HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/2001_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER `r p�✓
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 24 December 17, 2001
Regular Adjourned 7:00 p.m.
PAGE
1 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B)
CALL TO ORDER
C)
LETTERS
AND PETITIONS
2 D)
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1.
Approval of Minutes
3
2.
Amendment to 2002 CDBG Allocation
4
3.
City Council's Mileage Allowance
5-7
4.
Amendment to Gambling Ordinance Sections 107.02 and 107.03
8-9
5.
Licenses, Bonds, & Miscellaneous
10
6.
Transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Famous
Dave's Restaurant
11
7.
Blanket Civic Music Guest Arts and Small Ensemble Contract
Signature Authority
12
8.
ASCAP License Agreement for Local Government Entities
13
9.
Change Order Skyway Bridge Painting Project
14
10.
Accounts Payable
15
11,
Wage Recommendation for 2002 — Non Bargaining Unit Employees
16-18
12.
Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Rochester Olmsted
Council of Governments (ROCOG) for Transportation Planning
Activities for 2002-2003
19-20
13.
Roadway name change: Royal Lane N.W. to Royal Place N.W.
21-26
14,
Orderly Annexation Petition #01-23 Thein Estates Property to annex
approximately 238.72 acres of land located along the south side of
Eastwood Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE.
27
15.
Development Agreement — Waste Management Property (Airport
Industrial Park)
28
16.
Permit Parking Petition from 3rd St SW/600 block, 7`h Avenue SW/300
block, and 4" Street SW/600 block
29
17.
Riverside Central School Zone Safety Study Amendment
30
18.
Professional Engineering Services: Design of 3`0 Ave SE from 4'h St
SE to 121h St SE (J-2245)
31-32
19.
Professional Engineering Services: Design of Regional Stormwater
Ponds for area west of 50th Ave NW (J-2468)
33
20.
Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 8316-98 (J-2454) Construction
of Drainage Ditch and Storm Sewer in South Park
34
21.
Supplemental Agreement #1: Project M1-18 (J9777) Fox Valley Drive
SW
35
22.
Supplemental Agreement #1 Project SW-M005 (J2465) Bamber Lake
Area Pond
36
23.
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Robnik, LLP
37
24.
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Olmsted Medical Center
38
25.
Stormwater Management Agreements
39
26.
Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve Bandel Business Center
(J9872)
40
27.
Rochester City Lines/Route 6 Changes
41
28.
Rochester City Lines Contract for 2002
P�u a. A- 14 ;,.;� G.-7, /—
E) HEARINGS
42 1. Adoption of 2002 Tax Levy, 2002 Budget, and 2002-2007 CIP
43-44 2. 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'.
45-55 3. Zoning District Amendment #01-13 by Western Walls, Inc, to rezone
from the B-5 to the B-4.
56-77 4. 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.
78-89 5. Final Plat #01-51 by Hartman Farms, Inc. to be known as Superior
Ridge.
90-95 6. Vacation Petition #01-13 by Marigold Foods, LLC, to vacate a portion
of the alley in Block A.
96-101 7. Consider Local Improvement Project No. M1-30 (J9791_ "Sanitary
Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Southtown Heights
Subdivision".
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
102 G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
� 1 DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
PREPARED BY:
S.KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
. JUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
oL
Meeting
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO:
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D -1-28
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. Amendment to 2002 CDBG Allocation
D-3. City Council's Mileage Allowance
D-4. Amendment to Gambling Ordinance Sections 107.02 and 107.03
D-5. Licenses, Bonds, & Miscellaneous
D-6. Transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Famous Dave's Restaurant
D-7. Blanket Civic Music Guest Arts and Small Ensemble Contract Signature Authority
D-8. ASCAP License Agreement for Local Government Entities
D-9. Change Order Skyway Bridge Painting Project
D-10. Accounts Payable
1611. Wage Recommendation for 2002 — Non Bargaining Unit Employees
2. Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments
(ROCOG) for Transportation Planning Activities for 2002-2003
D-13. Roadway name change: Royal Lane N.W. to Royal Place N.W.
D-14. Orderly Annexation Petition #01-23 Thein Estates Property to annex approximately 238.72 acres of
land located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE.
D-15. Development Agreement— Waste Management Property (Airport Industrial Park)
D-16. Permit Parking Petition from 3'd St SW/600 block, 7`h Avenue SW/300 block, and 4t" Street SW/600
block
D-17. Riverside Central School Zone Safety Study Amendment
D-18. Professional Engineering Services: Design of 3t Ave SE from 4th St SE to 12"' St SE (J-2245)
D-19. Professional Engineering Services: Design of Regional Stormwater Ponds for area west of 50w Ave
NW (J-2468)
D-20. Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 8316-98 (J-2454) Construction of Drainage Ditch and Storm
Sewer in South Park
1D-21. Supplemental Agreement #1: Project M1-18 (J9777) Fox Valley Drive SW
D-22. Supplemental Agreement #1 Project SW-M005 (J2465) Bamber Lake Area Pond
D-23. Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Robnik, LLP
D-24. Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Olmsted Medical Center
D-25. Stormwater Management Agreements
D-26. Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve Bandel Business Center (J9872)
,-D-27. Rochester City Lines/Route 6 Changes
_D-28. Rochester City Lines Contract for 2002
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
3
DATE: 12/ 17.
Consent Agenda
..—(DESCRIPTION Amendment to
City Administrator
ITEM NO.
^c;�,
T. Spaeth
The City recently received notice from HUD that the City's Year 2002 allocation is $629,000. We had estimated a
$600,000 allocation at the time the public hearing was held. Therefore, there is an additional $29,000 available for
appropriation under the CDBG program.
The staff has the following recommendation for the $29,000 appropriation:
$29,000 to the Rochester Park and Recreation Department for continuation of the park shelter accessibility
modifications to meet the new ADA standards. Park & Rec. had requested $50,000 for this program, and was
allocated $37,700 by the Council. The additional $29, 000 would facilitate the completion of these improvements
within a shorter time frame.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve appropriation of additional $29,000 to Rochester Park & Rec. for shelter accessibility
modifications
A Aa� � �-41
. JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: __ second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
Administration
T _ 3
�jd DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MILEAGE ALLOWANCE
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
The City's mileage reimbursement rate was recently increased from $.34 to $.36 per mile.
I recommend that the City Council's mileage allowance also be increased to compensate forthe
increased vehicle operating expenses. The current and proposed rates are as follows:
Current Rate Proposed Rate
Council President $105/month $110/month
Council members $90/month $95/month
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion approving the mileage allowances as requested, effective January 1, 2002.
%,JUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda City Clerk D 4
I. -... DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Gambling Ordinance Sections 107.02 and 107.03 PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
Staff reviewed the monthly gambling reports submitted by organizations licensed for Lawful
Gambling in the City of Rochester. Under the current City ordinance 75 percent of lawful
purpose expenditures from the gross profits are required to be expended within the City's trade
area (defined as the boundaries of the City of Rochester and any city and township contiguous to
such boundaries). Current reports received from organizations were unclear that the distribution
of funds was along the requirements of the ordinance.
An amendment is proposed to the current RCO 107 to clarify language and to require reporting of
lawful purpose expenditures from gross profits on forms prescribed by the City Clerk's Office.
The current reporting mechanism will begin with the January 2002 reports.
It is requested that the ordinance amendment be given a first and second reading to allow the
ordinance to become effective prior to January 1, 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the amendment to RCO 107 clarifying language and requiring reporting on
forms prescribed by the City Clerk and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the required
ordinance for adoption.
,,wJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING
SECTIONS 107.02 AND 107.03 OF THE
ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING
TO THE EXPENDITURE OF GAMBLING GROSS
PROFITS WITHIN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 107.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
107.02. Reporting Requirements. Each organization licensed to engage in lawful
gambling within the City of Rochester shall keep records of its gross
receipts, quantities of free play, if any, expenses and profits for each
single gathering or occasion at which gambling devices are operated or
a raffle is conducted. All deductions from gross receipts for each single
gathering or occasion shall be documented with receipts or other
records indicating the amount, a description of the purchased item or
service or other reason for the deduction, and the recipient. The
distribution of profits shall be itemized as to payee, purpose, amount
and date of payment. Each organization also shall keep records of the
amount of its lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from
lawful gambling conducted or located within and without the city's trade
area as required by section 107.03. Each licensee shall file a
monthly report with the city clerk. This report shall contain the
information identified herein and shall be written on a form
provided by the city clerk.
Section 2. Section 107.03 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
107.03 Limitation on Expenditures. A licensed organization conducting lawful
gambling within the City of Rochester must expend within the City's
trade area, seventy-five percent (75%) of its lawful purpose
expenditures ef- from the gross profits derived from lawful gambling
conducted or located at premises within the city's-trade area. The city's
trade area shall be defined as the boundaries of the City of Rochester
and shall include any city and township contiguous to such boundaries.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its publication.
IT
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2001.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
2001.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING S
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA 7CITY
CLERK
T
DESCRIPTION: LICENSES. BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA J SCHOTT
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
Elton Hills PTSA
1421 Elton Hills Dr. NW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Raffle 1 /24/02 & 2/21 /02 AT
Elton Hills Elementary School
American Heart Association
1500 1"Ave NE #200
Rochester. Mo. 55906
Raffle 2/23/01 AT
Radisson Plaza Hotel
150 South Broadway
GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT RENEWALS
Rochester Juvenile Hockey association
2625 Hwy 14 West— Suite AB
Rochester, Mn. 55906
PREMISES AT:
Mugzee's
524 1 Ith Ave NW
North Star Bar
503 North Broadway
Holiday Inn South
1630 South Broadway
CJ'S midtown Lounge
8 South Broadway
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES /
PAGE 2
DECEMBER 17, 2001
PREMISE PERMITS CONTINUED:
Olmsted County Fairgrounds
16" St & 3rd Ave SE
Bon's Buffet
1652 Hillcrest Shopping Center
MISCELLANEOUS
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Con-unemorative March 1/21/02
Government Center to Mayo Civic Center
JANUARY 1, 2002 RENEWALS
Bus
1
Chickens
I
HVAC
115
Master Installer
170
Master Plumber
64
Motion Picture
30
Pawnbroker
3
Pigeons
4
Sewer & Drains
54
Sidewalks
82
Signs
27
Taxicabs
1
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the new and renewal licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
16 CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D - 5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA ISCHOTT
The following ADDENDUM licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's
approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all
outstanding debts with the City of Rochester.
GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT
Olmsted County Hockey Association
PO Box 476
Rochester, Mn 55903
PREMISE AT:
Mugzee's Bar
524 11" Ave NW
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM license.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING Al
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D (�;
DESCRIPTION TRANSFER OF THE ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR
PREPARED BY:
LICENSE FOR FAMOUS DAVE'S RESTAURANT
DONNA 1 SCHOTT
Application for the transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License has been received from
Rivervalley BBQ, Inc.for Famous Dave's BBQ Shack. Located at 431 161b Ave. NW. The name of
The restaurant will remain as Famous Dave's BBQ Shack. The former corporation was D & D of
Minnesota, Inc.
The new corporation is requesting the transfer to be effective immediately. Transfer would be
pending the required fees, insurance certificates, departmental approvals and any outstanding debts
with the City of Rochester. A confidential investigative report has been returned satisfactorily.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License from D & D of Minnesota, Inc.
DBA as Famous Dave's BBQ Shack to Rivervalley BBQ, Inc.
_ _tUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/17/2001
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
MusicITEM
ITEM
DESCRIPTION: Blanket Civic Music Guest Arts and Small Ensemble Contract Signature
ANO.Civic
PREPAuthority
Steve
Each year Civic Music negotiates and behalf of the City between 30 and 50 contracts with guest
artists who perform various services ranging from Down by the Riverside headliners and opening
acts to Riverside Live! artists and Yule-Fest soloists to concert preview presenters. In addition,
Civic Music prepares a number of contracts for community presenters to engage the department's
small ensembles throughout the year.
Civic Music's general manager is responsible for negotiating these contracts, within the limits of
the funds made available for such purposes through the budget process approved by the Council.
He reviews contracts generated by artists/agents/ managers and prepares, in consultation with the
City Attorney, a City Addendum for each such agreement. In the case where the City issues
contracts, the General Manager prepares these agreements in consultation with the City Attorney.
To facilitate and expedite the execution of such agreements, Civic Music requests that the
resolution that follows be adopted.
Action Requested: Adopt a resolution granting the Mayor blanket authority to sign and the
City Clerk to attest to Civic Music contracts that have been negotiated and/or prepared and
approved as to content by Civic Music's general manager and approved as to form by the
City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/17/2001
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Civic Music
t t tm DESCRIPTION: ASCAP License Agreement for Local Government Entities
PREPARED BY:
Steven Schmidt
Title 17 U.S.C. 106(4) established property rights for musical works and grants creators and
owners of copyrighted musical works the exclusive right to perform or authorize the performance
of their works publicly. Under copyright law, public performance means more than concerts. The
law also governs music played over public address systems and even CD players and radios in an
office environment.
In the past, Civic Music has arranged for licenses for its performances on an event -by -event basis.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has recently developed a
"blanket license" agreement for local governments. Purchasing this license will shield the City
from exposure to copyright infringement claims that could result from music being played over
the public address system at the Civic Center as its crews set-up for events, when Civic Music
staff plays CDs of artists it is contemplating booking at a meeting, when a City Hall custodian
listens to a radio while mopping floors, when the Choral Arts Ensemble gives a performance in
the City Hall rotunda, when music is played during open skating at the Recreation Center, when a
pep band plays music during a playoff game at the Curt Taylor Arena, when Council views a
video tape at a public meeting with a musical score, etc. Failure to purchase such a license could
result in damages from a minimum of $750 for each work infringed plus attorney's fees and court
costs.
For a community the size of Rochester the current annual cost of such a license is $600/annum
plus a percentage of gross revenues for events that generate more than $25,000 in ticket sales or
sponsorship dollars. Funds to pay the annual fee currently exist in the Civic Music budget.
The licensing agreement has been reviewed and approved as to content by the General Manager
of Rochester Civic Music and as to form by the City Attorney. The agreement is the product of
negotiation between the International Municipal Lawyers Association and ASCAP.
Action Request: Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to a
Local License Agreement for Local Government Agencies with The American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Downtown Development
n
t t em DESCRIPTION: Change Order Skyway Bridge Painting Project
PREPARED BY:
Doug Knotty
The City entered into a contract with Swanson and Youngdale in the amount of $71,500 for the painting of
the 2nd Street SW skyway bridge. The structural steel on the bridge was sandblasted to bare metal and
painted with a three -coat system that has a twenty-year warranty.
The specifications called for a different painting system on the bridge decking. During construction it was
determined that decking would also require full sand blasting and the three coat painting system if it was
to achieve the same life as the structural steel. This resulted in an increase in labor and material cost in
the amount of $3810. The project architect — HGA, reviewed the need for the change order and the cost
of the work.
With the exception of some minor clean up and touch up work the project is complete.
Council Action Requested:
"--+roval of Change Order #1 to the Swanson Youngdale skyway bridge painting contract in the amount
3810 with authorization for the mayor and Clerk to sign necessary documents.
v,vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING / +
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
D - /0
_.A DESCRIPTION:
Approval of Accounts Payable
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $2,124,541.11.
Less: Any exceptions
_ -)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/ 17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Human Resources
„A DESCRIPTION: Wage Recommendation for 2002 - Non Bargaining Unit Employees
PREPARED BY:
Linda Gilsrud
The Director of Human Resources recommends that City employees not covered by any collective bargaining
agreement or meet and confer agreement be granted a 3% base rate adjustment effective 1/l/02.
Included are:
City Administration Police Department
Secretary Fleet Mechanic
Mechanic Assistant
City Attorney's Office Secretary
Legal Technician Senior Clerk Typist
Prosecution Assistant Animal Control Officer
Sr. Clerk Typist/Word Processor Accounting Clerk
Civilian Evidence Coordinator
City Hal
Custodian Public Works
Building Maintenance Worker
Parking Meter Worker
Fire Department Parking Technician
Clerk Typist Traffic Aide*
Secretary
u�-man Resources
man Resources Aide
.,..:rk Typist
Lib
Building Maintenance Worker
Building Maintenance Worker 3
Custodian
RPl
Assistant to General Manager
Associate Engineering Technician/Drafter
Record/Drafting Technician
Results Technician
Senior Engineering Technician
The employees (excluding Fleet Mechanic, Mechanic Assistant, and Animal Control Officers) are eligible for
consideration for merit increases of 0-2% based on his/her performance during the 12 months prior to his/her
anniversary date up to the maximum of the pay range assigned so employees are allowed to advance through assigned
pay ranges similarly to job titles assigned to seniority -based wage schedules.
Council Action Requested:
Resolution to grant a general wage increase and eligibility for merit increases effective 1/l/02.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /G
DATE12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_M DESCRIPTION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Rochester Olmsted Council of
PREPARED BY:
Governments (ROCOG) for Transportation Planning Activities for 2002-
Phil Wheeler, AICP,
2003
Planning Director
Attached is the Cooperative Agreement for planning services provided by the Rochester Public Works Department to
the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG). The Agreement is based on the ROCOG Transportation
Planning Work Program. The work program calls for some $109,295 over a two-year period in services from the City
to be reimbursed by ROCOG in part by federal transportation planning funds and Minnesota Department of
Transportation funds, and by County levy funds.
Except for dollar amounts and work program activities, the Agreement is virtually unchanged from previous years.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by to:
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into on , by the Rochester -Olmsted Council
of Governments (hereinafter referred to as ROCOG), upon action by the ROCOG Policy Board,
and entered into on December 17, 2001, by the City of Rochester (hereinafter referred to as the
"City'), upon action by the Common Council of the City of Rochester.
WITNESS:
WHEREAS, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 215' Century allows for the distribution of
planning funds to certain designated urban areas for transportation planning and the planning
and evaluation of transit projects; and
WHEREAS, ROCOG, as the designated recipient for the Rochester metropolitan area, has
entered into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to receive planning
funds In support of the TRANSPORTATION PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2002 AND
2003 or in said program as amended; and
WHEREAS, ROCOG has been designated as the metropolitan planning organization for the
Rochester urbanized area by the Governor of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide various services to ROCOG for the purposes of
assisting ROCOG with its transportation planning functions in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF WORK AND METHOD OF STUDY
The City shall make available the staff of its Public Works Department, Transportation
Division, to work with the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, under the direction of
ROCOG's Executive Director, for the purpose of assisting in performing the transportation
planning activities as described in the Calendar Year 2002-2003 ROCOG TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING WORK PROGRAM for the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments, attached by
reference hereto and made a part of this agreement and hereinafter referred to as TPWP.
A. City Responsibilities:
1. Conduct certain technical transportation planning and/or programming activities as
specified in the TPWP.
2. Provide necessary support services.
3. Provide necessary information to assist in developing the transportation planning
portion of the TPWP.
4. Assist in fulfilling state and federal transportation planning requirements.
B. ROCOG Responsibilities:
1. Coordinate and give general direction to city staff to assist in the timely completion of
the work elements.
2. Furnish the City with such information and correspondence that is in the possession
of ROCOG that is considered pertinent to the work to be performed.
3. Provide clerical and support services as needed.
4. Develop and submit all documentation and reports as may be needed to fulfill
applicable state and federal transportation planning requirements.
5. Arrange meetings of ROCOG as needed to give input into the planning process and
to evaluate completed work elements.
Il. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The provisions of Sections II through VI of the "Agreement for the Distribution of Federal
Highway Administration Funds" entered into by ROCOG and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation shall apply to this agreement in all cases.
III. PAYMENT
A. The total cost for the work to be performed by the City from January 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2003, shall not exceed the amount of $109,295 as identified in the 2002-2003
TPWP. The cost per year to be reimbursed by ROCOG shall not exceed $54,647.50.
B. Over the period from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003, ROCOG shall be
reimbursed from the federally funded share of TPWP support (administered by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation) in an amount not to exceed $87,437; and from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation funded share of TPWP support in the amount of
$22,142, for performance of work to be done by the City of Rochester and paid for by
Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments, as described in the TPWP. Out of state travel
can be reimbursed if approved in advance by ROCOG and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
C. The City shall submit its request for reimbursement in the form of invoices or requisitions to
ROCOG, with copies as needed for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The
invoices or requisitions shall contain whatever details may be necessary for a proper audit in
accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128 and
shall be signed by the supervisor of the Transportation Division of the City certifying that all
of the items contained therein are true and correct. Final payment shall be made subject to
approval by duly authorized representatives of ROCOG and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
IV. TERMINATION
The work on these activities shall be completed and final requisition submitted within 30 days
after the end of the calendar year.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Passed and adopted by the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments on this _ day of
December, 2001.
ATTEST:
al
Franklin Michaels, Chairman
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP, Executive Director, ROCOG
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester this 17th day of
December, 2001.
ATTEST:
Judy Scherer, Clerk
0
Chuck Canfield, Mayor
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING % r
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
-M DESCRIPTION: Roadway name change: Royal Lane N.W. to Royal Place N.W.
PREPARED BY:
Janice K. Chezick
GIS Supervisor
The plat for Royal Plaza contains a roadway designated as Royal Lane N.W. The final plat was approved
with the roadway designation of Royal Place N.W. The recorded plat document identified the roadway
designation incorrectly. The alignment of this segment of roadway necessitates the roadway type of
"Place". The AddressinglGIS Staff of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department would recommend that
Royal Lane N.W. be changed to the approved designation of Royal Place N.W.
There are five lots that abut this segment of Royal Lane N.W.; Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Block 2 located within Royal Plaza.
As of the date of this RCA roadway signs have not been installed at any intersections. Roadway signs of
Rorl Place N.W. will need to be installed at the intersections of this roadway with 181° Avenue N.W. and
55' Street N.W.
Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 31.32, covers recommendations for street identification changes.
Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 75.01, covers street name changes.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt an Ordinance to change Royal Lane N.W., platted in Royal Plaza, to Royal Place N.W.
2. Direct the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the Ordinance with the County Recorder.
3. Request motion to approve and include 15t and 2n° Reading on December 17, 2001. This request is
based on the immediate need to install roadway signage, as soon as possible, to avoid confusion or
delay to emergency responders and the general public, in addition to allow for the issuing of addresses
for the construction process to occur.
Attachments:
1. Copy of plat to identify location of roadway is attached. (Royal Plaza)
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
�f• C U. N W25'26' W
I!:f I, II}. Ni'1 l 11
5 W26Y5" E—V..... .._�. �.�..
�ycbY t
� nm�
75
I
,I
- I
f6
E i. till.
Fill lit, eF•�.
FEt
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
('nNSENT AGENDA PLANNING ) _ /" /
DESCRIPTION: Orderly Annnexation Petition #01-23 Thein Estates Property to annex PREPARED BY:
approximately 238.72 acres of land located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and Theresa Fogarty,
east of Harbor Drive SE. The property is located in the North Half of the NE % and the NE Planner
'/, of the NW'/. of Section 8 and the South Half of the NE'/, and the SE %of the NW 114
Section 8, Marion Township
December 13, 2001
Planninq Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated December 11, 2001.
As part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement, property taxes payable on annexed land shall continue to be paid to the
Town of Marion for the entire year in which the annexation becomes effective. If the annexation becomes effective on or
before August 1 of a levy year, based on the date specified in the order from the Minnesota Municipal Board, the City may
levy on the annexed areas beginning with that levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after August 1 of a levy year,
the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. Thereafter property taxes on the annexed land shall
be paid to the City.
Council Action Needed.
If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to
prepare an resolution to be adopted and transmitted to the MN PlanninglOffice of Strategic
and Long Range Planning. The resolution shall also include that all land included in this
annexation be zoned N - Interim" upon annexation.
2. The signed resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion
Area #2) should be transmitted to the MN Planning / Office of Strategic and Long Range
Planning by the City Clerk (attached is a filing fee for the application in the amount of
$200). The resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution shall also be sent to the Town of
Marion and the Olmsted County Auditor/Treasurer.
Attachments
1. Staff report, dated December 11, 2001.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk: Filing Fee Attached
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
on Monday, December 17, 2001 in the Council
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
0 0 �
4 -� i
RoCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC Y X T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: December 11, 2001
Ifi��w!/�safiw�]
/f:5iii��iri i=-
RE:Orderly Annnexation Petition #01-23 Thein Estates Property to annex
approximately 238.72 acres of land located along the south side of
Eastwood Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE. The property is located
in the North Half of the NE'/4 and the NE % of the NW'/4 of Section 8 and
the South Half of the NE'/4 and the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 Section 8, Marion
Township
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: Dennis Thein
6001 Woodridge Court NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Mark Hamann
Platinum Development Group
604 Hunting Drive
Sartell, MN 56377
Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of Eastwood
Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE.
Existing Land Use: This property is currently undeveloped land.
Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately
238.72 acres.
Existing Zoning: The City has extraterritorial zoning control over this property.
The property is zoned 'Interim".
Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned I (Interim) district
on the Rochester zoning map. The applicant will need to file a
zone change on this property prior to development of this
property.
Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential' uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along the its northern
Limits: boundary.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-B224
PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Annexation #01-14
December 13, 2001
Sewer and Water: Municipal sewer and water will be available to serve this area.
The Rose Harbor High Level Water System service will be
available to serve this property.
Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd.13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review: Townboard review is not required for this annexation.
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utility Department — Water Division
2. Rochester Public Works Department
Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map
2. Location / Marion Township Orderly Annexation Area #2
Map
3. Referral Comments (2 letters)
Staff Recommendation:
Section 7, Paragraph (b) of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area #2) between the City
of Rochester and Townboard of Marion allows any lands contained in the orderly annexation area may be
annexed to the City upon adoption of a resolution when a landowner abuts the City limits and said
landowner files a petition for annexation with the City. in such instance, review by the Rochester Planning
and Zoning Commission shall not be required prior to the City acting upon said petition.
Staff recommends that the City adopt a resolution annexing the property.
ROCHESTER
Mks
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester. MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
Date: 12/10/01
OCR?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
Annexation #01-23 on the Thein Estates (S. side of Eastwood Rd SE) property.
The following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
This property can be served with municipal water. A sanitary sewer
trunkline will need to be extended to serve this property.
C:\Documents and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fias\DLKYD\ANNX01-23 Thein Estate (S of
Eastwood Rd SE).doc
we pledge, we deliver
December 7, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Orderly Annexation #01-23 Thein Estate Property to annex 238.72 acres of
land located along the south side of Eastwood Rd. SE and east of Harbor Dr. SE.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. Rose Harbor High Level Water System service is available to this property with approximate
static pressures ranging from 35 PSI at elevation 1220 to 87 PSI at elevation 1100.
3. We recommend that homes built at or above the approximate elevation of 1214 to include
larger water services to better accommodate the lower pressure.
4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
064A R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Yaggy Colby Associates
Platinum Development Group
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
'% "
12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION,
ORIGINATING ❑EPT-
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
t t cdl DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Waste Management Property (Airport
Industrial Park)
ITEM NO. _
,h - /r/)
PREPARED BY:
M. Baker
Waste Management of Minnesota is the Owner of property described as Lots 1, 4, and 5, Block 2,
Airport Industrial Park, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The Owner and City Staff have had discussions
relating to impacts of the development of the property on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the
discussions, a Development Agreement has been prepared and executed by the Owner. The major
items covered in the Agreement include the following:
• Pedestrian Facilities along loth & 11th Ave SW (by Exhibit).
• Terms and timing for connection of the property to the City water system.(by Exhibit)
• Storm Water Management
• Owner's payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges
including: Water Availability, Watermain Frontage for 10" & 11th Ave SW,
Substandard Street & Transportation Improvements.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Waste Management
of Minnesota Property.
t,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEET!n!G
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
:M DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from 3`° St SW/ 600 block,
7d' Avenue SW / 300 block, & 4 h Street SW/ 600 block
ITEM NO. /!
k;
PREPARED BY: JJ
.n D. RossmanY
The City has received a petition from the residents of 3`° St SW/ 600 block, 7' Avenue SW / 300 block,
and 4d' Street SW/ 600 block requesting the City to establish Permit Parking on their streets, to control
all day parking during weekdays. The area is shown on the attached map.
This petition is from within the Edison Neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established
on 17 blocks. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138 and staff
finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add three streets to an existing zone. The requesting
streets are impacted heavily by all -day parking, Monday thru Friday, from a source outside the
neighborhood. There are "No Parking" restrictions on both the north side of 3`d street and the west side
of 7`h Ave due to past petitions requesting these restrictions. These are to remain. The petition has been
signed by 60 % of abutting property owners or residents:
Block
# of signers
# of owners
% signing
Street/ RowWidth
3`d Street SW / 600 block
5
8
63 %
27/75
7`" Ave SW/ 300 block,
2
3
67%
24/30
& 4`b St SW/ 600 block
2
4
50%
40/90
625 015
B19 225
s.w
302 822 �3
814
i I
y I 1
01 3}0i B19 Big
627
317
` I
B19 f
617
716 706 1 k628—� — �0 i 410518 ('—
I I
Staff would recommend in favor of the petition and would request a Public Hearing to be scheduled for
January 7, 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on January 7, 2002 to consider establishing
Residential Permit Parking, Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) on 3`d Street SW/ 700 block and
7`h Avenue SW / 300 block. and 4h Street SW/ 600 block.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works 1) --/'7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Riverside Central School Zone Safety Study Amendment Prepared By:
The City of Rochester has received a request from Mr. Paul Bourgeois & Jeff Kappers, of Independent
School District 535, to amend the School Zone Safety Study for Riverside Central Elementary School
to include a temporary closure of 5th Avenue SE, from 5th Street to 6th Street, 3:15pm to 4:00pm,
school days only.
This would be enacted in order to create a safety zone for school bus loading. It would eliminate the
double parking and loading activities on 5t" Avenue, which currently encourages students to walk
between the school buses to reach their parents' vehicles. Pick-up and loading activities are allowed on
the 6th Street side of the school, in the school parking lot, and on 5t" Street. This request has also been
reviewed with and agreed upon by the City Police Department. The City of Rochester would provide
the proper signs, and school district staff would be authorized to install and retrieve the signs.
1
' I I
.m=
6.ST SE
--- - ------- L-L
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding following paragraph to the Comprehensive Traffic and
Parking Resolution Book Section Q "Temporary Street Closings" to read:
2) 5th Avenue SE/500 block to be closed each school day from 3:15pm to 4:00pm, with buses
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 'C 1
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT-
Public Works
ITEM NO.
Z)
—/
d DESCRIPTION: Professional Engineering Services: Design of 3 Id Ave SE from 41npR
PARED BY:
St SE to 12" St SE (J-2245).
7 D. Nelson�l
The following project has been proposed for construction in 2002 and is included in the 2001 -
2006 Capital Improvement Program.
Project: Rehabiliation of 3`d Avenue SE from 4th Street SE to 12th Street SE. (J-2245).
Funding for the project will come from Federal funds and Municipal State Aid funds.
At the August 20, 2001 Council meeting, the City Council approved Preliminary Design
services with Yaggy Colby and Associates. We now recommend we enter into an engineering
services agreement with Yaggy and Associates for Final Design Plan and Specification
preparation.
Yaggy Colby Associates, proposes to provide Final Design services on a Lump Sum basis of
$40,000.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Yaggy Colby Associate, for Final Design on a Lump Sum basis of $40,000.00.
. o!JINCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I/
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION_
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
\
„11.1 DESCRIPTION: Professional Engineering Services: Design of Regional
PRPPARED BY:
Stormwater Ponds for area west of 50th Ave NW (J-2468).
ID Nelson
The following project has been proposed for construction in 2002 and beyond and is included
in the 2002 - 2007 Capital Improvement Program.
Project: Construct Regional Stormwater Ponds for Cascade Township Section 7
Project Number: J-2468
Regional Stormwater ponds are needed in the Section 7 area to accommodate continued
development action. Funding for the construction is from Storm water Management
contributions.
Bonestroo and Associates, proposes to provide Preliminary Design services at an hourly rate
not to exceed $15,000.00. Final design plan and specification preparation will be addressed
separately.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Bonestroo and Associates, for Preliminary Design Analysis services in an amount not to
exceed $15,000.00.
..JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Section 7
0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles
�- —
W
Text Street Label
= Parcel Boundary
0
S
E
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGFNDA SFCTION-
ORIGINATING DEPT-
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
—"
M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement # 1; Project 8316-98 (J-2454)
PREPARED BY:
Construction of Drainage Ditch & Storm Sewer in South Park
F M. Easley
The plans provide for the installation of storm sewer pipes and drainage Swale in an easement, in the
backyards of homes in the South Park Subdivision.
The intent of the plans was to provide storm sewer to openly outlet into the drainage swale adjacent to
the existing culvert pipe under 241" St. SE.
The finished result was not acceptable for a private rear yard installation and the Engineer deemed it
necessary to revise the storm sewer outlet and provide a direct connection to the existing culvert pipe.
This restored the existing yard to preconstruction condition.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement # 1; Project 8316-98 (J-2454) in the amount
$8,861.45 to cover the cost of compensation for extra work and material needed to complete the project.
•
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement # 1; in the amount of $8,861.45;
Project 8316-98 (J-2454) South Park Drainage Swale
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
�y
DATE: 12/17/01
AGFNDA RFCTION-
ORIGINATING DFPT-
NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
717—.>7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement# 1; Project M1-18 (J-9777)
PRrARED BY:
Fox Valley Drive SW
1J,M. Easley 0"
The plans provide for traffic calming measure to be installed on Fox Valley Drive SW.
The intent of the plans was for the installation of four concrete pavement speed tables to slow the traffic
in the residential neighborhood.
Certain design standard provisions were inadvertently left off the plans. The Engineer deems it
necessary to construct the concrete pavement consistent with design standards utilized on similar
paving projects.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement # 1; Project M1-18 (J-9777) in the amount of
$5,179.90 to cover the cost of compensation for extra work and material needed to complete the project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement # 1; in the amount of $5,179.90;
Project M1-18 (J-9777) Fox Valley Dr. SW — Traffic Calming
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGFNDA SFCTION:
ORIGINATING DFPT-
ITFM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
' --
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1 Project SW-M005 (J-2465)
PREPARED BY:
Bamber Lake Area Pond
D Weber
The plans provide for improvements to the detention structure on the N.W. corner of Circle Drive and
Salem Road S.W., the plans further provide for turf establishment and erosion control as the final item of
work.
The proposal incorrectly represented work associated with items, seed mixture and erosion control.
It was the intent of the plans to provide Seed Mixture 600 at 1.1 Acre instead 1.1 pound and Erosion
Control Blanket Category 4 instead of Category 3.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; Project SW -MOOS (J-2465) in the amount of
$8,100.00 to cover the cost of:
1. Seed Mixture 600 at 1.1 Acre
2. Erosion Control Blanket Category 4
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement # 1; in the amount of $8,100.00;
Project SW-M005 (J-2465) Bamber Lake Pond
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
t t rill DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Robnik, LLP
MEETING IK,
DATE: 12/17/01
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY::,�,�p
ti x M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
• Robnik, LLP is the Owner of part of the NE%, Section 26, Township 107 North, Range 14 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota, commonly known as Moody's Impound Lot. Through the permitting
process for SDP#01-50 & SDP#01-78, the Owner has requested that a Pedestrian Facilities
Agreement be approved to address the its obligation for providing a five (5) foot wide concrete
sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property abutting the East River Road NE.
7 vj
Robnik LLP Propert
�a
s �
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway
Approach Agreement with Robnik LLP for property in the NE'/,, Section 26, T107N, R14W, commonly
known as Moody's Impound Lot.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
I I tM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Olmsted Medical Cent(
DATE: 12/17/01
ITEM NO_
j �
PREPARED B)
7-L M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
Olmsted Medical Center is the Owner of art of Lot 18, Auditor's Plat'A', Olmsted County,
Minnesota, having an address of 1650 4t St SE, Rochester MN, 55904. Through the permitting
process for SDP#01-84, the Owner has requested that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be
approved to address the its obligation for providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the
entire frontage of the Property abutting the 191h Ave SE right-of-way.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway
Approach Agreement with Olmsted Medical Center for part of Lot 18, Auditor's Plat'A', Olmsted County,
Minnesota.
ii,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING >( i
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
nRIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM Nn.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
J-'� - , a, -f-�
M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
PREPARED BY:I
p� M. Baker
The Department of Public Works has received a request on two (2) properties, to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). This department
has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for
participation. The Owners of the following properties have requested voluntary participation in
the City's Plan, with the applicable participation fees as follows:
• The Amish Store (Lot 1, Block 1, Bandel Business Center & Access Drive)
(SDP#01-86) $10,534.89
• RC Properties (Lot 2, Block 1, Circle Drive Business Center P)
(SDP#01-87) $ 4,261.70
The Owners of these properties have already provided payment for its respective charges.
These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in
the City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted properties, in the
City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan.
is
'OFOUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l `�
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
t r-M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve Bandel Business Center
PREPARED BYq
(J9872)
Pr M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Kevin Duckett (Owner) & Zenke, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9872
consisting of "Watermain to Serve Bandel Business Center'.
� a
m
-4¢'
ny, m N
r •nw
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9872
"Watermain to Serve Bandel Business Center".
t,uUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
7w
„
ArFNnA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12-17-01
u . DATE : A//
ORIMNATINr, nFPT-
ITFM Nr).
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
M , ROCHESTER CITY LINES/ ROUTE 6 CHANGES
PRFPARFn RY-
A KNAUER 4
This is a request to modify Rochester City Lines Route 6B and establish a demonstration
Route 6D.
MODIFICATIONS TO ROUTE 6B
In April of this year major changes were made to Route 6 which serves the South Broadway, Td Avenue
SE and Crossroads areas. The changes added service to Meadow Hills and a Park and Ride at Shopko
South. The attached petition has been received from Crossroads riders requesting that the order of pick
up on Route 6B be reversed to shorten their ride time to and from the downtown. The change will
shorten the Crossroads residents ride time from 18 minutes currently to 11 minutes. The change is
below the threshold that requires a hearing. The transit advisory has recommended approval. Exhibit A
shows the proposed schedule and route map.
ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMONSTRATION ROUTE 6D
There is a request to look at more direct service to the Shopko Park and Ride to downtown and St
Marys. Currently St Marys employees must transfer downtown. Its proposed to establish a 6 month
demonstration Route 6D (direct) that would circulate between the South Broadway Shopko area,
downtown and St Marys during peak hours. Mayo Clinic has agreed to sponsorthe route. The route will
be open to the public. The transit advisory has recommended approval. Demonstration routes of 180
days or less duration are not subject to a hearing. Exhibit B shows the proposed schedule and route
map.
Staff recommends approval. The timing of implementation needs to be coordinated with some changes
in the assignment of equipment and personnel. This coordination should be completed by the end of
January. The sponsorship will cover the additional cost.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving the proposed changes to Route 6 as described
per Exhibits A and S.
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second bv: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
�f�
MEETING 1 7 01
DATE:
Ar;FNnA SFCTICIN-
ORIMNATINr, nFPT-
PUBLIC WORKS
ITFM NO.
l�—,
CONSENT AGENDA
I ROCHESTER CITY LINES CONTRACT FOR 2002
PRFPARFn Ry. G
A KNAUER
This is a recommendation to approve the 2002 operations contract with Rochester City Lines.
This contract provides funding for the regular route deficit. The contract maximum is
$1,323,521 based on the estimated deficit. (Expenses less revenues.) This compares to a
contract maximum of $1,187,541 in 2001. The 2002 contract includes increases for wages and
fuel costs. The contract provides reimbursement for actual expenses less revenues. Some
expenses are allocated based on hours or miles of operations. The contract is subject to an
annual audit. The contract runs from 1/1/2002 through 12/31/2002.
The contract is subject to the receipt of State and federal funds.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving the following contract the 2002 contract with
Rochester City Lines in the maximum amount of $1,323,521.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: L 2117/01
GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT,
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D 'Z 9
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Settlement Agreement for Right of Way Acquisition
PREPARED BY:
for the Historical Center Stormwater Facility. J 2465
M. Nigbur
As part of the City's project to construct a regional storm water management facility the City needed to
acquire a portion of the History Center property. City staff pursued acquisition of the needed area of
property using the state acquisition requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the
City and the Owner a preliminary settlement has been reached. The terms of the settlement include
payment of $41,500.
i � F
Circle Drive
N
Historical Center
Storm Water Facility;'
__
yy
co`bzssw
l ,
Salem Road SW
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the payment to the Historical Center in the amount of $41,500 and allow City staff to accept
the Deed for the property.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
j i awl DESCRIPTION: ADOPTION OF 2002 TAX LEVY, 2002BUDGET, AND 2002-2007
PREPARED BY:
CIP
S. KVENVOLD
Although the Legislature adopted an amendment that does not require a Truth -In -Taxation public hearing for
adoption of the 2002 tax levy and budget, both staff and Council have determined that a public hearing provides
for an effective means of providing budget information and receiving public comments regarding the 2002 tax
levy, budget and CIP.
The recommended tax levy is $22,480,055 and the final budget is $126,433,495.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve resolutions to adopt the 2002 Property Tax Levy of $22,480,055; the 2002 Total Budget of
$126,433,495 and the 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Progra
....UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
Impact of Review and Adjustments to 2002 Recommended Program for Services
Through December 11, 2001
Affected Department Page
PLANNING AND ZONING - 101-4080
POLICE - 101-4110
AIRPORT OPERATIONS - 270-4270
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
14-Dec-2001
10:5321 AM
Proposed 2002 Budget
39 OTHER EXPERT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MEALS (NOT CONFERENCE7TRAINING RELATED)
REGIS-CONF/TRAIN-IN ST/LOCAL
47 REGIS-CONF/TRAIN-IN STILOCAL
191 UTILITIES -ELECTRIC
Operating Budget Change
Total Budqet Chanqe
2002 Budqet
2001 Budqet
Percent of Change
Maximum 2002 Levy
Recommended 2002 Levy
Under maximum 2002 Levy
Flname Dept
B.. A*."
12114,7001
r, Tmrvrn.Pwr,niTl:cT1'nMp.,nnnPP,M�e!HP�wC1,nq.b�Pntlnnl.p-..pnn�
Net
Increase
Account/Dept
(Decrease)
Tax Levy
Total Budget
$22,481,150
$126,434,590
11390
(500)
(500)
(500)
12130
(200)
(200)
(200)
12140
(2,000)
(2,000)
(2,000)
12140
7,000
7.000
7,000
12310
(5,395)
(5,395)
(5,395)
$ (1,095)
$ (1,095)
$ (1,095)
$ (1,095) $ (1,095)
$ 22.480,055
$ 18,970,957
18.50
$ 23,224,131
$ 22,480,055
$ 744,076
$ (1,095)
$ 126,433,495
$ 115,895,959
9.09
7->
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS — Continued Item
PLANNING
rivl 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 2"d Street and
Planner
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.
December 13, 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
1 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
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. 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.
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
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.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated November 9, 2001
wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
Page 2
RCA
December 13, 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 shoula
instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact ano
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 17, 2001 in the Council / Boarc
Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building
6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. w
v/ r
ROCHESTER-OLhISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT `t ;K4c"esrFq. `'r'v}Fr
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, NIN 55904-4744 '
4
C O U M T, C F„/F www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Common Council
From: Brent Svenby, Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept.
Date: 12/13/01
Re: Requested information regarding past Land Use Plan Amendments
The Council continued three applications filed by Western Walls, Inc. to the
December 17, 2001 meeting in order to receive additional information from the
Planning Department. The applications were for a land use plan amendment to the
commercial designation, a zoning petition to the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning
district and a GDP amendment to allow uses permitted in the B-4 zoning district on
the property. The additional information requested was a review of similar
applications (commercial land use plan amendments), description of commercial
uses allowed in the B-5 and R-3 zoning districts and a review of 23`d Avenue SW
designation (appropriate as a collector).
Attached you will find a review of current land use plan amendments to the
commercial designation and a description of commercial uses allowed in the B-5
and R-3 zoning districts. Please see the separate memo from Charlie Reiter
regarding the designation of 23`d Avenue SW.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285.6224
.�,,,.. PLANNING/ZONING 5071285.8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287.2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Examples of petitions to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan to the Commercial Designation.
Petitions that met the criteria and were approved:
• #98-5 John Benike - Along west side of Valleyhigh Dr, south of 191" St. — staff
recommended approval
#00-03 — Along west side of West Circle Drive, south of Celestica site, extra ROW
acquired from County — This amendment would expand an area that had recently been
designated for "commercial" uses.
Petitions that met the criteria and were denied:
Petitions that didn't meet the criteria but were approved:
• #00-01 Badger Development, LLC - West of West Circle Drive, south of Valleyhigh Rd. —
Did not have level terrain, otherwise met criteria
#00-05 Quinstar - Along east side of CR 1, north of TH 52- Didn't meet criteria for access
and only part of property had level terrain.
• #00-06 Billman Orr - 34`" Ave. NW , west of Highway 52 - Didn't meet the intersection
criteria but Council placed an upper trip generation limit on the property.
• #00-08 R.L. Hexum & Assoc. -North of 48'" St. SW and west of TH 63 — Did not have
level terrain, but staff , commission and council recognized other factors that would alter
the natural terrain (i.e. improvements to TH 63 including an interchange at 48" St.)
#97-5 Jerry Nelson - NW corner of 18" Ave. & 55" St. NW intersection — staff
recommended denial due to the existing commercial land within the service area.
#97-3 City of Rochester Initiated — Along 2nd St. SW, west of 19`" Ave. SW - Property
located mid -block not meeting the intersection criteria but was viewed as having existing
commercial uses on the property.
• #97-2 Mathy Construction - North side of Country Club Rd, east of 23`d Ave. — Not at an
intersection of a collector and higher order, but would access the northern extension of
23`d Ave. & staff recommended approval.
• #97-1Carpenter & Torgenson - Along 1°' St. SW, east of 11`" Ave. SW - Property located
mid -block not meeti2p the intersection criteria, but viewed as a continuation of
commercial along 2 St. SW.
#96-4 Fine Shelter — South of Highway 14, west of Crossroads Shopping Center - Didn't
meet the intersection criteria, but was viewed as an extension of a larger commercial
area (Crossroads).
Petitions that didn't meet the criteria and were denied
. #98-8 Cycle City — 60`" Street and Highway 63 - Access and interchange questions at
60'" Street.
0 #94-6 Franklin Kottschade — 40'" Street and Highway 63 - Locational criteria wasn't met.
/7 C.
COaIPARISON OF COMMERCIAL USES ALLOWED IN THE R-3 and B-5 ZONING DISTRICT
Floor
Site
Use
Use
Detailed
Area
Hours of
Sign
Location
Type
Regulations
Ratio
Operation
Regulation
Requirement
R-3Zoning
District
Office
VAR
62.264(3)
.125(I)
7am-10pm
A
J
.20(111)
Personal
VAR
62.264(3)
1.125
7am-10pm
A
J I
Service
Convenience
III
62.264(4)
.10 (I)
6am-10pm
A
J,E
Retail
.15 III
Medical
II or
62.263(2)
A
D
Facility
III
Funeral
I
.125 (I)
7am-11pm
A
C
Homes
.20(111)
B-5 Zoning
District
Office
II
.25(11)
6am-10pm
A
E
.50 III
Personal
II
.25(11)
6am-10pm
R
E
Service
.50(111)
Medical
II
.25(11)
A
J
Facility
! .50 III
Day Care
I
.25 (1)
R
i Facility
.50 III
i
Funeral
11
25 (II)
A
Homes
.50(111
(1) = Type I approval could be approved by staff
(II) = Type II approval through a conditional use permit by the City Planning and
Zoning Commission
(111) = Type III approval through the Incentive Development process
62.263 Other Residential Uses:
2) 2) Nursing and Personal Care Facilities and Medical Facilities: Uses
in residential districts are subject to the same General Zoning District
regulations and setback regulations which apply to Area Accessory
Developments in the same zoning district. The Zoning Administrator may
authorize additions or expansions to existing developments consistent with
the standards of paragraph 61.148 as a Type I development.
62.264 Nonresidential Uses:
3) 3) Office and Personal Services: Office and Personal Service
developments may be considered a Type II use if they meet all standards
except those for floor area and landscape area and are located on a lot at
least 8,000 square feet in size with a floor area not exceeding 5,000 square
feet.
4) 4) Convenience Retail: A Convenience Retail development may be
considered as a Type II use if it meets all standards except those for floor
area and landscape area and is located on a lot at least 8,000 square feet in
size, with a floor area of not more than 4,000 square feet and not more than
eight employees on the largest shift.
In addition, all new convenience retail developments shall be located at
least 1/4 mile from any existing convenience retail use and 1/2 mile from
any existing neighborhood shopping center. Where the applicant wishes to
request a variance from this requirement, the application shall be
accompanied by a market study showing that an adequate market exists
within 1 /2 mile of the proposed site to support such use. The information to
be contained in the market study shall include:
a) Identification of trade area;
b) Determination of number of potential customers in the trade area;
c) Determine a profile of the income levels of potential customers;
d) Estimate consumer expenditures for products offered and the total retail
demand for products in the trade area,
e) Estimate Capture Ratio/Market Penetration; evaluate the competition;
estimate market share using accepted methodology such as: fixed share
method, unsatisfied demand, proportional method, total apportioning
method;
f) Apply Capture Ratio to Total Retail Demand to determine volume of
business expected;
g) Prepare a cash flow forecast to evaluate feasibility of the project.
63.250 SITE LOCATION STANDARDS
This section describes the site location criteria identified in the Zoning District
Tables of Chapter 62 for specific types of permitted or conditional use.
63.251 Purpose: 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 site which are less desirable to develop and thus
IV
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 this section is to
identify those locational restrictions necessary for certain types of permitted or
conditional uses which will insure their compatibility with surrounding land uses.
63.252 Standards: The Site Locations Standards are as follows:
1) 1) Site Location "C": The use shall be located at the intersection of two arterial or
higher order streets in an R-Sa, R-1, R-1x, R-2, or R-3 District.
2) 2) Site Location "D": Uses shall only be permitted to take access off of a major
local or higher order streets.
3) 3) Site Location "E": Uses shall 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. If access to the site is to be provided from a frontage road, the
frontage road must be a through road, or, if a dead end, its intersection must be with
a nonresidential street or a collector or higher order street as defined by the
Thoroughfare Plan.
4) 4) Site Location "J": The site provides direct access to a collector, arterial or
expressway.
62.700 RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT
Certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning
district on a permitted or conditional basis can, if regulated, serve both the
public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than
that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations. The
regulations of this article recognize and provide encouragement for innovation
and experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be
possible under the zoning district regulations established by this ordinance.
62.701 .approval Procedures for Restricted Developments: All types of Restricted Development
are identified as Type I, I1 or III uses in Sections 62.720 through 62.760, and are processed according
to the Type I, II or III Review Procedures accordingly. For Type III Restricted Developments, a two
step review process consisting of a Preliminary Development Plan and a Final Development Plan
shall be utilized. The Preliminary Development Plan shall be reviewed under the Type III Review
Procedure, with a Phase II Hearing Process utilized. The Final Development Plan shall be reviewed
under the Type HI Review Procedure, with a Phase III Hearing Process utilized.
1�i
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E.
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996
PHONE 507-285-8232 FAX 507.287-2275
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Charlie Reiter
Senior Transportation Planner / Planning Dept
DATE: December 13, 2001
RE: Information on Collector Streets and applicability of designation to 23rd Ave SW
General Discussion of Collector Streets
In thinking about street designation it is important to focus first on function and then on design.
Collector streets in Rochester's street system have primarily two functions. First, collectors will
generally serve to gather traffic from local streets within the interior of the area and deliver it to
higher order streets such as arterials or expressways. Second, collector streets will provide for
connectivity between adjacent areas, since all collectors are designed to intersect with two
streets of equal or higher classification in the street system. This system connectivity is
beneficial not only in terms of connecting adjacent areas but also in facilitating bus service
through and emergency response service into areas, and to provide routes for pedestrians or
bicyclists through areas along roads lower in volume then the arterial streets. Typical examples
of lower volume collectors in the city are Northern Heights Drive, Memorial Parkway, Fox Valley
Drive and Center Street.
In addition to the system functions served by collector streets there is also an access function
accommodated along these corridors. Generally in most cases private access is provided to
adjacent properties, though it may be limited to a certain degree through minimum spacing
requirements depending on expected traffic volumes.
The designation of streets as collectors is based on whether or how well a roadway fulfills these
functions in the hierarchy of the street system. It is only after the function has been considered
and the designation identified that design comes into play. When street corridors are
designated as collector streets there are minimum expectations in terms of right of way width
and cross-section design that must be met in the case of new collector streets.
It is important to keep in mind that there may be situations where the design standards for
collectors may be applied to a local street, particularly where a single or limited number of high
traffic generating uses are located on a street that is functioning primarily as an access or
entrance road. Situations such as the entrance to Woodlake Park, 10 St SW on the south side
of Crossroads Center and 16'h St NE on the north side of Silver Lake Shopping Center
exemplify local streets that are designed like collector streets because of the significant access
function they serve, but because they do not serve a connectivity function they have not been
designated as collectors on the Thoroughfare Plan.
Review of 23 d Ave
In looking at the 23d Ave situation north of 2nd St it would be my conclusion the situation is one
where the predominant roadway function is one of access and the connectivity function is very
minor. Since all trips in this area (except for internal neighborhood travel) end up on 2nd St, the
local street system, with multiple access points to 2nd St, does a good job in dispersing these
0
trips across multiple routes and the development of a collector street would not seem to serve a
useful function. In addition, the current layout of land uses and streets illustrated in the
preliminary plan for the Cascade Lake planning area (see attached) leaves very limited
opportunity to develop a collector street system through the area, considering the potential
location of a south beach recreation area for Cascade Lake, the very restricted level of
connectivity that was provided through the Shorewood development, and the fact that any
collector street corridor would likely need to tie into the local residential streets in the West
Zumbro neighborhood for connectivity purposes.
It appears the only possible scenario for development of a collector street would be to extend a
corridor through the area identified on the photo as the Cascade Lake Recreation Area north of
Shorewood. This corridor would tie into 2nd St NW and continue east to the Frontage Road.
The cost of building this street under current plans would likely be at 100% public cost. The
benefit of such a connection would seem to be the potential to re-route some Quarry Ridge
traffic out of the West Zumbro neighborhood, but at the same time a drawback appears to be
the potential to route some of the future traffic associated with the Cascade Lake Recreation
Area through the neighborhood. Since traffic wants to reach 2nd St, it would seem that having
multiple direct north -south connections to disperse traffic fulfills the functional needs of the area
without development of an east -west collector corridor
In conclusion, while the north approach to 2"d St may need to improved in the future to handle
the access needs of abutting property, there appears to be limited need or opportunity to
develop a collector street through the area between 2"d St SW and the West Frontage Road,
and that the current street system pattern providing multiple local street accesses to 2"d St SW
will serve the functional needs of the area.
l L`
V77
c .J rr
ate`-9!I-M'
JIL
car
r
srT1 a' I.6417LF M',1-q5_ _
. o4 aoodg ii 3 y7j „dt �!� fidl AmWM44" OM
uadp panJasab 351Jt fa ill? ,, .]
•'.'` — r"^----.-sue „,ems .a- - c....a...l—.. '9nuwciZ
v �!
a , i•: "'��
Tic. Iz
ri
ps
net
Y
r •' ��. WOWLZ
`
^
y r (,•i N J-� i
.�S••1 ..g' fit.. . T�1 p L r ` , OWN
C3 �r V d Az
fo
ct
n it
.{ � �N•• 1 .�. — .;f'.L +T�� 1, { -
Zt
4VONE CHANGE EXHIBIT
DESCRIPTION:
SEE ATTACHED
NORTH
SCALE 1" = 100'
=CR :
WESTERN WALLS, INC.
604 11TH AVE. NW
ROCHESTER, MN
55901
Ste!\ pp�.F
N 87'34450 W
259.67
B5 TO B4
f 2.69 ACRES
w s ss.
it F
h C
O
�COUN
S COR SE 1 !4
SEC 33-107-14
W
7
SHOREWOOD
SHOREWOOD
RETAIL
REPLAT
SCALE
1" = 100,
paawN ar
JJJ
Uft -wd
PLmiu{
CemuWy - Cl.il
-i1::
;; ?��^^ Ww^el
1.
ACCL NO.:
101311584 1
Codd Na 1584'0iJE
i
FJ( F N0.
BK. PG.
r..,.... m.an.an.
P...mY. ,T:Oi..iA
ROt STER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPaxiMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
r�r��2\fi�mn!
CC O„, y O f www.olrnstedcounty.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 23`d Avenue
SW. The property is identified for residential commercial uses on the
General Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake
Plannina Devartment Review:
Petitioner: Western Walls, Inc.
604 11" Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Property Owners: City of Rochester
C/o City Administration
401 City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Western Walls, Inc.
604 11"Ave. NW Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultant:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located along the north side of 2nd
Street SW, west of 23`d 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
concurrentwith 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/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HPA 507/285-8224
PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAx 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
�wv.
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 23rd 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 2nd 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 2V Ave. SW. No
access will be permitted to or from 2ie 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 2nd
Street SW, as development occurs. This location is
consistent with general guidelines on signal spacing
needed to maintain adequate traffic flow along the 2nd
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 2nd St. SW and reservation of land for
23rd Ave. SW.
Please see the traffic analysis prepared by Charlie
Z-/�
Page 3
w�
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 Hanford
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 god Street SW. This means that no access to be
permitted to or from fd 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
LUPA 01-06 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 2 d St. SW and 2P 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 FJF, 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 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.
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Comn ssion Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001
0
ANNEXATION:
Mr. Brent Svenby pr,0661nted the staff report, dated NOVE
staff report is on at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
7, 2001, to the Commission. The
Ms. Wiegis& moved to recommend approval ot.runy t,oun imnateg Nnnexaiion Ru i c
Mr. Sisfer seconded the motion The motlon'carried 80 x
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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 2 no Street and along 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) District to the B-4 (General Commercial)
�C]Gil District The property is located along the north side of 2"° Street and along 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.
MED
Amendment to General Development Plan 0155 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
174
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 14, 2001 (�
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 11th 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 i is
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 23rd Avenue from
the intersection of 2"d 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 23'd 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 2"d Street which enables the left turn lane and same width of street that is built to
the east of 23rd Avenue.
Mr. Quinn stated that the intent is go from 23`d 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 2"d Street.
Ms. Wiesner questioned the reasoning of having a right turn lane into a lower hierarchy street.
Page 8 • / '
City Planning and Zoning Com ston 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 11'h 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 2"d 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 locational
criteria that were adopted with the Land Use Plan.
Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Reiter's tables on page E13 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. Staver 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.
Page 9 j
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes •
Hearin. Date: November 14, 2001
Ms. Wiesner responded yes.
Mr. Slaver stated that it has flat terrain, good vehicular and pedestrian access.
Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1 with Mr. Quinn voting na =
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #_01 13 b
Western Walls, Inc. based on the findings of the Land Use Plan Amendment and t11- lat`t
upgrade of 23Id Avenue will reflect the requirements by staff that they are:on arr
intersection of a collector street Mr. Slaver seconded the motion. The motioncaMe
Mr. Svenby stated that the staff -recommended findings neither support approval or denial of the
general development plan.
Ms. Wiesner moved
#155,by Western W.
recommended findil
2.
which
permil
3'° Ave.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1.
I of
as G
a point which'alial
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff repA, dated November 1, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Oynskd Planning Department.
Construction
507 282-7380
De" "z Co
P•6 /
-Mar 20 01 C5=04P 7y✓
EXHIBIT "B"
Restrictive Covenant
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 game 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 shop; or use which ;mits 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 with 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 B4 designation, the Seller would add funeral parlors to the iiv of restrictions.
City Planning and Zoning Wission Minutes •
Hearing Dave: July 9, 199
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. DeWitz 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' (11.52 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. DeWitt commented that when the land development manual was drafted, it 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 Ellerbusch, who is handling
the land use plan update, as a locational criteria that should be dropped.
Dan Berndt 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.
�-'
City Planning and Zoning Cc ssion Minutes
Hearing Date: July 9, 1997 - e�
the needs of the population area. Mr. Bellinger pointed out that, conceptually, he likes the ✓r
project.
ti ts� CU
Ms. Goslee added that later on in the land use plan amendment they discuss the concept of 1
frontage roads. In a way, this concerna
ptual intel driveway system leading to 2nd Street SW isty y
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.
Type III Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) # e7 22 by Michael Yo nge
to be known as Lincolnshire North Serond Subdivision consisting of 13.87 acres to be
developed into 38 Iota forsingle family residential development The prooecy is located
south of 48th Street NW west of 31 t Avenue NW ton the northern edges of the
Lincolnshire and Arborglen Subdivisions),
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 consutting 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 38 single family
residential lots. The plat dedicates right-of-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 fine win 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
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS — Continued Item
PLANNING
_
I . DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment # 01-13 by Western Walls, Inc. to rezone
PREPARED BY:
approximately 2.69 acres from the B-5 (Residential Commercial) District to the B-4 (General
Brent Svenby,
Commercial) District. The property is located along the north side of 2"d 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.
December 13, 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.
f. 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 to B-4 (General Commercial) would be consistent with a "commercial' land use
designation.
Z 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 ofpermitted 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 2P 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.
J
Cn� CPOC n,
J� 8
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Lv-PA
See attached staff report dated November 9, 2001.
. uUNCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
Page 2
RCA
December 13, 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 17, 2001 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. McGhie & Bettis, Inc.
RO CSTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAxiMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
a a d e* r OF www.clmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
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 23rd Avenue SW.
The property is identified for residential commercial uses on the General
Development Plan known as Grandville at Cascade Lake.
Plannino Department Review:
Petitioner: Western Walls, Inc.
604 111h Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Property Owners: City of Rochester
C/o City Administration
401 City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Western Walls, Inc.
604 11`hAve. 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 2"d
Street SW, west of 23rd 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 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 50W285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 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: B4 (General Commercial) and R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) and includes the Shorewood retail and
senior housing development.
South: Property to the south, across 2nd 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 2nd Street SW to
the site.
It is expected a traffic signal ma
dy be warranted in the
future, at the intersection of 23' Avenue SW and 2nd
Street SW, as development occurs. This location is
consistent with general guidelines on signal spacing
needed to maintain adequate traffic flow along the 2nd
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 2nd 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:
Neighborhood Meeting:
Referral Comments:
A wetland delineation has been carried out for the
property and is on file with the Planning Department.
A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29,
2001. A summary of the meeting is attached.
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
Anaiysis 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 toB-4 (General 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 tot or several small lots to a district which is different than that
assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in
this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state).
The amendment to 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 it 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.
1, )
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 B-4 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.
Ouestions/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.
• 0
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 nearfuture. 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.
R o c h e s t e r
M 1 n n e s o t a
1643 TAIm Avenue S.E.
Rochester. MN 55904
Tel. 507.289.3919
Fes. 507.269.7333
e-mall. mcghiebens.com
Established 1946
Attendance Roll
Neighborhood Meeting
for
Proposed Zone Change to B-4
On 2.69 acre tract
By Western Walls Inc.
Along 2nd St. SW and 23rd Ave. SW
Monday, October 29, 2001
6:30 PM
Shorewood Place. Building 2205
NAME
ADDRESS
bewJz- 0. S
PHONE NO./FAX NO.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i) 6-
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued Item
PLANNING
DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan #155 by Western Walls,
PREPARED BY:
Inc. known as Grandville at Cascade Lake. The proposed amendment is the change the
Brent Svenby,
commercial use in the southeast corner of the development. The approved plan allows for
Planner
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
side of 2nd Street and along the west side of 23 d Avenue SW.
December 13, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation_
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
Cascade Lake, with staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion
carried 8-0.
ditions:
1. The GDP be revised to show:
• Controlled access along the entire frontage of 2n6 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 2nd St. SW and 23'd Ave. SW.
• The intensity of use notation on the plan be replaced to say uses permitted in the 8-4 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 fd 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 8-5 zoning district.
4. The previous conditions of approval placed on the General Development Plan still apply to the development.
Planning Staff Recommendation: Cpac mi
See attached staff report dated November 9, 2001.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must
make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215.
7 If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
NOTTS,
UTH TTIES
TFIESA TOSERVE TIRSPRO OSE TO HL
PROVIDED BY
THE SAME S1TE1'T LL PROPOSED TO SERVE THE REST
OF THE ORANDVII-1.E AT CASCADE LAKE DEVEIAPhhII:NN'f.
INTENSITY OP Qom'
Q7TENSTTY OP USE WEL EQUALTHAT OF A CONVENIENCE
RETAIL USE
US
ACCESS WILL TO THE SrI I3 WE.L BE OFF OF 23.0 AVE. SW AND
THE PROPOSED ROAD CONNECTING TEE REST OF THE GRANDVUI.E
AT CASCADE LAKE DEVELOPMENT TO 230 AVE 5W.�
a
•6
GoMM0-4.1A -
poire' .
13 pis S
5 tRaWOO >pVel-ofma4T-
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR ..�"
COMMERCIAL PARCEL AT
GRANDVILLE AT CASCADE LAKE e vsra._
1 ENc> or FKW-Mann
lGtL V = 60'
ERN WALLS, INC pMWI )ry JJJ
11TH AVE. Nw
ESTER. MN 6•rF • ]01I6/Ol
17V
accr m
rkr w
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC � HT T OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 9, 2001
IM NO�s��s�*,■�
wiffro"MR- Now
RE: Amendment to the 2.69 acres located in the Southeast corner of
General Development Plan #155 "Grandville at Cascade Lake".
Plannina Department Review:
Petitioner: Western Walls, Inc.
604 11th 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.
604 11th Ave. NW, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 2nd St.
SW/Country Club Road, west of the 23rd 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 corner 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 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-6224
.wA1 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FA% 507/287-2275
�ww
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/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 2"d 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
Z; /
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
it.
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
B. 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)
0
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 23rd 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 B-4
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 B-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
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 2nd St. SW and 23rd 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.
Assuming signalization does occur at the intersection of 2nd St. SW and 2p
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
2nd St. SW and reservation of land for 23r6 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.
�>y
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.
Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to
safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in
the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of
adequacy.
Access to this property will be from 23'd Ave. SW, is a limited local street.
Currently the traffic control at the intersection of 2"d St. SW and 23'd Ave.
SW is a stop sign on the side street approaches to td 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.
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 lanes would be warranted. The ability to achieve this
intersection design will require expanding the roadway surface in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection to provide added width to the west
side of north approach and along the north side of 2nd 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 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.
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 Zd St SW in the form of a 10-
foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, as well as typical city sidewalk along
23nd 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.
G�
Page 8 0 • /
General Development Plan ('%17
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 B-4 commercial
zoning, Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance
with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable
criteria.
i. The GDP be revised to show:
Controlled access along the entire frontage of 2"d 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 23"d 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 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 B-S 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 B-4
(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 2n" St SW / 23" 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 rums, 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 turns 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 toms along -side
through or left tam movements.
Figure 1
W
NORTH
t
t
t
lrll]�
`i-"I 1. Are.
"•lI-I 77 (( jj
�',Lumbine8i) IM] "'��Thru/Left
C: T
urrent
Intersection
Configuration
23W Ave
S
L
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
EB Right
WB Left
NB Left NB Thru NB Right
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 Right SB Thru SB Left
EB Left
WB Right
EB Thru
WB Thru
EB Right
WB 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
W
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.
?t�
Values falling above the
curves indicate that a left
turn lane should be provided
1 344 Veh per lane estimated r
10 20 30 40 50
f Advancing volume -
Left-Tum Volume
(Design Hour Volumes)
x naninet of through lanes in
t See Attachment A for a description of Level of Service ratings A through F .
122
Left
Turns
Estimated
%/
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:
Figure 2New
Thr
Thru /
Current
Right
Lune
Turn
becomes
Lane
Left
Turr'
lane
1
New roadway
edge
-'-. Existing roadway
W - edge
��• Add
,Left
..............
--''_.
.Turn'----
`,lane
Intersection
Configuration
'to support
High Intensity
Commercial
23rd1Ave
S
NORTH
t
TWCLTL
E
The ability to achieve this intersection design will require expanding the roadway surface in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection to provide added width to the west side of north approach and
along the north side of tad 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
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
ATTACHMENT A
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
AVERAGE
QUALITATIVEDESCRUPTION
STOPPED
OF
RESERVE
IMPACTON
DELAY
SERVICE
CAPACITY
MINOR STREET TRAFFIC
PER VEHICLE
DESIGNATION
(PCPH)
SECONDS
- Good progression with condition of free flaw
accompanied by low volumes and high speeds.
- Major movements have low percentage of 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 to be restricted
somewhat by traffic.
- More vehicle stops will be required than L.O.S.-A.
5.1 - 15.0
B
300 - 399
Short traffic delays
- Waiting vehicles still will probably clear on one
green phase.
- Fair progression with traffic moving smoothly.
- The number of vehicles stopping is significant at
:vel, although many still pass through without
15.1 - 25.0
C
200 - 299
Average traffic delays
ing.
- Individual cycle failures (waiting for more than one
green) may begin to appear.
- Acceptable intersection operation during peak
hours.
- Congestion becomes noticeable, and traffic is
flow with high V/C ratios.
approaching unstable
25.1 - 40.0
D
100 - I99
Lang traffic delays
- Drivers have little freedom to maneuver.
- Many vehicles stop and proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
- Poor progression, high volumes, long queues.
- At or beyond limit of acceptable delay.
-
40.1 - 60.0
E
0.99
Very long traffic delays
- Volumes are at, of near, capacity.
- Individual cycle failures are frequent
- Forced flow operation at low speeds where
-1--mes are overcapacity.
Volumes exceed capacity of
each lane. Extreme delayswith
:eptable to drivers with all vehicles stopping.
> 60.0
F
queuing causes congestion
affecting all movements in the
- Cycle failures are maximized.
intersection
V/C - Volume to Capacity.
(PCPH) - Passenger Can Per Hour
ROCHESTER
Ksneeota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 11/2/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904.3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the 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 (fka — 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 B4 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 a 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.
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB022\GDP155 AMENDMENT Grandville at Cascade Lake - LUPA01-06 -
ZONE01-13.doc
s
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
Rochester, M1Y 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.
11 A
October 25. 2001
Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
Dear Jennifer:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-474
5071285-8231
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 2nd St SW (CSAH 34).
Sincerely,
w�
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
t:lengindoc\pla nzone.doc
0
�.w+k
Administration
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
rpm
we pledje, 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. Gamess:
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,
060A koc-
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
bftd
AL4AAROCHESTER
V,* .A"Sejata
DATE: October 31, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: Zoning District Amendment #01-13,
l
O�HESTER•1��\ �/�
0. 1
OR.ITE O.a�•.G115T•.•`
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507)285-8256
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 2ntl Street SW and west of 23r0 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 11`n Avenue NW, Rochester, MN 55901
McGhie Betts, Inc, 1648 3r° Avenue BE, Rochester, MN 55904
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PI 1RLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
I DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-51 by Hartman Farms Inc. to be known as Superior
PREPARED BY:
Ridge Townhomes CIC 182. The Plat proposes to subdivide 15.22 acres of land into 68 lots
Brent Svenby,
for a single family attached residential development. The development is proposed to be
Planner
served by one private roadway. The applicant is also requesting a design modification to
Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to not
provide a secondary access for a development that will generate more than 500 average
daily trips and to allow a cul-de-sac that will generate more than 300 average daily trips.
The property is located along the west side of Superior Drive NW, north of Heritage Place
NW.
December 12, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated December 12, 2001, recommending approval subject to the following modifications I
conditions:
1. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of the common lands shall be recorded concurrent with
the final plat documents (mylars).
2. The applicant agrees that the plat will have an impact on the City's needs for parkland and that dedication
should be handled in the form outlined in the November 30, 2001 memorandum from the Rochester Park and
Recreation Department.
3. The applicant shall receive approval, from the Planning Department Addressing Division, of the name for the
private roadway prior to the recording of the flat plat documents (mylars).
Staff recommends approval of the design modification.
Council Action Needed.
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
2. The resolution should also include approval or denial of the Design Modification.
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 17, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
�.JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
IN
SAM
1
ru c � N rr1 .. aggn
$� O
e gg r O
Y B A ohn�i
p gg S nnnp
N R �QKU
w
MN 133tl15 M19L
rn.
SRA4
-Y-Rx€ha
^9�a
F�a:.Ag8
3d$��E'SS_�..R4�e•a-s
aFSSFasa,-0
iii
�$qq
n
I-R
A
yy
Ax'aA
pp
RRA�
xa
k�
g?E'88
Yca
�8-----
6g
FgE.ga:.c:ia?^:9M^
RGaA
-:.
�Aa=
FSN
i_..,."...A-Pax
SR-
N
O
N
1+ Y B�®
8g ��
O
LO't0* .6C.60192
G311VldNI I
FROM:
DATE:
1p
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
0 0 0 N T V OF www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
Rochester Common Council
Brent Svenby, Planner
December 12, 2001
OF RUCK ESTER..7..
� y
iO..
AG" .. "c
R'4 TED•AU GUSH'"
Final Plat #01-51 to be known as Superior Ridge Townhomes CIC
182
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Plat Data:
Hartman Farms, Inc.
2310 Telemark Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
1. RPU Water Division
2. RPU Operations Division
3. Rochester Public Works
4. Planning Dept. — Addressing
5. Planning Dept. — Wetlands
6. Rochester Building & Safety
1. Referral Comments ( 4 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Final Plat
Location of Property: This plat is located along the west side of Superior
Drive NW and north of Heritage Place NW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential).
Proposed Development: This development proposes to subdivide
approximately 15.22 acres of land into 68 lots for a
townhome development and one common lot. The
applicant has received approval for a site plan for the
townhomes.
Streets: The plat does not propose dedication of any new
public right-of-way. The development has have
access to a public roadway, Superior Drive NW. The
development will be served by a private roadway.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAx 507/287-2275
T't�7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Superior Ridge Plat
December 12, 2001
this plat.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands.
According to the Soil Survey, hydric soils do not exist
on this property.
Public Utilities:
Utilities are available to serve this development. The
public improvement plans have been approved of this
development.
Spillover Parking:
Spillover parking requirements were reviewed at the
time the performance residential development plan
was approved.
Parkland Dedication:
The Park and Recreation Department recommends
that dedication requirements be met via the deferred
land dedication (1.66 acres) with land to be dedicated
being a part of the 7.5 acre park indicated on the
GDP. Dedication of land to occur when the park is
accessed by a public street or when the Park
Department wished to begin development of the park.
General Development Plan:
This property is included in the approved Hartman
Farms GDP.
Staff Review:
The applicant is also requesting a design modification to the requirement of Chapter 64
(specifically 64.127 (9) & (10)) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual. Section 64.127 (9) requires that cul-de-sac street serving a single family residential
development be designed to serve development that is projected to generate no more than 300
average daily trips. Section 64.127 (10) requires a secondary access be provided for any low
density residential development that is projected to generate more than 500 average daily trips.
Section 64.127
9) Cul-de-sac, loop, circle and lane streets serving single family or duplex residential
development shall be designed to serve development that is projected to generate no more
than 300 average daily trips.
10) Secondary access will be required for any low density residential development that is
projected to generate more than 500 average daily trips. Where secondary access is not
constructed as part of the initial phase of development, the secondary access shall be
provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate
traffic in excess of 1,200 average daily trips. The need for secondary access for non-
residential development fronting on a collector or higher order street shall be determined
based on a Traffic Impact Study.
The development sits a top a ridge with relatively steep slopes surrounding the project boundary.
The development consists of 68 townhome units. Each unit is projected to generate 7.5 trips per
day which equals approximately 510 total trips per day from the development. This is
approximately a 2% increase over the 500 average daily trips that require a secondary access.
Since this is a marginal increase, it should not create adverse traffic problems. With the project
surrounded by steep slopes, a significant amount of funds would need to be expended to alter the
PUM
Page 3 ' 3
Superior Ridge Plat
December 12, 2001
land to provide for a secondary access. The Public Works Department recommends approval of
the design modification due to topographic constraints and proposed interior roadway pattern.
Staff would recommend approval of the design modification.
Please see the attached excerpts from the LDM which outline the Design Modification provisions
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 Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
1. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of the common lands shall be
recorded concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars).
2. The applicant agrees that the plat will have an impact on the City's needs for parkland
and that dedication should be handled in the form outlined in the November 30, 2001
memorandum from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department.
3. The applicant shall receive approval, from the Planning Department Addressing
Division, of the name for the private roadway prior to the recording of the final plat
documents (mylars).
Page 4
Superior Ridge Plat
December 12. 2001
60.420 DESIGN MODIFICATIONS:
It is the intent of this ordinance to recognize that in certain instances it may be in the
public interest to provide an expedient method to modify the site design and public
facility standards of this ordinance as applied to certain types of development.
60.421 Purpose: The purpose of the design modification is to permit relief from the strict
application of ordinance standards where there is no defined hardship, the proposed
modifications will not result in identifiable loss of protection to adjacent properties, or
where the proposed development results in an improved design solution to a site design
problem and in doing so, still meets the intent of the site design or public facility
standards. Guidelines are provided for the approval authority to assess the impact of
the proposed design modification.
This ordinance also provides for certain types of development identified as incentive
development and restricted development which, though not consistent with normal
zoning district standards, will be permitted in certain instances. These developments
are supported by the Land Use Plan, but may necessitate relaxation of certain design
standards in order to meet site constraints. Design modifications will be considered as
part of the normal review of these developments, subject to standards established in
this section.
60.422 Review of Design Modifications: Design modifications will be processed through
either the Type I or Type II review procedures, according to the guidelines established
in this section. Where a design modification request accompanies a permit or
certificate request that requires processing through a Type III review procedure, the
request shall be considered by the Commission and Council as part of the Type III
review.
60.423 Guidelines for Approval: The following paragraphs identify specific policies or
standards for each type of design modification permitted by the Ordinance. The
approval authority shall consider these policies or standards in making the findings to
approve or deny a request for a design modification. In addition, the following
standards shall apply to all requests for Type II Design Modifications:
1) The burden shall be upon the applicant to show the design solution will result in an
improved use of land while preserving the purposes for which the original regulation
was enacted.
2) Any such modification shall consider the relationship of the development to its
surroundings and shall avoid creating any adverse effects due to noise, traffic
circulation, building height or bulk or lack of screening.
60.424 Specific Policies: The following paragraphs contain the guidelines applicable to
specific types of design modifications which shall be considered by the approval
authority.
9) Public Facility Standards:
a) Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 may be approved as part of the
review of any General Development Plan, land subdivision permit or final plat
where the applicant can show by reason of exceptional topography or any other
physical condition that strict compliance with these regulations would cause
undue hardship or that such relief would not be a detriment to the public welfare
and would not impair the intent and purpose of the regulations.
IS1
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GISIAddressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904.4744
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507) 287-2275
PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: December 6, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: SUPERIOR RIDGE FINAL PLAT # 01-51
A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues:
1. The private roadway accessing the plat has not been given a designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Name the private roadway; verify it with our office, and use LANE NW to
complete its designation.
"•.UI 1 All(\IJH I'l i'l YITA 1(l Ai"d, 11'-il.�t II =1"II IN I1 rIH DUI '.]I
K..L-STERZ PARK AND CREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE $(
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 30, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Superior Ridge Final Plat #01-51
Acreageof plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ..................................................
Density factor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
15.22 a
68 units
4.46 units/a
.0244
1.66 a
na
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via: Deferred land dedication with land to be dedicated being the 7.5 acre park
indicated on the Revised Hartman Farm Inc GDP dated 04/09/01, Dedication of land to occur
when the park is accessed by public street or when the Park Department wishes to begin
development of the park.
Applicant:
Hartman Farms
2310 Telemark La NW
O:\➢ST0TZ\20011DEDICATI0N\NW 2898\SUPERIOR RIDGE.DOC
Rn�+hnctor R��ilrlinef �
Memo
To: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
From: Randy S. Johnson
Date: September 19, 2001
Re: Final Plat #01-51 by Hartman Farms Inc. to be known as Superior Ridge. The Plat proposes
to subdivide to subdivide 15.22 acres of land into 68 lots for a single family attached residential
development. The property is located along the west side of Superior Drive NW, north of
Heritage Place NW.
The above referenced Plat appears to indicate new construction that is regulated under the Building
Code and will require building permits. Complete plans and specifications are required to be submitted
for a building permits prior to construction.
The proposed construction appears to consist of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on
separate lots with property lines between the units. Please verify the following items:
Separate utility services (i.e. sewer, water, gas, electric, etc.) are required to be provided to
each dwelling unit. The utilities are not permitted to encroach onto or through the adjacent
lots.
The dwelling units are required to be provided with fire rated walls at property lines in
accordance with the 1997 UBC Section 503.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you
0 Page 1
ROCHESTER gg
M:�
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 12/10/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #01-51 on the
Superior Ridge. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to the construction of
public watermain and/or the addition of hydrant(s) to serve this property.
Charges /fees applicable to the development of this property as addressed in the Development
Agreement, and include:
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1709.89 per developable acre
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1709.89 per developable acre
Storm Water Management— TBD, if onsite detention is not provided
Street Signs as determined by the Traffic Division
I Street Name Sign 1 Street Ends Sign 1 Stop Sign
C:\Documents and Settings\plajgam%Local Settings\Temporary Internet FIIesQLK2FD\FP01-51 Superior Ridge.doc
0
0
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
11/8/01
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested design modification
for the Superior Ridge Townhomes. Pursuant to Chaper 64.127 a culdesac is
intended to serve up to 30 units and a secondary access is needed for
development serving more than 500 trips.
Based on our review of this project, the development sits atop a ridge with
relatively steep slopes surrounding the project boundary. The project consists of
68 townhome units, which will generate less than 500 average daily trips. There
does not appear to be any reasonable alternative to provide a secondary access
to serve the development unless a significant amount funds were expended to
alter the land.
The Public Works Department suggests the Owner's pursue a Design
Modification as found in 60.424 #9 and further recommends approval of the
design modification due to topographic constraints and proposed interior
roadway pattern.
C:1wINMTProfiles\plabsven\Temporary Internet Files\01-1<931Superior Ridge Design Mod.DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING `16,
DATE: 12-17-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
E �;
I DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #01-13 by Marigold Foods, LLC, to vacate the
PREPARED BY:
portion of the alley adjacent to Lots 1 and 19 and the southerly 30 feet of Lots 2
Theresa Fogarty,
and 18, Block A of Block A and B in the City of Rochester. The platted right -of-
Planner
way is east of North Broadway, south of 6th Street NE and west of 1st Avenue NE.
December 11, 2001
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated November 19, 2001.
Staff recommends approval of the vacation petition as submitted.
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at their November 28, 2001 meeting.
The Commission recommended approval of the vacation petition.
Ms. Weisner moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #01-13 by Marigold Foods, LLC.
Mr. Ohly second the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as recommended by the City
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 19, 2001.
2. Minutes of the CP&ZC November 28, 2001 meeting.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicants: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
December 17, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE,
Rochester, MN.
6. Frederikson & Byron PA, Attorneys & Advisors
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Net
it"
-02-2001 12:12cm From-HUGHESBIU(
I
6TH
nuumnw. MpL. wcn �
F.m \D RR SPIKF-1
L- Spratte 10 I '
(p.m.p 15194) If3
I — BLOCK
I 9 w.e•
R. Rleck 8
(yrcck( ISI93)
E. F'raman
wr
I lPa rceW 7 13191) 1
N .1i
I 5 16
1 monen Prop.niaa uw +y�
tp..bv 15191) L
F} I� 'a 9 5 '. 5 a
� S 89'S8'SS"
+21493961OS
T-947 P.002/002 F-295
1
. t
ST. NE.
N 89047'24"E
125.00 ® FOr Ds 1JD
OCT
......... IRora MONlIMF�.'r
amt-(w w 66• _
m(..m.nY... pvw.R 1 1 :. � � • I
12 � I
13
•Kle
P\13U'y.wmr .t 11 •fir
IS parcel4
i
16
17 'O : L'.'.
is I
ONO-0-0 '
-n
Iw-R1o11DINO
Iw.Jaull{..+n.sr (kn. .nu. uN+ 593 h7 Ki ON AU Cl'
al yiF(tty Glv 19
rs
00 —_ —
S 018-VACATED STH ST.
v
a:
7 IK1:� Y]-mla(J)WUt;QR]fFJ<�
Y� 6 t5 m 9 rEF.TNORTH
parcel 3 I_ K I A.Nn 9.5 rE(:T FA r
DFPRIOWRTr Ct KR LR
g I I 5
t
- ----- ---I "�—parcel2 --—
�
r
o:••
9 BLOCK 64 I W i 4
BLOCKS "A
IN NEWS
ALSO B
IN TO
ALSO
a NORTHERiQf
TO ROCH
a
W
'.
I
I
2
BLOCK
c O
"B"
CY5-(rula.ln�u
t}18R
1
reFT
o4rErT
SF: 1' IRUN MUN I'MUNI
�
tOr1
.:Y(111 IIIY..I
d e� •
'r7';;4o
1
Jr]
O
I
I
C
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEYAxfMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U X T Y O F www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: November 19, 2001
RE: Vacation Petition #01-13 by Marigold Foods, LLC to vacate a portion of
the alley adjacent to Lots 1 and 19 and the southerly 30 feet of Lots 2
and 18, Block A of Block A and B in the City of Rochester. The platted
right-of-way is east of North Broadway, south of 6th Street NE and west
of 1st Avenue NE.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner(s): Marigold Foods, LLC
Attn: Christopher Thorpe, Chief Financial Officer
Treasurer
2929 University Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Advisors: Fredrikson & Byron PA, Attorneys and Advisors
Mrs. Bonnie O,Malley, Senior Paralegal
1100 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397
Reason to Vacate: In February, 1988, the City of Rochester entered
into a Land Sale and Development Contract with
Marigold Foods. As part of that agreement, the
City agreed to vacate the public right-of-way to
permit the development of the Project.
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
It has been recently discovered Marigold Foods
constructed the building encroaching over the
portion of the alley requested to be vacated.
No comments received.
1. Vacation Petition
2. Location Map
Staff didn't receive any objections to this vacation request. It doesn't appear that
vacating this portion of the alley, requested by the applicant will have an adverse effect.
Therefore, staff recommends approving this vacation petition, as submitted.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
. „ . • City of Rochester, Minnesota • ��
Date: October 17, 2001
To: Mayor and Common Council
City Hall
City of Rochester, Minnesota
Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement
We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the city of Rochester, Minnesota,
and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be
vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal description and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.)
Owners Name (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) Lenal Description
Marigold Foods, LLC, a Delaware limited See attached Exhibit A
liability company
We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate
the following described public property:
See attached Exhibit B
The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows:
1 On February 25, 1988 the City of Rochester entered into that certain Land Sale and
Development Contract with Marigold Foods, Inc. with respect to property within
Blocks 61 and 64 of the Original Plat of the Town of Rochester and also part of
Block A of New Subdivision. As part of that agreement, the City agreed to vacate
the public right—of—way to permit the development of the Project.
2 In reliance on the Land Sale and Development Contract with the City of Rochester,
Marigold Foods constructed its building which we have recently discovered encroaches
over the portion of the alley requested to be vacated as shown .on the -attached
raw ng.
13
F. 91920-9e Page 1 of 2
4.
Your Petitioner respectfully requests that such
instituted as soon as possible.
By:
Note: In cases where the property
is owned in joint tenancy,
(Husband and wife, etc.)
both owners must sign the
petition.
State of Minnesota )
Countyof Hennepin )}
rA
On this E day of October 2001 before me, a Notary Public within
Christopher Thorpe, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer of
said County personally appeared Diasigold F--'=, , T r n na1 aware limited liability company —,to
me personally known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said
to accomplish this vacation be
University Ave SE
Chrirsfopher Thorpe
Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer
Signature of Petitioner Address
Signature of Petitioner Address
Signature of Petitioner Address
Signature of Petitioner Address
instrument to be (his) R)yj {(il W free act and deed and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to
the best of (his) f t O (Jhvb� knowledge, on behalf of the ompany.
Distribution:
NANCY L. TORELL
�e Notary PuDgC
frtlnnesam
er comma rakr r.2" zms
City Clerk (white copy)
Consolidated Planning (canary copy)
Petitioner (goldenrod copy)
Notary Pubilic, Olmsted County Minnesota
�'&,uUN �11 ?V05
Date My Commission Expires
Vacating Streets, Alleys, And Utility Easements: Form Number 1
Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement
F t M7620.38 Sheet 2 of 2 Revised 3/17180
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the
Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Ms. Mary Petersson, Chair; Mr. Randy Staver, Vice Chair; Mr. John
Hodgson; Mr. Michael Quinn; Mr. Paul Ohly; Mr. James Burke; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Ardell
Brede; and Ms. Leslie Rivas
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mr. Brent Svenby and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the minutes of November 14, 2001, as
written. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The minutes from November 14, 2001
were approved unanimously.
Mr. Svenby stated that, under Other Business, the Commission should discuss a memo
regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signs.
Ms. Rivas made a motion to approve the agenda, adding a discussion
item regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
signs. Mr. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
VACATION PETITION:
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 19, 2001, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition 401-13 by Marigold
Foods LLC. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Proposed findings for the following:
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment #01-06 by Western
Walls, Inc.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 12/17/01
AGFNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING ❑EPT:
ITFM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
G /%
i t rM DESCRIPTION: Hearing: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Southtown
Heights Subdivision Area, J9791
PREPARED BY:
J. Loehr
This is a Hearing for the City Council to consider the construction of the following local improvement
project:
Project No. M1-30, J9791
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 895,085
Service Connections 64,615
Sub -Total $ 959,700
Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 287,910
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,247,610
The Southtown Heights Area sewer and water extension project is included in the proposed 2002
Capital Budget.
The Southtown Heights Area was annexed by the City of Rochester in 2000. The annexation of the Area
was approved by the State Planning Agency in December 2000. The annexation became effective on
January 1, 2001. Therefore, an Orderly Annexation Agreement with Rochester Township is not required.
The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection
Agreements), Sales Tax revenue and future Watermain Connection Charges that will be included in
Developer/City-Owner Contract Agreements for new development that will occur in property adjacent to
Southtown Heights.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since
the project is petitioned by greater than 50% of the owners of property affected by the project, a simple
majority vote of the Council is required for adoption.
AKIIPL
Attachments: Feasibility Report
Location Map
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN
TO SERVE THE SOUTHTOWN HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION AREA.
November 13, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area was
forwarded by the City Council at their meeting of April 19, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the
preparation of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was
signed by 39 of 50 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents
78.0 percent of the single-family residential lots within the Southtown Heights Area that are eligible to
participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on
December 21, 1998. The Southtown Heights Area also includes 6 undeveloped single-family residential
lots.
Feasibilitv Reoor t
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of
this project is within an area of existing single-family residential development that currently lacks public
sanitary sewer and watermain. A majority of the septic systems and wells within the Area were constructed
prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction
of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under %: acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates
created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the'City of Rochester's
ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow
property owners of lots containing existing single-family residential dwellings to connect to public sanitary
sewer and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This project also allows the
undeveloped single-family residential lots to develop with public sewer and watermain
The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection
charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water
Quality Protection Program for existing single-family residential lots, and watermain connection charges
for a watermain extension from Greystone development through 40 acres of undeveloped property lying
between Greystone and Southtown Heights.
The proposed project consists of the installation of 8-inch sanitary sewer lines, 8-inch watermain lines, and
sewer and water service connections, to serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area
Public sanitary sewer is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway at the southeast
comer of Southtown Heights. Sanitary sewer will be extended from that location to serve Southtown
Heights. Therefore, an extension of trunkline sanitary sewer is not required to serve the Southtown Heights
Area.
Main level watermain is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway at the southeast
comer of Southtown Heights. This watermain can be extended to serve those Southtown Heights properties
located in the main level service area (east 1/2 of Southtown Heights).
High. level watermain is currently available in Greystone Subdivision that is located approximately 1300
feet west of Southtown Heights. This watermain must be extended to serve those Southtown Heights
properties located in the high-level water service area (west 1/2 of Southtown Heights). This cost can be
recovered as connection charges in the future as this 40-acre parcel develops.
Applicable Connection Charge Rates and per Lot Cans
Since the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area petition was received prior to August 1, 1999, the date that
the Water Quality Protection Program rates and per lot caps were adjusted by the change in the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during
the preceding calendar year, the Department of Public Works recommends that the sanitary sewer and
watermain connection charges for this project be based on the connection charge rates and per lot caps in
affect at the time the petition was received by the City as follows:
Maximum sanitary sewer and water connection charge rate of $66.30 per foot of frontage.
• Maximum sewer and water connection charge per lot cap for a developed lot that contains a
habitable single family dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1) maximum $8,160 per lot for any developed lot 1/2 acre or less.
2) $8,160 per lot, plus $0.19 per square foot for any developed lot greater than '/2
acre up to 1-1/2 acre.
3) maximum $16,320 per lot for any developed lot 1-1/2 acre or larger.
The estimated construction costs and expenses of the project made without completed plans or
survey are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
$ 517,640
High -Level Watermain from Greystone
145,340
Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 56 services
42,000
Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 56 services
42,000
Roadway Restoration, Seed & Sod
428,155
Temporary Neighborhood Access Road
72,475
$1,247,610
The estimated project costs are proposed to be funded as follows:
Utility Connection Agreements
$ 457,416
Sales Tax Revenue (see below)
644,854
Watermain Connection Charges (new development)
145,340
Estimated Cost of the Project
$1,247,610
Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Project:
Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 569,854
Sales Tax (Sewer Service Stub -Out Allowances) 50 services x $750/sery 37,500
Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances) 50 services x $750/sery 37,500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $644,854
9 Gf
Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property
Of the 56 lots within the project area 50 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are
eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows:
Sewer Service Lateral
50 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
50,000
Water Service Lateral
50 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
50,000
Well Closure
50 lots x $1,100 per lot
$
50,000
Septic Closure
50 lots x $ 500 per lot
$
25,000
Private Force
4 lots x $4,000 per lot
$
16,000
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances
$
191,000
For Work on Private Property
Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Project and Allowances
Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 644,854
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 191,000
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $ 835,854
Allowances for Work on Private Property
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections
in the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing
sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program.
Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits
contained therein, are required to:
1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the City
initiates the project.
2. Connect the existing single-family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems
within five (5) years of the date of project initiation.
3. Statement of Annexation:
The City of Rochester annexed the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area and other lands in Rochester
Township that were 100% surrounded by the City. The Minnesota State Planning Agency approved the
annexation in December 2000. The action taken by the State Planning Agency is currently being
challenged in District Court by 12 property owners in the surrounded area. In addition the situation with
regards to revisions to annexation laws in the legislation session will be uncertain until the session ends.
Despite these uncertainties, the staff recommends that the City Council proceed to accept this Feasibility
Report and authorize that the project be constructed. The City utility services are badly needed in this
subdivision. We remain optimistic about the resolution of the uncertainties. In addition our Utility
Connection Agreement language would require the owners to grant the City authority to annex the property
in the future, should the State Planning Agency previous decision of the annexation be overturned.
for your consideration: Approved:
' " /
Protection Program
Richard Freese,
City Engineer
Project
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: MI-30
J No: 9791
Date (Orig.) 11/13/2001
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Southtown Heights Subdivision Area
Construction
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
Service Connections
High -Level Watermain from Grevstone Subd
Roadway Restoration. Seed & Sod
Temporary Neighborhood Access Road
Construction Cost
Engineering/Interest/Contingency
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Watermain Connection Charges
High Level Watermain from Greystone
Future Development
Sales Tax Funding
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
959,700
287,910
$1,247,610
644 854
$1,247,610
N
/ fly I
\ \ I
y/ I
y
ol
-
a'-! SANITARY SEWER do WATER WHKS
• a �` '- ";S � - TO SERVE THE SOUTHTOWN AREA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
/oz'
DATE: 12/17/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
""DLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
G
11 Lv1 DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TER DKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
y!a a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the H District to the M-1 District, and Amending
4�ctl`` Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the East side of East River Road NE;'/4 Mile North
of 37th Street NE; Adjacent to the RPU Office Center.
b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester a Portion of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast quarter of Section 19, the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, the
Northwest Quarter of Section 29, and the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 107 North,
Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the East and West Sides of
50th Avenue NW; and North of 19th Street NW.
c) An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Sections 62.2721, 62.2722 and 62.396, Amending and
Reenacting Sections 60.200, 61.115, 62.390 and 62.395, and Repealing Section 62.272 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances Relating to Storage Containers.
F�
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
pD�
VVUNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: