Lb
ROCHESTER-OLN►STED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
�P...Oi .rtlr'
ao U«TY oI WWW.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: November 27, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-33 to be known as Cedar Creek Townhomes C►C 183
First Amended CIC Plat
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Plat Data:
Todd Ustby
1211 Ashley Lane SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
1. None
1. Location Map
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Previously approved Final Plat
Location of Property: This plat is located along the east side of Kenosha
Drive NW, north of Monroe Drive NW and south of
Valleyhigh Road.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential).
de
Proposed Development: This development proposes to approximately 1 86 acres of land into 141 lots for a
townhome development and one common lot. The
applicant has received approval of the site plan for
the townhomes.
A final plat was already approved and recorded for
townhome development on this property. The
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285.8232 HOUSINGIHRA 507/285.8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
i
Page 2
November 27, 2001
for a modified building design.
Streets:
The plat does not propose dedication of any new
public right-of-way. The abutting roadway was
previously platted in the Badger Ridge Subdivision.
All of the lots have frontage onto Kenosha Drive NW.
Drainage:
Grading and drainage plans have been approved for
this plat.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands, no
potential wetlands are indicates on this site.
According to the Soil Survey, hydric soils do not exist
on this property.
Public Utilities:
Utilities are available to serve this development.
Spillover Parking:
As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for
service vehicles and visitors. This development
requires 11 spillover parking stalls. It appears as
though the additional parking can be accommodates
on the roadways and most likely within the private
driveways, as well.
Parkland Dedication:
No parkland dedication is required for this plat.
General Development Plan:
This property is included in the approved Badger
Ridge GDP.
Preliminary Plat:
This plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any new roadways. A Preliminary plat was not
required for this Final Plat.
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
t. Construction of a concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Kenosha
Drive NW and Monroe Drive NW, concurrent with the development of the property.
2. The applicant agrees that the deferred parkland dedication requirement shall be
reduced by .7 acres.
MEETING / T
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A( FA SECTION:
Reports & Recommendations
City Administration
DATE: 1:
ITEM NO.
-SCRIPTION Request by North American Realty to appear before City Council I NKCYAKt
regarding stormwater management issues surrounding Essex Estates 5th Subdivision T. Spaeth
Recently a request was made by Mr. George Ludcke, on behalf of North American Realty, to appear before the City
Council requesting a reconsideration / recission of a condition imposed on the approval of the final plat of the Essex
Estates 5t" Subdivision.
The specific condition of final plat approval which Mr. Ludcke asks to be reconsidered or rescinded is as follows:
• Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a Stormwater Maintenance and ownership Agreement
must be executed by the Owner for the Stormwater facilities proposed on Outlot A. A drainage easement be
provided over Outlots A & B.
In a letter sent by Mr. Ludcke to Mr. Kvenvold, dated October 22, 2001, Mr. Ludcke indicates that the City staff
incorporated unreasonable conditions in the Declaration and Stormwater Management Agreement. The letter goes on to
state that by the terms of these documents, the City seeks to shift to the Project's homeowners the burden of
maintenance of the stormwater management pond which serves the Project.
T " KGROUND:
The provisions contained in Section 64.310 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual regulate
stormwater management within a development. The City's Stormwater Management Plan provides guidelines for
stormwater facilities. The Stormwater Management Plan is referenced in Section 64.310 of the Land Development
Manual.
The Council reviewed and approved the final plat of Essex Estates 5`t' Subdivision on May 1, 2000. I have reviewed the
video tape of that meeting. At that public hearing, no objection to the above mentioned condition was raised by Mr.
Kottschade (project developer), who was the only person to testify at the public hearing. I also reviewed the video tape
of the July 19, 1999 public hearing related to the preliminary plat. Condition # 3 on the preliminary plat reads as
follows:
3. The stormwater management plan for this property needs to address the impacts on the downstream residents.
Any ponds serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and will need ownership and
maintenance agreements.
No objection to any of the 6 conditions imposed on the preliminary plat was voiced by the developer and /or their
representatives. The Council unanimously approved the preliminary plat subject to 6 conditions.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
FAI
page2
Essex Estates 5" Stonnwater Management
RCA
Throughout the platting and development process of the Essex Estates PUD,
the City has had stormwater management/erosion control measures in effect.
However, in 1995-1996 the City had a City wide storm water management
plan prepared to assist the City to better manage the overall regional
stormwater needs for the community and minimize long term maintenance
cost to the City. In 1997 the City decided not to adopt a mandatory program
for participation in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan but
rather they allowed developers options. The options include the construction
of onsite facilities to locally manage the storm water runoff or to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan. Each of
these options has some further details which are also important.
With regards to onsite construction the Owner/Developer must provide
easements across the storm water facilities, the facility must be designed and
constructed to meet the standards of Public Works and if the pond serves more
than 50 developable acre the facility would be considered for public
ownership. If the facility serves less than the 50 acre criteria the facility
would be considered private and would also need to have an
Ownership/Maintenance Agreement acceptable to the City. The 50 acre
criteria was implemented to encourage the wise use of land, provide better
storm water management, and create community benefits. Smaller ponds
typically have increased maintenance costs and do not optimally manage
storm water runoff. The purpose for the storm water agreement for these
smaller facilities is to make sure the facility is operated and maintained in a
manner so as not to endanger the upstream or downstream properties and to
not unduly burden the general taxpayer for decisions made by the developer.
Regarding the voluntary participation in the City's Regional Storm Water
Management Plan. If an Owner/Developer chooses this method of storm
water management the City assumes the requirement for providing stormwater
management. However, the Owner may still be subject to conditions if they
wish to participate. There may also be situations where the Owner will not
have the option to participate in the program. Allowing this option to the
development community is determined on a case by case basis and is at the
sole discretion of the City.
Over the course of the past 2+ years, there has been discussion and
correspondence related to stormwater management as it pertains to the Essex
Estates 5`t' Subdivision. There have also been several requests by the
developer (Mr. Kottschade) for information related to stormwater
management participation and construction within the City over the past
several years. Mr. Nigbur's letter to Mr. Kottschade dated June 12, 2001
indicates that between 1998 and April, 2001, there have been 61 stormwater
management facilities / ponds constructed in the City during this period. Of
those 61 ponds, there were 21 projects that constructed stormwater facilities
that also contributed funds to the City's Stormwater Management Plan.
page3
Essex Estates 5ih Stormwater Management
RCA
Of those 21 projects, there were 5 ponds that required private maintenance
agreements.
This seems to indicate that the stormwater management situation in Essex
Estates 51h Subdivision is not unique. The maintenance agreements pertaining
to the other developments (several are for commercial properties) contain
language that there is a responsible party for the ownership and maintenance
of the stormwater facility. Typically, this is benefiting properties. A very
similar example to the Essex Estates 5i11 Subdivision is the Diamond Ridge
15th Subdivision, wherein a Declaration and Maintenance Agreement has been
executed. That Agreement acknowledges the Owner's desire to create a
homeowners association consisting of property owners whose properties
benefit from the stormwater facility to own and maintain the 2 stormwater
pond facilities located in the development. The reasons for such a requirement
are 1) to prevent the developer from allowing the property upon which the
stormwater facility is located, to go into tax forfeiture, thereby creating an
obligation for maintenance of the facility to the City; and 2) to ensure that the
facility is maintained properly to provide for the general welfare and safety of
properties located both upstream and downstream of the facility.
It should be noted by the Council, that on previous occasions, maintenance on
private ponds have became an issue due to tax forfeitures and also lack of
maintenance. In one instance, the City expended public funds on a private
stormwater facility to maintain the health, safety and welfare of residents in
the Wimbledon Hills development. The other instance is the tax forfeiture of
the Outlot which is the location of the stormwater pond facility that serves the
Essex Apartments.
Under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 462.358 (2a) and the provisions of
Section 61.237 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land
Development Manual, the approval authority (Council) may impose
conditions on final plat approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The developer is requesting that the following condition of final plat approval
be reconsidered / rescinded:
Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a Stormwater Maintenance
and ownership Agreement must be executed by the Owner for the stormwater
facilities proposed on Outlot A. A drainage easement be provided over Outlots
A&B.
page4
Essex Estates 5" Stormwater Management
RCA
The staff recommends the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare findings
of fact whereby the above mentioned condition remain in effect on the final
plat approval.
ATTACHEMENTS:
1. November 29, 2001 memo from Terry Spaeth to City Council
2. October 31, 2001 letter from Mr. Ludcke to Mr. Kvenvold
3. October 26, 2001 letter from Mr. Kvenvold to Mr. Ludcke
4. October 22, 2001 letter from Mr. Ludcke to Mr. Kvenvold
5. February 28, 2001 letter from Mr. Freese to Mr. Kottschade
6. February 21, 2001 letter from Mr. Kottschade to Mr. Freese including
attached Stormwater Management and Declaration & Maintenance
Agreements
Memo
To: Mayor & Common Council
From:Teny Spaeth
Date: 11 /29/2001
Re: Review of videotape of public hearings on preliminary and final plat approval
of Essex Estates 5th Subdivision
The Council has been requested by a representative of North American Realty to
appear before the Council on December 3, 2001 to request a reconsideration /
recission of a condition imposed on the plat approval of the Essex Estates 5th
Subdivision. The specific condition is as follows:
• , Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a Stormwater Maintenance and
ownership Agreement must be executed by the Owner for the stormwater facilities
proposed on Oudot A. A drainage easement be provided over Outlots A & B.
In response to this request, I have went back and reviewed the videotapes of the
public hearings held before the Council pertaining to the preliminary and final plat
approvals.
On July 19, 1999 the Council held a public hearing on the preliminary plat # 99-24
known as Essex Estates 5th Subdivision. The major topic of discussion as it
pertained to the preliminary plat related to whether or not Londonderry Drive should
be a through street to provide a connection to adjoining property, or whether it should
be built as a cul-de-sac street. No discussion ensued regarding the stormwater
management as it related to this development. Condition # 3 on the preliminary plat
reads as follows:
3. The stormwater management plan for this property needs to address the impacts
on the downstream residents. Any ponds serving less than 50 developable acres
are consideredprivate and will need ownership and maintenance agreements.
• Page 1
No objection to any of the 6 conditions imposed on the preliminary plat was voiced b (" r f
the developer and /or their representatives. The Council unanimously approved the
preliminary plat subject to 6 conditions.
On May 1, 2000 the Council held a public hearing to review final plat # 99-24, known
as Essex Estates 5"' Subdivision. There were 5 conditions of approval of this final
plat recommended by the Planning Staff . Condition # 1 reads as follows:
1. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a Storm water Maintenance and
Ownership Agreement must be executed by the Owner for the stormwater facilities
proposed on Outlot A. A drainage easement be provided over Oudots A & B.
No objection to any of the 5 conditions imposed on the final plat was voiced b the
developer. In fact, Mr. Kottschade (developer) concluded his remarks by asking for
Council approval of the final plat. The Council unanimously approved the final plat
subject to 5 conditions.
The videotapes of these proceedings are on file with the City Clerk's office.
0 Page 2
GEORGE O. LUDCKE
gludcke® Kellyandberens.c0m
SENT VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL
Mr. Stevan E. Kvenvold
City Administrator's Office
201 - 4`h Street S.E.
Room 166
Rochester, MN 55904-3781
KELLY & BERENS, P.A.
ATTORNEVs AT LAW
3720 IDS CENTER
60 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
October 31, 2001 TELEPHONE
(612)349-6177
FAX
(612) 349-6416
Re: Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision - North American Realty
Our File No. 5609.02
Dear Mr. Kvenvold:
In response to your letter of October 26, 2001, North American Realty, Inc.
("NAR") requests reconsideration/rescission of the Council's imposition of the condition in
question. NAR has explained its position regarding the storm water management matter to City
staff in prior meetings. Simply put, the City's attempt to shift to the Project's homeowners and
the developer the burden of future storm water maintenance is unreasonable and grossly
disproportionate to the Project's impact. As explained in my October 22, 2001 letter to you, the
City's position effectively prevents NAR from proceeding with the Project. Other homeowners
in the City do not pay storm water management fees. Such costs are included in property taxes.
Therefore, the homeowners of the Project would be paying twice for this governmental service.
There is no reasonable basis to double charge for this governmental service.
Your October 26, 2001 letter refers to " ... the ordinance which is the basis for
the imposition of the condition in question ..." Please identify this ordinance so that NAR can
review it prior to the Council meeting.
In your letter you indicated that City staff was prepared to meet with NAR to
further discuss this matter. As indicated above, NAR has previously explained to City staff its
position on the storm water maintenance matter. If the City believes a meeting is necessary,
NAR intends to have the discussion transcribed by a court reporter to ensure there is no
misunderstanding of what is said by the parties.
KELLY & BERENS, P.A.
Letter to Mr. Kvenvold ATTORNEYS AT LAw
Page'?
Last, NAR requests that this matter be placed on the agenda of the December 3,
2001 Council meeting. This will allow ample time for the Department of Public Works and the
Planning and Zoning Department to prepare background information and their recommendations
on this issue. Please confirm that the matter will be placed on the Council's December 3, 2001
meeting agenda.
Very truly yours,
George O. Ludcke
GOL/wjw
cc: Mr. Franklin P. Kottschade
Terry Adkins, Esq.
Mayor Canfield and City Council, c/o Judy Scherr
aNAM ROCHESTER
�n.aexlc.l cm'
October 26, 2001
George O. Ludcke
Kelly & Berens, P.A.
3720 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Mr. Ludcke:
IIE STE 2.
STEVAN E.KVENVOLD
City Administrator
City Administrator's Office
201 4th Street SE, Room 266
Rochester, MN 55904-3781
(507) 285-8082
FAX #(507) 287.7979
Thank you for your October 22, 2001, letter regarding the Rochester Common
Council's imposition of conditions on its approval of your client's Essex Estate's
Fifth Subdivision. According to your letter, you ask that the Essex Estate's Fifth
Subdivision project be placed on the November 5, 2001, council meeting agenda.
Specifically, you wish the Council to "eliminate the requirement that homeowners
bear the burden of paying future storm water maintenance costs."
I shared your letter with the City Attorney. After discussing this matter further, we
are unable to place this project on the November 5th council agenda as we are
not clear as to the nature of your request.
Your request may be viewed as a request to vary the ordinance which caused
the Council to impose the condition in question to be imposed on its approval of
the final plat. If this is indeed the case, you need to contact the Planning and
Zoning Department to initiate the proper steps to secure the variance. Your
client is well aware of the proper variance procedure since he used it in his
attempts to gain a variance form a number of ordinances as part of the City's
approval of his General Development Plan #151.
On the other hand, your request may be viewed as a request to the Council for
reconsideration/rescission of its imposition of the condition in question. The
Rochester Common Council does operate under Robert's Rules of Order and
reconsideration/rescission is a proper parliamentary procedure. If this is indeed
the case, you should provide a specific analysis as to why
reconsideration/rescission is appropriate in this case and how it might affect
future cases involving similar facts. In return, I will ask the Department of Public
Works and the Planning and Zoning Department to prepare background
information as will as their recommendations on this issue. Once I have
Letter to i'vfr. Ludcke
Page 2
compiled all of the information from all parties, I will schedule the matter on the
City Council meeting agenda.
Finally, if your request is for an amendment or repeal of the ordinance which is
the basis for the imposition of the condition in question, then you must indicate
the ordinance(s) that you believe is unreasonable and, if amendment is
appropriate, the suggested amendment language. In return, I will ask the
Department of Public Works and the Planning and Zoning Department to prepare
background information as well as their recommendation to this issue. Once I
have compiled all of the information from all parties, 1 will place the matter on the
next Council meeting agenda.
In summary, the City needs a more explicit statement as to the nature of the
action you seek from the Council. Once you have clarified the form of action, we
will be able to proceed as outlined above.
If you wish to discuss this item further, City staff is prepared to meet with you and
your client at any convenient time. If your client's concern relates to the wording
of the condition rather than to the substantive issue of stormwater detention, I
believe that a meeting with City staff may be the best option.
Si cerely,
Stevan E. Kvenvold
Rochester City Administrator
SEK:db
C: Mayor and City Council
Terry Adkins
Richard Freese
KELLY & BERENS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT Law
3720 IDS CENTER
60 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
GEORGE O. LUDCKE October 22, 2001 TELEPHONE
gludcke 0 kellyandberens.com (612) 349-6171
SENT VIA U.S. MALL
Mr. Stevan E. Kvenvold
City Administrator's Office
201 4'k Street S.E.
Room 266
Rochester, MN 55904-3781
Re: Essex Estate's Fifth, Subdivision - North American Realty
Our File No. 5609.02
Dear Mr. Kvenvold:
FAX
(612)349-6416
This law firm represents North American Realty, Inc. ("NAR") with respect to
NAR's Essex Estate's Fifth Subdivision Project (the "Project"). The purpose of this letter is to
request that the Project be placed on the Common Council's agenda for its November 5, 2001
meeting, to address certain storm water maintenance issues which NAR has been unable to
resolve with City staff.
On 19lay 1, 2000, the Council conducted a public hearing and approved the final
plat for the Project subject to five conditions. The first condition was:
"Prior to the Reporting of the final plat documents, a Storm Water
Maintenance Ownership Agreement must be executed by the owner where
the storm water facilities proposed on Outlot A. A drainage easement be
provided over Outlots A & B.
City staff incorporated unreasonable conditions in the Declaration and Storm
Water Management Agreement. By the terms of these documents, the City seeks to shift to the
Project's homeowners the burden of maintenance of the storm water management pond which
serves the Project. Public Works Director Richard Freese has informed NAR that the City
requires incorporation of a homeowner's association to assume this burden.
Mr. Freese's position effectively prevents NAR from proceeding with the Project.
Other homeowners in the City do not pay storm water maintenance fees. Such costs are included
in property taxes. Therefore, the homeowners of the Project would be paying twice for this
KELLY & BERENS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
Letter to blr. Krenvold
Page 2
governmental service. There is no reasonable basis to double charge for this governmental
service.
NAR requests that the Council eliminate the requirement that homeowners bear
the burden of paying future storm water maintenance costs. If the Council is not willing to do so,
it should so state, establishing for the record that NAR has exhausted administrative remedies
with respect to this matter. Please confirm that the matter has been placed on the agenda for the
November 5, 2001 meeting.
Very truly yours,
George 0. Ludcke
GOL/vvjw
cc: Mr. Franklin P. Kottschade
f.AS1E0.1C.1 CRY
ROCHESTER
✓yfi�PiJ�G�i
February 23, 2001
Mr. Franklin P. Kottschade
North American Realty
3300 Highway 52 North
Suite 130
Rochester,NN 55901
RE: Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision
Storm Water Management Agreement
Mr. Kottschade:
_ tv
ri.�I r�0.AI1G U5S•y `
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
201 4th Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
(507) 287-7800
FAX (507) 281.6216
HAND DELIVERED
I am in receipt of your February 21, 2001 letter addressed to me regarding the Essex Estates Fifth
Subdivision Storm Water Management Agreement and Declaration. In essence, your letter
indicates that you are willing to execute the Storm Water Management Agreement and
Declaration only if you are able to reserve the legal right to do the following: (1) "challenge the
validity of the City's ability to charge the fees and make the requirements contained in said
Agreements," and (2) seek "damages that flow from the agreements, jf the same are challenged
and found to be illegal, improper, and/or invalid." You asked me to sign my name so as to
acknowledge these reservations of rights.
I have consulted with the City Administrator and the City Attorney regarding this matter. It is
the City Attorney's opinion that my signature on your letter may be viewed as an action binding
the City of Rochester. The City Attorney indicated that the Director of the Public Works
Department is without any authority to bind the City. Instead, the City Council must review and
approve the acceptance of your reservation of rights. Accordingly, it is the City Attorneys
opinion that you must present your request to the City Council if you wish to pursue this matter.
The City Attorney is also concerned that your requested reservation may amount to an
amendment of the conditions of approval which the City Council imposed upon its approval of
the Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision preliminary and final plats. Once again, only the City
Council can amend any condition of approval it has placed upon any land use approval.
On July 19, 1999, the Council conducted a public hearing concerning the preliminary plat for
Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision. The City Council approved this preliminary plat subject to
several conditions. The third condition was as follows:
(c) The storm water management plan for this property needs to address the
impacts on the downstream residents. Anv ponds serving less than 50
developable acres are considered private and will need oGvnership and
maintenance agreements.
The City did not impose any condition on the Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision preliminary plat
requiring you to participate, voluntarily or involuntvily, in the City's Storm Water Management
Plan.
On May 1, 2000, the Council conducted a public hearing concerning the final plat for Essex
Estates Fifth Subdivision. The City Council approved the final plat subject to five conditions.
The first condition stated the following:
Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a Stormwater
Maintenance and Ownership Agreement must be executed by the owner
for the stormwater facilities proposed on Ourlot A. A drainage easement
be provided over Outlots A & B.
Once again, the City did not impose any condition on the Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision final
plat requiring you to participate, voluntarily or involuntarily, in the City's Storm Water
Management Plan.
Accordingly, the City Attorney has concluded that there is a conflict between the conditions of
approval placed upon the preliminary and final plats, and your February 21, 2001, letter. Your
letter suggests that you are being compelled to participate in the City's Regional Storm Water
Management Plan. In fact, the conditions of approval placed upon the prelirtiinary and final plats
fail to support this claim. You are not compelled to participate in this'Storm Water Management
Plan. Instead, you may participate only if you decide to do so.
Finally, the City Attorney advised me that you may have already waived your legal right to
challenge the nature and validity of storm water management requirements.
On July 19, 1999, you appeared before the City Council in support of the approval of the
preliminary plat. There were six conditions placed upon the Council's approval of the
Preliminary plat. You stated, "the conditions, except for condition number one of the street being
taken through, is acceptable to everyone and there's not a problem there." Similarly, on May 1,
2000, you appeared before the City Council in support of the approval of the final plat. You did
not state any objections to any of the conditions of approval imposed on the Council's approval
of the final plat.
In light of your statements accepting the storm water management conditions, there may be some
question whether you are now able to challenge those conditions.
Finally, please allow me to review some relevant dates and events as they pertain to the storm
water management issue for the Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision. Specifically, I want to explain
to you why the Public Works Department assumed it was your voluntary decision to participate
in the City's Storm Water Management Plan.
In a letter dated March 17, 2000 from David Kramer, City of Rochester Infrastructure Engineer,
to your engineering consultant for the Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision, Dale Allen of Yaggy
Colby Associates, specifically states that the detention basin in the northwest comer of the
subdivision does not include wet sedimentation as required in your NPDES Permit for the Essex
Estates Fifth Subdivision. Mr. Kramer in his_review of the Grading Plan for Essex Estates Fifth
Subdivision made a determination that the grading plan was not consistent with the requirements
of the Land Development Manual and the NPDES Permit requirements for the project. Mr.
Kramer advises Mr. Allen in his 3/17/00 letter that "to meet the NPDES requirement that the
runoff shall be discharged to a wet sedimentation basin prior to entering waters of the state we
are aware of two possible scenarios:
a) Reconstruct the facility to provide permanent wet sedimentation.
b) Voluntarily participate in the Storm Water Management Plan for the 28% water
quality portion of the Stormwater Management Area Charge. The fee would be 0.28
x S 1983.50 x the acreage. If this option is desired, please provide the acreage of
Essex Estates Fifth that drains to the existing detention basin, not including the area
of the basin outlot itself."
Subsequently, Mr. Kramer received a letter from you dated April 14, 2000. Accompanying your
4/14/00 letter was a check signed by you in an amount of $8164.00 for the 28% water quality
portion of the Stormwater Management Area Charge. You state in your 4/14/00 letter that "this
voluntary fee contribution is being made on the following basis. We finderstand that this fee is in
lieu of providing a permanent wet sedimentation site per NPDES requirements." You go on in
Your 4/14/00 letter to further condition your voluntary participation and contribution to the City's
Surface Water Management Plan and "requiring the City of Rochester to acknowledge receipt of
the contribution and the conditions outlined herein which incorporate the above referenced
correspondence" (April 14, 2000 letter). The Public Works staff subsequently advised Mr. John
Arnold of the inconsistencies of the Storm Water Management Agreement with the conditions of
your 4/14/00 letter. The City has not cashed your check as you indicated that would constitute
the City's acceptance of your conditions.
On June 29, 2000, Mr. Arnold had delivered to Mr. Nigbur a copy of the Storm Water
Management Agreement and the Declaration Agreement for Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision.
Also included is the above mentioned April 14, 2000 to David Kramer letter simply re -dated
June 30, 2000. Mr. Arnold requests that Mr. Nigbur review the documents. The Public Works
staff subsequently advised ivlr. John Arnold of the inconsistencies of the Storm Water
Management Agreement, particularly Paragraph 7, with the conditions of your 4/14/00 letter as
re -dated June 30, 2000, which Mr. Arnold refers to as a "letter agreement".
On or about September 20, 2000, the City received from Mr. Arnold an executed copy of the two
agreements signed by you and dated September. 20, 2000 incorporating by reference your April
14, 2000 letter as re -dated June 30, 2000 which also included a last page titled "ADDENDUM to
April 14. 2000, revised June 30, 2000 Letter". The Public Works staff subsequently advised Mr.
John Amold on October 2, 2000 of the City's concerns with the assessment language found in
the Declaration Agreement that he provide to Mr. Nigbur on or about September 20, 2000.
During the next four months, Mike Nigbur and John Arnold discussed on several occasions the
necessary changes to the Storm Water Management Agreement, particularly Paragraph 7, and the
Declaration Agreement. Mr. Nigbur received suggested changes to the Declaration Agreement
from Mr. Arnold on January 25, 2001. Mr. Nigbur, with the assistance of the Assistant City
Attorney, submitted to Mr. Arnold on February 7, 2001 several suggested clarifications to the
Storm Water Management Agreement and one minor correction to the Declaration Agreement
for maintenance of the storm water facilities serving Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision. You and
Mr. Arnold called me the week of February 12 and asked to discuss several changes to the
Declaration Agreement. You indicated that you were going to contact the League of Minnesota
Cities regarding language to include in the Declaration Agreement that would define routine
maintenance verses major maintenance activities related to the private stormwater detention
basin. I did not note any changes to the maintenance provisions of the Declaration Agreement.
Your letter to me dated February 21, 2001 again takes issue with terms of the agreements. The
City has not previously imposed on you as a condition of approval of the Preliminary or Final
Plat of Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision a requirement that you participate in the City's Storm
Water Management Plan. It has appeared to the Public Works staff that you intended to
"voluntarily participate" as evidenced by the Grading Plan submittals provided about a year ago
by your engineering consultant that did not provide for wet sedimentation facilities. You still
have the option of providing the wet sediment facilities on your property for this project. A
revised Grading Plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department if
you choose that option.
I hope this letter is helpful to you in understanding the reasons why I have no authority to sign
your February 21, 2001, letter and why you are under no compulsion to participate in the City's
Storm Water Management Plan. If you wish to pursue this matter, I can only suggest that you
contact the City Administrator, Stevan Kvenvold, for further direction on this matter.
Sincerely,
�.F
Richard W. Freese, P.E.
Director of Public Works
cc: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Stevan Kvenvold
Terry Adkins
Mike Nigbur
NORTH AMERICAN REALTY, INC.
FRANKLIN P KOTTSCHADE
3800 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH, SUITE 130
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55901
PHONE (507) 287-0909
FAX (507) 288-0658
February 21. 2001
HAND DELIVERED
Richard Freese, Director
Public Works Department
Rochester City Hall
201 4'" Street SE, Room 108
Rochester MN 55904
RE: Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision
Storm Water Management Agreement and Declaration
Dear Mr. Freese:
North American Realty, Inc., Owner and Developer of Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision, is willing
to submit the executed revised Storm Water Management Agreement and Declaration for
maintenance of the storm water facilities on the project, revised pursuant to the City of Rochester
Public Works revision request dated February 7, 2001. The submittal will be done on the basis
that the executed documents are being required by the Rochester Department of Public Works to
allow the platting of Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision, consequently to allow North American
Realty, Inc., to go forward with the marketing and sale of the lots. The platting has been delayed
since September 20, 2000, when the last revisions of the documents were submitted to the City
of Rochester. They are based on the original submittal of the Storm water Management fee to
the City of Rochester on April 14, 2000, which submittal was revised June 30, 2000 and made a
part of the proposed Storm Water Management Agreement. The platting of the property has
been delayed since the initial submission in the above referenced letters. Since then the
undersigned has not been able to market its property, to its loss.
The submittal will only be on the basis that the undersigned enter the property in executing the
Storm Water Management Agreement and Declaration, and is not waiving its rights to challenge
the validity of the City's ability to charge the fees and make the requirements contained in said
Agreements, or waiving any rights that the undersigned has for damages that flow from the
agreements, if the same are challenged and found to be illegal, improper, and/or invalid.
The owner will submit the executed Declaration and Storm Water Management Agreement upon
Public Works acknowledgement that the submittal is being made pursuant to the above
referenced reservation of rights. After seven days from the date of this letter, the offer will be
withdrawn to submit the documents under reservation of rights, and the undersigned will consider
itself free to pursue all legal means to obtain recording of the Plat and other damages.
Richard Freese
Page Two
February 21, 2001
This reservation is being put forward on the basis that the undersigned did provide for storm
water facilities on site for the property involved and, in addition thereto, has been charged an
additional $8,164.00 storm water fee, and further, pursuant to the Declaration, is being required to
provide additional maintenance for the existing on -site storm water facilities. See attached
proposed revised documents to be executed.
Your acknowledgement may be received by signing a copy of this letter and returning it to North
American Realty, Inc., at the above address...
/Very truly yours, p
7/ Xr4'/'aO'�"
Franklin P. Kottschade
Cc: Terry Adkins
Rochester City Council
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
Richard Freese
FRANKLIN P. KOTTSCHADE
NORTH AMERICAN REALTY, INC.
3800 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH, SUITE 130
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901
PHONE (507) 287-0909
FAX (507) 288-0658
April 14, 2000
Revised June 30, 2000
CITY OF ROCHESTER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ATTN DAVID F KRAMER
201 FOURTH STREET SE, ROOM 108
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-3740
RE: Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision
Surface Water Management Plan - Voluntary Contribution Agreement
Dear Mr. Kramer:
North American Realty, Inc., owner of Essex Estates, has proposed development of Essex
Estates Fifth Subdivision. Pursuant to the request of the City of Rochester, we have been asked
to voluntarily participate in the regional Surface Water Management Plan. We have agreed to
participate voluntarily on the following basis.
Enclosed is our fee for participation in the amount of 58,164.00. This fee is based on the
request of Public Works to Dale Allen of Yaggy Colby Associates, the engineering firm
representing us.
This voluntary fee contribution is being made on the following basis. We understand that this
fee is in lieu of providing a permanent wet sedimentation site per NPDES requirements. In
addition, it is being specifically submitted with the understanding that North American Realty,
Inc., its successors and assigns, will have no further responsibility for compliance with the
proposed Surface Water Management Plan and/or the NPDES permanent wet sedimentation
requirements as they relate to the above -referenced construction. In addition, in accepting the
fee, the City is acknowledging that it has authority to receive payment and will hold North
American Realty, Inc., its successors and assigns, harmless from any future requests or
additional compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and/or the alternative NPDES
permanent wet sedimentation requirements. The owner understands that it remains responsible
for the requirements of the NPDES permit relating to erosion control during construction and
after, subject to assignment of Outlot A of Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision to a lot Owners
Page 2
Association, who shall be responsible. This fee is specifically being given pursuant to your
request transmitted to our engineers, Yaggy Colby Associates.
To validate the understanding of our voluntary contribution and the conditions contained
herein, we are requiring the City of Rochester to acknowledge receipt of the contribution and
the terms and conditions outlined herein which incorporate the above referenced
correspondence.
Sincerely,
NORTH AMERICAN REALTY, INC.
Franklin P. Kottschade
President
CITY OF ROCHESTER
Department of Public Works
ADDEYDIN
to Anril 14, 2000, Revised June 30, 2000 Letter
The City, in accepting the voluntary storm water management charge from the Owner,
acknowledges the Owner has met its obligation to provide storm water management
permanent wet sedimentation as required under the NPDES regulations for the approved
development on the property. City shall hold the Owner and its sucessors or assigns
harmless for this stone water obligation as it may relate to the currently approved project
and the current regulations in effect. City is not bound to hold the Owner, including its
successors and assigns, harmless for storm water management obligations on the property
if changes are made to the property and/or if changes are made to the local, state, or
federal government regulations after the date of execution of this agreement.
(Reserved for Recording)
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 2000, by
and between NORTH AN11RICAN REALTY, INC., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Owner") and the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City"),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner owns certain real property located in the City of Rochester,
Olmsted County, identified as follows:
Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), (refer to
attached Exhibit "A" for location of the Property); and,
WHEREAS, Owner indicates its intent to develop the Property consisting of all of
Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, City policy and NPDES Permit regulations requires on -site storm water
detention and sedimentation facilities on the Property to handle the increase in storm water run
off from the proposed development; and
00.1089 Storrs Water Agreement
and,
WHEREAS, Owner has provisions in the development for storm water and detention;
WHEREAS, Owner has voluntarily requested to have the Property participate in the
"water quality" portion of a Regional Storm Water Management Plan; and,
WHEREAS, City is willing to allow the Property to participate in the "water quality"
portion of a Regional Storm Water Management under the terms and conditions set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises set forth, it is agreed
between the parties as follows:
1. City will permit the Property to voluntarily participate in the "water quality"
portion of a Regional Storm Water Management Plan, providing the Owner provides storm
water detention within the limits of the Property as shown on the City approved plans and
specifications for Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision.
2. Owner acknowledges that the Property is subject to a Storm Water Management Fee
for the Property's right to participate in the "water quality" portion of a Regional Storm Water
Management Plan for the Property as follows:
Acreage
Water Quality
Portion
Base Area
Charge
Land Use Factor
Storm Water
Management Fee
28.22
1
S8,164.00
3. Payment of the Storm Water Management Fee attributable to the Property is required
after execution of this Agreement by the City and within thirty (30) days of written notice by
the City to the Owner for payment of the Storm Water Management Fee.
00-1089 Storm water Agreement
4. Owner agrees to pay to the City the charges for a Storm Water Management Fee and
hereby waives all rights to contest the Storm Water Management Fee, in any subsequent
judicial proceeding.
5. Owner agrees to reimburse the City a fee of $37.50 for document preparation upon
execution of this Agreement by the City and within 30 days of written notice by the City to the
Owner for payment of the fee.
6. The obligations of the parties hereunder shall bind their heirs, successors and
assigns, and shall be deemed a covenant running with the property.
7. This Agreement is made subject to the terms and conditions of the letter agreement
with the City pursuant to letter dated April 14, 2000, revised June 30, 2000, attached hereto,
and the addendum to that letter, the terms of which supersede any inconsistent revisions in the
letter and addendum attached to the letter agreement.
NORTH AMERICAN REALTY, INC.
By
Franklin P. Kottschade, Its CEO
CITY OF ROCHESTER
L39
Charles J. Canfield, Its Mayor
Judy K Scherr, Its City Clerk
Dated: ,2000.
Dated:
2000.
Dated: 72000.
00-1089 Storm Water Agreement 3
STATE OF ivIINNESOTA
COUNTY OF OLMSTED, SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2000, by Franklin P. Kottschade, CEO of North American Realty, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MI NESOTA
COUNTY OF OLMSTED, SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before this day of
, 2000, by Charles J. Canfield and Judy K. Scherr, the Mayor
and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, on
behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Dunlap & Seeger, P.A.
505 Marquette Bank Building
P. 0. Box 549
Rochester, Minnesota 55903
00-1089 Storm Water Agreement
(Reserved for Recording)
DECLARATION
1. The Declarant is Owner of all of the lots platted as Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision in the
City of Rochester, Ohnsted County, Minnesota.
2. Declarant has or will construct storm water detention facilities on Outlot A of Essex
Estates Fifth Subdivision at Declarant's expense.
3. Lots 9 through 12, and Lots 14 through 20, Block 2; Lots 17 through 40, Block 3, Essex
Estates Fifth Subdivision ("Benefited Lots"), and the Owners thereof shall each be liable for and
obligated to pay 2.857 % of the costs of maintenance of the storm water detention facilities
located on Outlot A.
4. The Owner of Outlot A shall be responsible for maintaining the storm water detention
facilities located on Outlot A. On or after November lst in each year, the Owner of Outlot A,
shall provide written notice to the Owners of all Benefited Lots within Essex Estates Fifth
00.1089 Decl=tion 1
Subdivision of the total amount of the cost of maintenance expended in the prior year and the
amount to be paid as an assessment against each lot. Notice provided to one Owner of a
Benefited Lot shall be deemed to be notice to all Owners of a lot. The Owners of each Benefited
Lot in Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision shall pay to the Owner of Outlot A such assessment
within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Any assessment against a Benefited Lot which is not paid
within 15 days of receipt of notice shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
the notice and shall be a lien upon the Benefited Lot and a notice of such lien maybe filed in the
office of the Olmsted County Recorder and shall be enforceable by foreclosure in the same
manner in which a judgment lien is foreclosed. In any enforcement proceeding, accumulated
interest plus all the costs of the enforcement proceeding including attorneys fees shall be added
to the assessment and may be recovered by the claimant.
5. If the estimated cost of maintenance of the storm water detention facilities in anyone year
shall exceed the sum of $1,000.00, the Owner of Outlot A, at such Owner's option, may give
immediate notice in writing to the Owners of other Benefited Lots in Essex Estates Fifth
Subdivision of the work to be done and the estimated cost thereof. Each lot Owner shall deposit
with the Owner of Outlot A, cash in a sum equal to 2.857 % of the estimated cost of such
maintenance within 15 days of the receipt of such notice. The Owner of Outlot A shall be
entitled to use the fiords so deposited to perform the required maintenance. If the cost of
maintenance exceeds the estimated amount, the excess cost shall be assessed and collected by
notice given in the same manner.
00-1089 Oecluatlon 2
If the Owner of Outlot A shall fail and refuse to perform any maintenance of the storm
water detention facilities located on Outlot A which is required by the City of Rochester, then
such maintenance maybe performed by the Owner of any other Benefited Lot in Essex Estates
Fifth Subdivision and the costs of such maintenance may be assessed and collected by the said
Owner who performs the maintenance by notice in the same manner in which such costs are
assessed and collected by the Owner of Outlet A. If the required maintenance is not performed
by the Owner of Outlot A or any other Benefited Lot Owner, and is performed by the City of
Rochester, then 2.857 % of the cost shall be charged by the City of Rochester, according to city
policy, against each Benefited Lot in Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision except Outlot A as a
special assessment over a period not to exceed one year. The Benefited Lot Owners also agree to
waive any and all rights to contest the levying of the unpaid charges as special assessments when
levied, and not to contest the validity of the assessments related to the maintenance of Outlet A.
The Owner of Outlot A shall have the option of forming a lot Owner's association in
corporate form and conveying Outlot A to the corporation. Upon the formation of such
corporation and the conveyance of Outlet A, the Owner(s) of each lot in Essex Estates Fifth
Subdivision shall automatically become a member of the association holding a 2.857 % interest
in the association.
The Owner of Outlot A shall maintain a policy of insurance against bodily injury
occurring to persons on Outlet A in amount not less than $1,000,000.00 and the cost of this
insurance shall be assessable as costs of maintenance of the storm water detention facilities on
Outlot A.
00-10$9 Declaration
The rights, obligations and benefits of this Declaration shall be deemed to be a covenant
binding upon each lot in Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision and the Owners thereof and the heirs,
successors and assigns of the Owner and shall be a covenant running with the land.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration this
day of 2001.
NORTH AMERICAN REALTY, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation
Franklin P. Kottschade, CEO
STATE OF MI] NESOTA,
COUNTY OF OLMSTED, SS.
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, by
Franklin P. Kottschade, CEO of North American Realty, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf
of the corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A.
206 S. BROADWAY, SUITE 505
P.O. BOX 549
ROCHESTER, Mai 1 55903-0549
(507) 288-9111
00-1039 Declan6an 4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Aug ADA SECTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
i
MEETING
DATE: 12/3/01
ITEM NO.
G
ITEM DESCRIPTION: I ' ERR .
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY A KINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIO
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 1.10, 42.07, 70.11, 73C.03, 76A.25 subd. 4,
85A.18(b), 106A.20, 130A.05, and 142.04 subd. 8 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to
Maximum Penalties for Misdemeanor and Petty Misdemeanor Violations.
b) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 106A.18 and 106A.21 of the Rochester
Code of Ordinances, Relating to Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs.
c) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 62.211 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
Relating to the Requirement for General Development Plans.
G.4, MISCELLANEOUS
COUNCIL ACTION: Movon by: second by: to: