HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2006_AnnualCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA 0( 01
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS 1p
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 1 JANUARY 9, 2006
ANNUAL MEETING 7:00 P.M.
VILMO E OF AUXUANCE
PAGE
1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
3-4 D) ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Address by President Hanson
2)
Request a Motion Adopting the Following Prepared Resolutions
3)
Appointments to Committees by President Hanson
4)
Address by Mayor Brede
5)
Designation of Official Paper
5-6
CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
6)
Approval of Minutes
7-8
7)
BIO 2006
9-10
8)
2006 Annual Compensation for the Mayor and City Council
11-12
9)
Contract with Elert Associates to assist with improvements to Council
Chambers Audio Visual System Improvements
13-14
10)
Change Order No. 1 with Weber Construction for Electrical Building
Project
15-16
11)
Change Order No. 2 with Progressive Contractors, Inc., for
Navigational Aids
17-18
12)
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities
19-20
13)
Wine and 3.2% On Sale Malt Liquor for Mark & Roger LLC DBA Mr.
Pizza
21-22
14)
Banking Item
23-24
15)
Approval of Accounts Payable
25-26
16)
Authorize Amendment to Investment Advisory Service Agreement
with MBIA Investors Service Corporation
27-40
17)
Audit Engagement Letters for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2005
41-42
18)
Request to Accept SAFER Grant Award
Council Agenda
Monday, January 9, 2006
Page 2 of 3
43-44 19)
Wage Recommendation for Non -Exempt Non -Contract Employees
for 2006
45-48 20)
Appointments (3) —Firefighter — Rochester Fire Department
49-64 21)
Agreements for Construction of the New Graham Arena
65-66 22)
Check Diversion Agreement
67-68 23)
Acceptance of IBIS (Identification Based Information System) Device
69-70 24)
Amendment #1 to 2005 Rochester City Lines Contract
71-72 25)
Supplemental Agreement — Center Street Parking Garage
Restoration Project
73-74 26)
Award of Bids/Revenue and Access Control Equipment for Parking
Ramps
75-76 27)
Advertise for Bids: Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, Phase
II, J7751
77-78 28)
Supplemental Agreement #1: Project M3-24 (J4014) 3'd Ave. N.W.
315t St. to Chalet Drive
79-84 29)
Grading Plan Checklist
30)
SEMNTF Joint Powers Agreement
E) HEARINGS
85-86 1)
Consider the Proposed JOBZ Business Subsidy for NRI Electronics, Inc
87-98 2)
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 by BIG DE Development to amend
the Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential to Commercial on property
abutting Lots 107, Bandel North First Subdivision.
99-110 3)
Zoning District Amendment #05-16 by BIG DE Development to amend the
Zoning Map from R-1 to B-4
111-130 4)
Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known as Hidden Oaks
Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as Bandel North
Second and Third to identify commercial land uses
131-142 5)
Final Plat #05-42 by BIG DE DEVEOPMENT to be known as Overland
Pointe
143-154 6)
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11 to amend land designation annexed in
early 2006 to be consistent with the Land Use Plan on property located
north of 59th Street, west of Bandel Road N.W., east of the New Life
Worship Center.
155-164 7)
Zoning District Amendment #05-17 to amend zoning designation annexed
in early 2006 to be consistent with the Land Use Plan on property located
north of 59th Street, west of Bandel Road N.W., east of the New Life
Worship Center.
165-194 8)
Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and renew Restricted Development
Permit #05-06 by Rochester Sand and Gravel and Mathy Construction on
property located along the east side of TH 63 S, south of 60'h Street S.E.,
and northeast of "Machinery Hill".
Council Agenda
Monday, January 9, 2006
Page 3 of 3
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
195-196
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
t r-WUCJ 1 rUK trUUP4UL AU I IUN iviccurvy
DATE: 1 /9/0G
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
ITEM 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.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ADMINISTRATION
ITEM NO.
D-1-5
h rm DESCRIPTION: ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS FOR 2006 ANNUAL MEETING
PREPARED BY:
L. Mullenbach
Following are the Council Organizational Business items which are normally handled at the Annual
Council Meeting:
D-1 Address by President Hanson
D-2 Request a motion adopting the following prepared resolutions:
a) Resolution adopting the Roberts Rules of Order for the conduct of business by the
Council;
b) Resolution adopting the Rules and Regulations for Order of Business of the Council;
c) Resolution establishing committees of the Common Council, prescribing their functions
and duties, and providing appointment to members of subcommittees;
d) Resolution adopting the order of succession to discharge the duties of the
Council mem ber-At-Large in the event of absence or disability.
D-3 Appointment to Committees by President Hanson
D-4 Address by Mayor Brede
D-5 Designation of Official Paper
Request a motion designating the Rochester Post -Bulletin as the official newspaper to publish
the official printing and advertising of the City of Rochester for the official year commencing
January 9, 2006, at the rate established by the statues of the State of Minnesota for legal
publications.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING v
DATE: 1 /9/06
F^"'DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: n tm NU.
CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-6-29
ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS PREPARED BY:
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an
opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which they 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:
6)
Approval of Minutes
7)
8)
BIO 2006
2006 Annual Compensation for the Mayor and City Council
9)
Contract with Elert Associates to assist with improvements to Council Chambers
Audio Visual System Improvements
10)
Change Order No. 1 with Weber Construction for Electrical Building Project
11)
Change Order No. 2 with Progressive Contractors, Inc., for Navigational Aids
12)
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities
13)
Wine and 3.2% On Sale Malt Liquor for Mark & Roger LLC DBA Mr. Pizza
14)
Banking Item
15)
Approval of Accounts Payable
16)
Authorize Amendment to Investment Advisory Service Agreement with MBIA
Investors Service Corporation
17)
Audit Engagement Letters for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2005
18)
Request to Accept SAFER Grant Award
19)
Wage Recommendation for Non -Exempt Non -Contract Employees for 2006
^ 20)
Appointments (3) —Firefighter — Rochester Fire Department
(___.21)
Agreements for Construction of the New Graham Arena
` ta�jb
22)
Check Diversion Agreement
23)
Acceptance of IBIS (Identification Based Information System) Device
24)
Amendment #1 to 2005 Rochester City Lines Contract
25)
Supplemental Agreement — Center Street Parking Garage Restoration Project
26)
Award of Bids/Revenue and Access Control Equipment for Parking Ramps
27)
Advertise for Bids: Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, Phase II, J7751
Agreement #1: Project M3-24 (J4014) 3rd Ave. N.W. 31S` St. to
28)
Supplemental
Chalet Drive
29)
Grading Plan Checklist
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items
COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: I /9/O6
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Mayor's Office
ITEM NO.�
_,. DESCRIPTION: BIO 2006
PREPARED BY:
Mayor Brede
Mayor Brede is requesting approval to attend BID 2006 in Chicago, April 9-12, 2006.
Rochester will be represented by the Chamber of Commerce, RAEDI and Mayo Clinic. I believe it is
not ony important that the City be represented and supportive of the contingency but also that we
show support to DEED — Positively Minnesota.
Past conferences have given us biotech/science leads for companies indicating the possibilities to
bring theirjobs to Rochester. In some cases this is to expand and be located near Mayo Clinic and
the Mayo -University of Minnesota Partnership.
BIO 2006 is an International gathering of virtually every state and almost 20 countries. In addtion,
100 biotech/science firms are in attendance.
Its fertile territory for future development and where we can't afford to be absent. Your positive
support is essential and appreciated.
Council Action Requested:
Request approval for Mayor Brede to attend BIO 2006 in Chicago.
. wLINCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
0
Rochester Area Economic Development, Inc.
December 8, 2005
Mayor Ardell F. Brede
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE, Room 281
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mayor:
We are now assembling our team for promoting the Rochester area at Bio 2006 which will be
held in Chicago on April 9-12, 2006. My hope is that you will once again agree to lead our local
team as we market and promote our area as a center for medicine, technology, and biology.
In order to keep expenses down, we will once again be partnering with Positively Minnesota. As
in the past, each team member will be responsible for his/her own costs related to travel and
accommodations. RAEDI will provide each member with his/her floor pass for the show. We
hope you will plan on joining us as we once again promote our great community.
Respectfully,
ROCHESTER AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC.
FryW;m:�ith, CEcD
Executive Vice President
GWS:tmb
A Public and Private Partnership for Economic Development
r
220 South Broadway Suite 100 o Rochester, MN 55904 Phone 507-288-0208 Fax 507-282-8960
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/06
a
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
ADMINISTRATION
_ 6
DESCRIPTION: 2006 ANNUAL COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY
PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL
S. KVENVOLD
The adopted 2006 budget anticipated an increase of the elected officials' compensation of 2%. This
mirrors the increase granted to the organizations appointed employees. The annual compensation for
the Mayor, Council President and Councilmembers will be as follows for 2006:
Mayor $31,837
Council President 23,456
Councilmembers 18,356
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing the Mayor and
City Councils' 2006 compensation.
1NCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Administration
IL�-9
IWM DESCRIPTION Contract with Elert Associates to assist with improvements to Council
PREPARED BY:
Chambers Audio Visual System Improvements
T. Spaeth
The City and County staff have recently met to discuss and identify needed audio visual system improvements within
the Council / Board Chambers. Staff has identified the items that we feel are our priorities for improvements. They are
as follows:
• Upgrade of audio / video recording equipment to digital recording equipment
• Upgrade the Chambers sound amplification system (microphones and speakers)
• Upgrade of the cameras within the Chambers
To facilitate those improvements, the staff is recommending that we contract with Elert Associates to help us with
the process, by developing a program document, schematic design, construction documents and contract
administration. The firm has expertise in this area, and comes highly recommended by other Minnesota
communities that have utilized their services to facilitate improvements in their AN systems. The cost estimate for
these services for the Phase I improvements is $4650. There is the possibility of additional per hour costs, if the
scope of the project grows or other changes occur.
Affhese costs would be paid for by that portion of the 2005 cable franchise fee set aside for Channel 19 related
provements.
Council Action Requested:
Council authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract with Elert Associates on behalf of the City.
q`�&G'.LL,•C2t-'`� .f.G'L,��ilrtetr -CCdj �,,, .ti . � ter %. lt\
4iGC'
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING t3 /
DATE: 1 /9/06
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Airport
ITEM NO.
`
I DESCRIPTION: Change Order No. 2 with Progressive Contractors, Inc.for Navigational
PREPARED 13Y:
Aids
Steve Leqve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Execute Change Order No. 2 with Progressive Contractors, Inc. for additional grading and
shaping of Runway 13/31 Glideslope Critical Area. This change order reflects an additional
S 17,323.56 to the contract. This additional charge will not increase the federal grant amount.
Funding -Federal - 95 percent; City— 5 percent.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution approving Change Order No. 2 with Progressive
Contractors, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the change order.
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK � P
I DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY:
DONNA JSCHOTT
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
BEER —ON SALE 3.2% REMPORARY
St. Pius X Catholic Church
1315 12's Ave NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Polka Fest 2/4/06
DANCE —TEMPORARY
St. Pius X Catholic Church
1315 12" Ave NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Polka Fest 2/4/06
GAMBLING —TEMPORARY
Senior Citizens Services, Inc.
121 North Broadway
Rochester, W. 55906
Raffle 4/1/06
Elton Hills PTSA Ass'n
1421 Elton Hills Dr NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Raffle & Bingo 1/17/06, 3/9/06 and 5/19/06
Elton Hills School
HVAC
SAF Restaurant Repair DBA A+ Services
PO Box 6416
Rochester, Mn. 55903
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to:
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE
JANUARY 9, 2006
SIGNS
Jones Sign Company
1711 Scheruring Road
De Pere Wi 54115
Sign -A -Rama
1050 33`d Ave SE
Mpls, Mn. 55414
SOUND AMPLIFICATION
NAACP
PO Box 6472
Rochester, Mn. 55903
Martin Luther King Parade 1/16/06 l l:00 AM to 1:30 PM
Government Center to Mayo Civic Center
MISCELLANEOUS
NAACP
PO Box 6472
Rochester, Mn. 55903
Martin Luther King Parade 1/16/06 11:00 AM to 1:30 PM
Government Center to Mayo Civic Center
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
2701 Colleen St NE
Rochester, Mn. 55906
Annual MS Walk 5/7/06
Optimist Club of Rochester
1929 Viola Rd NE
Rochester, Mn 55906
Annual Frozen Goose Relay 2/4/06
Eastwood Road and Eastwood Golf Course
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING y
DATE: 1 /9/06 t
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
I DESCRIPTION: WINE AND 3.2% ON SALE MALT LIQUOR FOR MARK &
PREPARED BY:
ROGER LLC DBA MR. PIZZA
DONNA 7 SCHOTT
Application has been received from Mark and Roger Fulton for a Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License for an
additional Mr. Pizza. Mark & Roger LLC DBA Mr. Pizza will be located at 4040 28'h St NW.
Approval of the license is contingent on the required fees, insurance certificates, any fees due the City of
Rochester and all departmental approvals. A confidential investigative report has been returned satisfactorily.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the Wine and On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License for Mark & Roger LLC DBA Mr. Pizza
located at 4040 28'h St NW.
•
�UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting VL' /
Date: 1/9/2006
AGENDA SECTION:
msent Age nda/0 rgan izational Business
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance
ITEM O.
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Banking Item
Bruce Atkinson
A. Designation of Depositories:
This is a statutory requirement (MN Statute 118A.02) that must be accomplished at the
beginning of each fiscal year. The proposed resolutions designate US Bank Rochester and
Wells Fargo Bank Rochester, as depositories of the public funds of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota.
B. Authorizing facsimile signatures and authority to initiate investments.
Checks written against the City's General Account and Payroll Account at Wells Fargo
Bank Rochester, and Rochester Public Utilities' account will bear facsimile signatures. The
use of the signatures must be authorized through resolution by the Common Council. The
transactions are covered by a forgery bond.
Authority to initiate investments allowed under Minnesota Statutes 11 8A.01-1 18A.06, must
also be adopted.
C. Assignment of Securities:
Sufficient securities have been pledged as collateral in lieu of a depository bond by Wells
Fargo Bank Rochester and US Bank Rochester, to meet the requirements of Minnesota
statutes.
The prepared resolutions authorize the City Treasurer, or assign, to execute documents
which pledge and release securities as collateral, and to accept collateral in lieu of a
depository bond.
Council Action Requested
Respectfully request adoption of the prepared resolutions.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
FINANCE
DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements:
Investment purchases of $11,580,907.87
Accounts payable of $11,652,110.91
Total disbursements $23,233,018.78
(Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately)
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/2006
`
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
Finance Department
�_ I
_A DESCRIPTION: Authorize Amendment to Investment Advisory Service Agreement
PREPARED BY:
with MBIA Investors Service Corporation
Dale Martinson
On August 16, 2004 council authorized the use of MBIA Investors Services Corp to assist in investment
portfolio management. We continue to be pleased with the work this group has done in providing true
competitive bids on all of our investments, opening up our bids to larger brokerage houses with more
direct access to markets, providing review and assistance in amending our investment policy, and in
helping to restructure our portfolio so that we were better able to take advantage of the recently -climbing
interest rates. Their service has provided a valuable return to the City.
We have, however, felt that MBIA's fee structure should be able to come down some once they
completed the initial work of building their databases with our portfolios and annual cash flow data and
had come to understand our investment program. We were recently able to negotiate a reduction in fee
structure such that their charge would go to 12 basis points (0.121/6) from its current 14 basis points on
January I' of 2006 and be further reduced to 10 basis points (0.10%) by October of 2006. All other
terms of the agreement would remain unchanged, including the 30 day notice of termination.
With this adjustment in fee, we believe their services continue to be worthwhile and therefore request an
amendment to the agreement that includes this lower fee.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize execution of Amendment of Investment Advisory Agreement with MBIA Investors Service
Corporation to include the lower fee structure.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING �l
DATE: 1 /9/2006
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business I Finance
—M DESCRIPTION:
Audit Engagement Letters for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2005
NO. `�
`' 1
PREPARED BY:
D. Martinson
On November 3 of 2003, the City Council accepted a proposal from Smith, Schafer
and Associates, Ltd. to extend its original audit services proposal while the City
completed its implementation of the retroactive infrastructure requirement of GASB
34. That extension covered fiscal years ending 2003, 2004 and 2005. The attached
four-year cost summary outlining that proposal reflects total costs for the year-end
2005 audit of $54,100, up 3.38% from their fee for the previous year.
Each year the auditors submit engagement letters that outline the current generally
accepted requirements of the audit. The letters provides for the examination of
financial records and controls forthe City's financial statements, audits of federal grant
activity (single audit) as well as the separate financial statements of the City's
Department of Public Utilities (RPU).
Two separate letters found attached confirm the significant terms of engagement for
these audit examinations. One provides for the general audit, while the other provides
for the urban mass transit review.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Respectfully request a motion authorizing execution of the two letters of engagement
to audit both the City's general purpose financial statements and the City's Urban
Mass Transportation Program for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005.
...JUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
October 15, 2003
Mr. Dale R. Martinson
Director of Finance
City Hall - Room 204
Rochester. Minnesota 55904
Dear Mr. Martinson:
At your request, I have prepared the following proposal of our professional fees related to the audits of the
City of Rochester for the years ending December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
City of Rochester
General audit
Single audit
Passenger facility charge audit
Rochester Public Utilities
General audit
Actual
2002
2003
2004
2005
$26,425
$27,225
$28,050
$28,900
4,250
4,380
4,500
4,650
1,600
1,650
1,700
Actual
2002
2003
2004
2005
15,350
$17,425
$18,100
$18,850
Consulting services provided in relation to these audits would be billed at the following hourly rates:
Actual
2002
2003
2004
2005
Partner
$135
$140
$145
$150
Manager
110
120
125
130
Senior accountant
85
90
94
98
Staff accountant
70
77
80
83
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this information.
Very truly yours,
SMITH, SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Thomas H. Wente, CPA
Stockholder
tmente(U)s m ith sch afer. co m
REQUEST F0FfCbUfiQ11VAC E9MEETING
.+- Op
AGENDA SECTION:
ORI G DEPT:
O.
Ab
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
a Department
_5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Continuation of Audit Service.�,Wrtl mith Schafer and Associates,
PREPARED BY:
Ltd.
Dale Martinson
In November of 1998, the City received proposals for financial audit services and selected the firm of
Smith, Schafer and Associates, Ltd. to provide audit services for the five-year period quoted. The final
year of that quote was for last year's audit of our 2002 activities. Staff is recommending continuing to
utilize this firm's services for the next three years based upon the following points:
1. Both our staff and that of Smith Schafer have invested significant resources in developing our
initial release of financial statements under the new financial reporting requirements (GASB
34). However, we have yet to fully implement the "retroactive infrastructure" portion of those
requirements. We are authorized three additional years to do so. In working with the Public
Works Department's available GIS resources and considering our own staff shortage, it will
likely take us the full three years to complete this for all streets, sanitary sewer, storm water,
water, traffic signals, pedestrian facilities, bridges, etc. It would provide important consistency
vastly improve efficiency if we could complete this project with the same audit firm.
2. Smith Schafer has proposed fee increases for the next three years that are quite modest given the
growth in activity in the City over the years. These increases (shown attached), range from
2.74% to 3.12% annually over those years and are consistent with their previous proposal issued
Eve years ago.
3. At current growth rates, the City will likely soon reach a population of 100,000 and thus become
a "city of the first class" by Minnesota statute definition. It used to be that the State Auditor
would automatically audit all first class cities in Minnesota. A change to that law last year left it
a bit more of an open question as to whether they would audit us on a regular basis or just "once
in a while", but I would prefer to resolve that question before we go out on a full "request for
proposals" process again.
Based on an informal survey of audit costs in other Minnesota cities and counties, we believe the fees
charged by Smith Schafer are quite reasonable. With that and the above considerations in mind, we
request authorization to accept their proposal of audit fees for the coming three year period.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Accept the proposal from Smith Schafer and Associates, Ltd. for audit services for the years ending
December 31, 2003, 2004, 2005.
�o
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
jl
'l SMITH•SCHAFER
& ASSOCIATES. L T D.
certified Public Accountants and Consultants
Idan,be¢ of Amoricrni Imltlufe of CPA's.
Pnvate G enpnoiGs Pruchae S3cliou. Mlnl.egf t,, So,:,A:ly of CPA's
December 12, 2005
Honorable Mayor, Common Council
and City Administrator
City of Rochester, Minnesota
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide for the City of
Rochester, Minnesota, Urban Mass Transportation Program, for the year ending December 31,
2005. We will audit the Schedule of Fixed Route Transit Service Total Operating Deficit for the
year ending December 31, 2005 as defined in the Transit Assistance Program Agreement
between the City of Rochester, Minnesota and Rochester City Lines, Co.
The objective of our audit is the expression of an opinion about whether your financial statements
are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the terms of the Agreement
between the City of Rochester, Minnesota and Rochester City Lines, Co. Our audit will be
conducted in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and will include tests of
your accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express
such an opinion. If our opinion is other than unqualified, we will discuss the reasons with you in
advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not
formed an opinion, we may decline to express an opinion or to issue a report as a result of this
engagement.
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded
in the accounts and the computations for allocating eligible costs under the terms and conditions
of the Agreement between the City of Rochester, Minnesota and Rochester City Lines, Co. We
may also request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they
may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will require certain
written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters.
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statement; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions
to be examined and the areas to be tested. Also, we will plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statement is free of
material misstatement, whether from (a) errors, (b) fraudulent financial reporting, (c)
misappropriation of assets, or (d) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are
attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity.
220 South Broadway • Suite 102 • Rochester, MN 55904 • PH (507) 288-3277 • FAX (507) 288-4571
Maplewocd Office: • 2035 E Counly Road D • Suile A • Maplewood. MN 55109 • PH (6-' 1)'10-8414 • PAx (651) 770-5175
3l /
Honorable Mayor, Common Council
and City Administrator
City of Rochester, Minnesota
December 12, 2005
Page Two
Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we
will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material
misstatements may exist and not be detected by us. However, we will inform you of any material
errors that come to our attention, and we will inform you of any fraudulent financial reporting or
misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform you of any violations of
laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our
responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any
later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, including monitoring
ongoing activities; for the selection and application of accounting principles; and for the fair
presentation in the financial statements of financial position, results of operations, and cash flows
in conformity with U. S. generally accepted accounting principles. You are also responsible for
management decisions and functions; for designating an individual with suitable skill, knowledge,
or experience to oversee the nonattest services we provide; and for evaluating the adequacy and
results of those services and accepting responsibility for them. We will advise you about
appropriate accounting principles and their application and will assist in the preparation of your
financial statements, but the responsibility for the financial statements remains with the City of
Rochester, Minnesota and Rochester City Lines, Co.
Management is responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us
and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. Your responsibilities include adjusting
the financial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the
management representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated
by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial,
both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Management is responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to
prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the
entity involving (a) management, (b) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and
(c) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Management
is also responsible for informing us of their knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected
fraud affecting the entity received in communications from employees, former employees,
grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that
the entity complies with applicable laws and regulations.
In connection with this engagement we will assist you in preparing, and review for conformity, the
mandatory reporting forms required under Section 15 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act; the
requirements of which are set forth by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in its
applicable Uniform System of Accounts and Records and Reporting Systems.
Honorable Mayor, Common Council
and City Administrator
City of Rochester, Minnesota
December 12, 2005
Page Three
Our fees for these services and for the financial statement preparation will be based on the actual
time spent at our standard hourly rates. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of
responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and believe this letter accurately
summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us
know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the
enclosed copy and return it to us.
Very truly yours,
SMITH, SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Thomas H. Wente, CPA
Principal
APPROVED: BY: DATE:
CC: Mr. Anthony Knauer, Transportation Coordinator
Mr. Dale Martinson, Director of Finance
33 '
SMITH*SCHAFER
8 A S S 0 C I A T E S, L T D.
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants
Members of American Instilure of CPAs
Private Companies Practice Seclion, Minnesolo Soclely of CPA's
December 12, 2005
To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
Rochester, Minnesota
Jason P. Boynton. CPA
Stevan E Christopherson. CPA
Duane D. Coffman. CPA
Steve E. Erchul. CPA
William D. FrudderL CPA
Jean L. Guyse. CPA
Kim A. Mahanno. CPA
Ja501 r C. Millet CPA
Murk G. Poczosa. CPA
Dean L Riehords CPA
Alan L Schofe[ CPA
Thomos H. Wente, CPA
Aaron. F. Crursli;:n nor.. C.'r.�
Jaynes D. Ha,d:.n CFA
`ldillion', L. Kalrnes. CPA
Michael J. IvloluDan, CPA
Kerry T. Orton. CPA
Marvin M. Reineckc, CPA
Steve D. Solveson. CPA
Trisha L White. CPA
Retired
Richard J. Sawn. CPA
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide for the City of Rochester,
Minnesota for the year ending December 31, 2005. We will audit the financial statements of the
governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund
information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements, of the City of Rochester, Minnesota
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2005, We will also audit the separate financial statements of the
City's Department of Public Utilities as of and for the year ending December 31, 2005. The document we
submit to you will include the Management's Discussion and Analysis that will be subjected to limited
procedures, but will not be audited.
Also, the document we submit to you will include the following additional information that will be subjected to
the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements upon which we will provide an opinion
in relation to the basic financial statements:
1. Financial data included in the letter of transmittal and the management's
discussion and analysis
2. Government -wide and fund financial statements and schedules
3. Supplemental financial and statistical information
4. Schedule of expenditures of federal awards
Audit Objectives
The objective of our audit is the expression of an opinion as to whether the financial statements are fairly
presented, in all material respects, in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting
principles and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred to in the first paragraph when
considered in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The objective also includes reporting
on —
Internal control related to the financial statements and compliance with laws, regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect
on the financial statements in accordance with Government Auditing Standards
• Internal control related to major programs and an opinion on compliance with laws, regulations, and
the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on each
major program in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A-
133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations.
220 South Broadway • Suite 102 • Rochester, MN 55904 • PH (507) 288-3277 • FAX (507) 288-4571
Maplewood Office: • 2035 E County Road 0 • Suite A • Maplewood. MN 55109 • PH (651) 770-8414 • FAX (651) 770-5175
N
To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
December 12, 2005
Page Two
Audit Objectives (continued)
The reports on internal control and compliance will each include a statement that the report is intended for
the information and use of management, specific legislative or regulatory bodies, federal awarding agencies,
and if applicable, pass -through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.
Our audit will be conducted in accordance with United States generally accepted auditing standards and
the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States; the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996; the provisions of OMB Circular
A-133; and the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government, issued
by the Legal Compliance Task Force pursuant to Minnesota Statute, and will include tests of the
accounting records, a determination of major program(s) in accordance with Circular A-133, and other
procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such an opinion and to render the required
reports. If our opinion on the financial statements or the Single Audit compliance opinion is other than
unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to
complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed an opinion, we may decline to express an
opinion or to issue a report as a result of this engagement.
Management Responsibilities
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control and for compliance with the
provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants. In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
the controls. The objectives of internal control are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute,
assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions
are executed in accordance with management's authorizations and recorded properly to permit the
preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that
federal awards programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions
of contracts and grant agreements.
Management is responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us. We
understand that you will provide us with such information required for our audit and that you are responsible
for the accuracy and completeness of that information. We will advise you about appropriate accounting
principles and their application and will assist in the preparation of your financial statements, including the
schedule of expenditures of federal awards, but the responsibility for the financial statements remains with
you.
As part of our engagement, we may propose standard, adjusting, or correcting journal entries to your
financial statements. You are responsible for reviewing the entries and understanding the nature of any
proposed entries and the impact they have on the financial statements. That responsibility includes the
establishment and maintenance of adequate records and effective internal control over financial reporting
and compliance, the selection and application of accounting principles, and the safeguarding of assets.
Management is responsible for adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for
confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by
us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both
individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
December 12, 2005
Page Three
Management Responsibilities (continued)
You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud,
and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the government involving (1)
management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud or
illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements. You are also responsible for informing us
of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the government
received in communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition,
you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the City complies with applicable laws and regulations
and for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy any fraud, illegal acts, violation of contracts or grant
agreements, or abuse that we may report. Additionally, as required by OMB Circular A-133, it is
management's responsibility to follow up and take corrective action on reported audit findings and to prepare
a summary schedule of prior audit findings and a corrective action plan.
Audit Procedures - General
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be
examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than
absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from
(1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or
governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on
behalf of the entity. Because the determination of abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not
expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse. As required by the Single Audit Act
Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A-133, our audit will include tests of transactions related to major
federal award programs for compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts
and grant agreements. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute assurance and
because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material
misstatements or noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to
detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct
and material effect on the financial statements or major programs.
However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation
of assets that comes to our attention. We will also inform you of any violations of laws or governmental
regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. We will include such matters in the
reports required for a Single Audit. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit
and does not extend to matters that might arise during any later periods for which we are not engaged as
auditors.
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the
accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of
receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, creditors, and
financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement,
and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will also request certain
written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters.
N
To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
December 12, 2005
Page Four
Audit Procedures — Internal Controls
in planning and performing our audit, we will consider the internal control sufficient to plan the audit in order
to determine the nature, timing, and extent of our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our
opinions on the City of Rochester's financial statements and on its compliance with requirements applicable
to major programs.
We will obtain an understanding of the design of the relevant controls and whether they have been placed in
operation, and we will assess control risk. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of
certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the
financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other
noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Test of controls
relative to the financial statements are required only if control risk is assessed below the maximum level. Our
tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on the internal control
and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to
Government Auditing Standards.
As required by OMB Circular A-133, we will perform tests of controls to evaluate the effectiveness of the
design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance
with compliance requirements applicable to each major federal award program. However, our tests will be
less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on those controls and, accordingly, no opinion
will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to OMB Circular A-133.
An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify reportable conditions.
However, we will inform the governing body of any matters involving internal control and its operation that we
consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.
Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design
or operation of the internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the entity's ability to record,
process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial
statements. We will also inform you of any nonreportable conditions or other matters involving internal
control, if any, as required by Govemment Auditing Standards and OMB Circular A-1 33.
Audit Procedures - Compliance
Our audit will be conducted in accordance with the standards referred to in the section titled Audit Objectives.
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we will perform tests of the City of Rochester's compliance with applicable laws and
regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements, including grant agreements. However, the
objective of those procedures will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express
such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
OMB Circular A-133 requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the auditee has complied with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and
grant agreements applicable to major programs. Our procedures will consist of the applicable procedures
described in the OMB CircularA-133 Compliance Supplement for the types of compliance requirements that
could have a direct and material effect on each of the City of Rochester's major programs. The purpose of
those procedures will be to express an opinion on the City of Rochester's compliance with requirements
applicable to major programs in our report on compliance issued pursuant to OMB Circular A-133.
3l
To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
December 12, 2005
Page Five
Non -Audit Services
We will prepare a general ledger trial balance for use during the audit. Our preparation of the trail balance will
be limited to formatting information in the City of Rochester's general ledger into a working trial balance. Also,
as part of the audit we will prepare a draft of your financial statements and related notes. In accordance with
Government Auditing Standards, you will be required to review and approve those financial statements prior
to their issuance and have a responsibility to be in a position in fact and appearance to make an informed
judgment on those financial statements. Further, you are required to designate a qualified management -level
individual to be responsible and accountable for overseeing our services.
Audit Administration, Fees, and Other
At the conclusion of the engagement, we will complete and sign the Data Collection Form that summarizes
our audit findings. We will provide copies of our reports to the City of Rochester; however, it is management's
responsibility to submit the reporting package (including financial statements, schedule of expenditures of
federal awards, summary schedule of prior audit findings, auditors reports, and a corrective action plan)
along with the Data Collection Form to the designated federal clearinghouse and, if appropriate, to pass -
through entities. The Data Collection Form and the reporting package must be submitted within the earlier of
30 days after receipt of the auditors' reports or nine months after the end of the audit period, unless a longer
period is agreed to in advance by the cognizant or oversight agency for audits. At the conclusion of the
engagement, we will provide information to management as to where the reporting packages should be
submitted and the number to submit.
The audit documentation for this engagement are the property of Smith, Schafer and Associates, Ltd. and
constitutes confidential information. However, pursuant to authority given by law or regulation, we may be
requested to make certain audit documentation available to the City's Cognizant or Oversight Agency or its
designee, a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or the United States General Accounting
Office for purposes of a quality review of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight
responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such workpapers will be
provided under the supervision of Smith, Schafer and Associates, Ltd. personnel. Furthermore, upon
request, we may provide photocopies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned parties. These
parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the photocopies or information contained therein to others,
including other governmental agencies.
The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of three years after the date the
auditors' report is issued or for any additional period requested by the City's Cognizant or Oversight Agency.
If we are aware that a federal awarding agency, pass -through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding,
we will contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit
documentation.
With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements
published electronically on your Internet website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to
distribute information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information contained in these sites or to
consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document.
Our fees for these services will be in accordance with our proposal dated October 15, 2003. In addition to the
audit we will examine supporting documentation for selected disbursements from the Mayors Contingency
Fund and provide any other necessary assistance or professional consultation at our regular hourly rates.
g
4
To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
December 12, 2005
Page Six
Audit Administration, Fees, and Other (continued)
Government Auditing Standards require that we provide you with a copy of our most recent external peer
review report and any letter of comment. Our 2002 peer review report and letter of comment accompanies
this letter.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Rochester and believe this letter accurately
summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you
agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return
it to us.
Very truly yours,
SMITH, SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Thomas H. Wente, CPA
Principal
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Rochester.
M
Title:
Date:
39
OCEL, HEINIER
ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
To the Owners
Smith, Schafer & Associates, Ltd.
We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice
of Smith, Schafer & Associates, Ltd. (the firm) in effect for the year ended May 31, 2002.
A system of quality control encompasses the firm's organizational structure and the
policies adopted and procedures established to provide it with reasonable assurance of
conforming with professional standards. The elements of quality control are described in
the Statements on Quality Control Standards issued by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA). The design of the system and compliance with it are the
responsibility of the firm. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design of the
system, and the firm's compliance with the system based on our review.
Our review was conducted in accordance with standards established by the Peer Review
Board of the AICPA. In performing our review, we obtained an understanding of the
system of quality control for the firm's accounting and auditing practice. In addition, we
tested compliance with the firm's quality control policies and procedures to the extent we
considered appropriate. These tests covered the application of the Suet's policies and
procedures on selected engagements. Because our review was based on selective tests, it
would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system of quality control or all
instances of lack of compliance with it.
Because there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of quality
control, departures from the system may occur and not be detected. Also, projection of
any evaluation of a system of quality control to future periods is subject to the risk that
the system of quality control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions,
or because the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of
Smith, Schafer & Associates, Ltd, in effect for the year ended May 31, 2002, has been
designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standards for an accounting and
auditing practice established by the AICPA and was complied with during the year then
ended to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of conforming to professional
standards.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 10, 2002
4604 IDS Center 80 South Bch Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2224
(612) 673-0848 FAX (612) 673.9167
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING A4I
AGENDA SECTI
Consent
ORIGINATING DI
Fire Department
�M DESCRIPTION: Request to Accept SAFER Grant Award
DATE: 1 /9/06
ITEM NO.
Y--)_8
Fire and FIR
The Fire Department requests approval and acceptance of the US Department of Homeland Security
"SAFER Grant" which was awarded to the City of Rochester in the amount of $300,000, to hire three (3)
additional fire fighters, to increase on duty staffing levels.
These newly hired positions must be in addition to authorized and funded active firefighter positions and
would fulfill the staffing requirements requested for proposed Fire Station 5. Grantees are required to
match an increasing proportion of the salary awarded over a 4-year period. In the fifth year, the City must
absorb the entire cost of any positions awarded as a result of the grant. The greatest savings to the City
will occur in the first year of the grant period.
The City Council must acknowledge its commitment to the grant and ensure appropriate financial support
will be secured for the City's portion of the cost -sharing obligations.
The 2006 costs will be funded from the existing approved budget. The added costs will be offset by
savings in the budgeted overtime expense.
The total costs (wages and benefits) associated with the 3 new firefighter positions for the grant period are
as follows:
Federal Share
Fed $
City Share
City $ up to
Total Cost-3 FF
Year 1-2006
60%
$108,000
40%
$107,000
$189,0004215,000
Year 2 — 2007
49%
S 96,000
51 %
$147,000
$211,000-$243,000
Year 3 - 2008
28%
$ 60,000
72 %
$206,000
$229,000-266,000
Year 4 - 2009
16%
$ 36,000
84 %
$257,000
$252,0004293,000
Year 5 — 2010
None
0
100 %
$331,000
$283,000-$331,000
$300,000
*Cost to City is dependent on FF choice of single or family health and dental coverage; PERA increases to 14.1% of earrings in 2009
Council Action Requested
Approval to accept the SAFER Grant totaling $300,000 in order to hire three (3) firefighters
_ JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Panel AevieN\
`T
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office for Domestic Preparedness
Washington, D.C. 20531
Mr. Jeffrey Leland
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street, S.E.
Rochester, Minnesota 55904-3726
Re: Grant No.EMW-2005-FF-01062
Dear Mr. Leland:
Pate 2 of 6
Congratulations, on behalf of Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, in collaboration with the U.S.
Fire Administration at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Your grant application submitted under the FY 2005 Staffing
for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant has been approved. The approved project costs amount to
$1,091,613.00. The Federal share is $300,000.00 of the approved amount and your share of the costs is $791,613.00.
As part of your award package, you will find Grant Agreement Articles. Please make sure you read and understand the Articles as
they outline the terms and conditions of your Grant award. Maintain a copy of these documents for your official file. You establish
acceptance of the Grant and Grant Agreement Articles when you request and receive any of the Federal Grant funds
awarded to you.
The first step in requesting your grant funds is to confirm your correct Direct Deposit Information. Please go on-line to the AF—
eGrants system at www.firegrantsupport.com and if you have not done so, complete and submit your SF 1199A, Direct De
Sign-up Form. Please forward the original, completed SF 1199A, Direct Deposit Sign-up Form, signed by your organization a,1u Lite
banking institution to the address below:
Department of Homeland Security
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (FEMA)
Grants Management Branch
500 C Street, SW, Room 334
Washington, DC 20472
Attn: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
After your SF 1199A is reviewed and you receive an email indicating the form is approved, you will be able to request payments
online. Remember, you should basically request funds when you have an immediate cash need (i.e. you have a bill in -hand that is
due within 30 days). If you have any questions or concerns regarding the process to request your grant funds, please call 1-877-
510-6752.
Sincerely,
C -' .-
Matt A. Mayer
Acting Executive Director
Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness
,ttrnc•/./nnrtal fema_vnv/fireerant/isu/fire admin/awards/spec/view_award_package.do?agreementNo=EMW-... 12/2/2005
I' r-wyCa 1 rum I.UUI)IUIL /AU I IUN IVICGI IIVV /t s1 j
DATE 119/06 /��
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT
ITEM NO.
Consent
Human Resources
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
;e Recommendation for Non Exempt Non Contract Employees for 2006
Stevan Kvenvold
and Linda Gilsrud
Non-exempt, non -contract employees are eligible for a wage adjustment on 1/5/06 of 2%
All applicable pay ranges will be adjusted by 2%.
Fleet Mechanics in RPD will be eligible for a $375 lump sum tool allowance to be paid on the final pay
date in 2006 to be used to replace tools which are damaged or have been lost, misplaced, or broken
while being used in a work -related assignment.
The following language regarding all hours worked in excess of the scheduled shift would be
applicable to this group of employees:
• The right to schedule employees to meet the needs of City residents is a management
right. This includes the need to schedule shifts of varying lengths during the designated
work week. All hours worked in excess of the scheduled shift whether the scheduled shift
length is eight, nine, ten, or twelve hours per day or forty (40) hours per week shall be paid
at time and one half (11/2) the regular hourly rate of pay not to include the use of sick
leave of more than two hours or vacation. If a flexible schedule is mutually agreed upon
between a non -shift employee and his/her supervisor with a shift of more than eight hours
per day, the payment of overtime at time and one-half is waived. Compensatory time may
be earned in lieu of payment of overtime with Department Head approval.
If safety shoes are required, as determined by the Department Head or his/her designee, up to $120
will be reimbursed to the employee upon presenting receipts to Human Resources.
If prescription safety glasses are required, as determined by the Department Head or his/her
designee, the City will reimburse the employee for the cost of lenses and City -approved frames per
the City's Safety and Eyewear Policy and Procedures. Eye examinations are specifically excluded.
Council Action Requested:
Resolution to grant a general wage increase effective 1/5/06 to non exempt, non -contract employees
and implement other applicable benefits
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING S
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational / Consent Agenda
Human Resources
D-
_.VI DESCRIPTION: Appointments (3) - Firefighter-
PREPARED BY:
Rochester Fire Department
Linda Gil r
The resignation of Steve Chopp, Firefighter, effective September 16, 2005;
the retirement of Vern Starke, Fire Captain, effective September 30, 2005 resulting in the
promotional appointments approved by the City Council October 17, 2005 of Chris Bailey to
the position of Fire Captain and Eric Propotnik to the position of Motor Operator effective
October 27, 2005; and the military leave of absence authorized for Eric Kerska, Fire
Captain, and resulting temporary promotional appointments approved by the City Council
October 17, 2005 of Matt Mueller to the position of Fire Captain and Dave Beagle to the
position of Motor Operator effective October 27, 2005 creates three (3) vacancies for the
position of Firefighter.
NOTE: Authorizing an appointment to the position of Firefighter as a result of the military
leave of Eric Kerska, temporarily increases the authorized number of positions
within the Fire Department and would be recommended to be approved with the
condition should any additional vacancies for the position of Firefighter occur
within the Fire Department prior to the expected return of Eric Kerska from
military leave in 2007, one Firefighter position will not be filled.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the list of eligible candidates for the
position of Firefighter and recommends the appointment of one candidate for each of the
three Firefighter positions.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Appointment of three (3) candidates to the position of Firefighter in the Rochester Fire
Department effective as soon as possible conditional upon successful completion of an
indepth background investigation, medical and psychological examinations.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
"`-"'E"'CA"T' RO CHE S TER
V
✓�G�izi2edoL`C�
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
JOE POWERS JOHN WITHERS ROGER FIELD
FIREFIGHTER ELIGIBILITY ROSTER
NOVEMBER 22, 2005 THROUGH NOVEMBER 22, 2007
RANK NAME
1
Spencer A Goetzman
2
Adam J Wallin
3
Eric B Thompson
4
Michael T Maselter
5
Jeremy G Meyer
g
Chad M Kuntz
7
David A Christie
8
Joshua M Petersen
9
John J Busch
10
Dylan P Mills
11
Jeremy C Zabel
12
Thomas J Lovett
13
Brett M Knapp
14
Brian T Andres
15
Troy D Holtz
16
Eugene J Danielson
17
Jason M Siegle
18
Brandon P Luehmann
19
Kevin J Dennison
20
Eric D Thompson
21
Christopher E Skoglund
22
Jeremy M Dostai
23
Troy D Neurauter
24
Edward F Rogalski
25
Michael P Streff
28
Aaron R DeCook
27
Patrick M Noack
28
John C W Fessler
29
Matthew P Lisowski
30
Brian J Schumacher
31
David W Ehmiller
32
Everett R Nelson
An 2qu410pportunity Emp(oyer
411
FIREFIGHTER ELIGIBILITY ROSTER -2- 11/22/05 — 1 V22/07
33
Eric J Mills
34
Thomas R Wallin
35
Andrew S Golz
36
William G Weist
37
Jodi M Olson
38
Michael L McLain
39
Patrick D Stevens
40
Jami K Mundell
41
Matthew H Shea
42
Carl W Sandberg
43
Ryan C Stockman
44
Gary F Albers
45
David J Torgerson
46
Christopher C Brooks
47
Daniel J Diepenbrock
48
Adam G Westland
C JOHN WITHERS
SEVETARY
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
JdE POWERS
;PRESIDENT
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
11/22/05
DATE
11/22/05
DATE
zf1. 19
inY —na�tl breach to,...
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 15, 2005
TO: Fire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO HIRE
I respectfully request that you forward to the City Council a list of candidates from the
established eligibility roster for appointment to the three (3) vacant Firefighter positions. The
vacancies were created in 2005 by the retirements of Captain Vern Starke and Firefighter Steve
Chop; and the military deployment of Eric Kerska.
In addition, three (3) names should be brought before the Council to fill the three (3) new
firefighter positions authorized from the Safer Grant.
Thank you.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PARK & RECREATION
,J _ :2-I
N DESCRIPTION: AGREEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW GRAHAM
PREPARED EY.
ARENA
Roy Sutherland
For a number of months, people have been working on a number of issues regarding construction of a 41h ice arena at the Graham
Complex. This has been very difficult and time consuming process but is well worth the effort.
The Rochester Youth Hockey Association (RYHA) is proposing to build a 4 h arena at the Graham Complex. Under their proposal,
RYHA is asking the City and County to contribute $900,000 each over the next 12 years. This amounts to a $75,000 per year payment
to the project. In addition, School District #535 and Lourdes will contribute $600,000 towards this project through capital ice credits.
The estimated cost for the new building is $5.3 million.
The RYHA will contribute $1 million upfront toward the project and pay off the balance of the construction, less the City, County,
School District and Lourdes payments over the next 15 years.
The proposed arena is a very exciting project. This will give us an opportunity for a 4" arena at the Graham Complex and it will allow
us to connect the four buildings. Four ice arenas at one site will give us an opportunity to host larger hockey tournaments. In addition, it
will provide another facility where games can be played.
In order for the project to proceed, there are three agreements that will need to be signed. These include:
1) Memorandum of Understanding
➢ The Memorandum of Understanding spells out the finances involved in this project.
2) A revised 1992 City/County Management Agreement
➢ The arenas are County buildings and managed by the City of Rochester. This agreement spells out those responsibilities
and a form of this agreement has been in place since 1969.
3) A Use Agreement with RYHA
➢ The Use Agreement is a clarification of action taken with the construction of Graham Arena West in 1969. This
agreement spells out the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in the operation of this building. The
agreement remains basically unchanged from 1969 although RYHA asked for additional ice credits. This agreement has
not changed from the original 1969 agreement.
The City Attorney has advised us that the agreements, because they involve RYHA, the County and the City, need to be signed by all
parties. We are recommending that the City sign the agreements and forward them to the County for their ratification. It is our belief
that if RYHA does not sign the agreement, then the project is either dead or they will have to come back at some future date to the City
Council.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve agreements as written and execute on behalf of the City.
JNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
GRAHAM ARENA COMPLEX
FACILITY USE AGREEMENT
(ROCHESTER HOCKEY, CITY OF ROCHESTER, OLMSTED COUNTY)
This agreement, dated this_ day of , 200, by and between
Rochester Juvenile Hockey Association, Inc. in cooperation with Rochester Mite Hockey
Association, Inc. (hereinafter collectively called `Rochester Hockey"), the City of
Rochester (hereinafter called "City"), and Olmsted County (hereinafter called "County"),
and shall be in effect for a 15 year period or until Graham IV is paid in full.
WHEREAS, Rochester Hockey desires to build, in partnership with the City and
County, a new ice arena and amenities thereto (Graham IV) at the Graham Complex, to
be used by Rochester Hockey and others for hockey games and practices; and
WHEREAS, Rochester Hockey has agreed to contribute approximately $4.7
million towards the financing of the project, payable over not more than 15 years; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to bond for the project and to make
contributions to the cost of the project as identified in a separate Memorandum of
Understanding; and
WHEREAS, the City is also willing to contribute to the cost of the project as
identified in the separate Memorandum of Understanding; and
WHEREAS, the County and City currently have a Graham Arena Management
Agreement under which the City operates, schedules and manages the three existing
sheets of ice referred to as Graham North, Graham West and Graham East throughout
most of each year, and the parties would like this arrangement to apply to the new
Graham IV facility as well; and,
WHEREAS, all of the parties hereby desire to formalize this transaction herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2006, to December 31,
2020.
2. The City shall operate, schedule and manage the Graham Arena Ice Complex,
including Graham West, East, North and the new building identified in this Agreement
as Graham IV, in cooperation with Olmsted County and Rochester Hockey.
3. All parties agree to make those financial contributions as are identified in the
separate Memorandum of Understanding related to the construction of Graham IV and
abide by any terms/agreements therein which are not contained herein.
Page 2 of 6
4. The City agrees to charge, bill and collect the negotiated ice rate from all users.
From ice rentals paid by Independent School District 535 and Lourdes High School at
the Graham Complex and at the Recreation Center, the City is currently holding out $40
per hour that is being used to pay off the bonds issued for the Graham North
construction. At such time that those bonds are retired, the City agrees to hold out $40
per hour to be used to pay off the debt incurred for the construction of Graham IV.
These moneys shall be paid over to the County monthly.
5. The City agrees to allow Rochester Hockey the opportunity to review the
complete books and records associated with the operation of the Graham Complex at
the request of Rochester Hockey and will supply Rochester Hockey with their budget in
a timely manner so that Rochester Hockey is able to charge its members appropriately
for their participation in the Rochester Hockey program.
6. The City and the County agree that the normal Rochester Hockey schedule for
ice at the Graham Complex will be:
Graham West and North: Monday— Friday 5:30am —6:30am, 6:00pm-10:45pm
Saturday 6:45am — 9:30pm
Sunday 8:00am — 8:15pm
Graham East: Monday — Friday 5:30am — 6:30am, 6:30pm — 10:00pm
Saturday 7:30am — 9:00pm
Sunday 7:30am — 7:45pm
Graham IV Monday - Friday 5:30am — 6:30am, 5:15pm—10:00pm
Saturday 7:30am — 9:00pm
Sunday 7:30am — 7:45pm
The City staff will work closely with Rochester Hockey, School District 535 and Lourdes
High School to allow for a full schedule of High School games that will minimize
disruptions to the Rochester Hockey schedule.
7. Rochester Hockey will have until December 1 of each season to finalize their ice
use schedule. Following December 1, ice cancellations will need two weeks notice or
the ice will be billed to Rochester Hockey. Cancellations must be made by the
Rochester Hockey Ice Coordinator and occur during normal business hours, Monday —
Friday 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. This cancellation policy will be subject to an annual review
by the City and Rochester Hockey.
8. All parties agree that Graham IV will be used as an ice arena for approximately
eleven months of each year as long as it remains financially feasible, and that the City,
County and Rochester Hockey will work in cooperation with each other to ensure
mutually satisfactory usage of the ice arena.
Page 3 of 6
9. The entire Graham Arena Complex will be available for use by the Olmsted
County Fair Board for a four -week period comprised of the two weeks prior to the fair,
the week of the fair, and one week after the fair. Every effort will be made to
accommodate potential fairground users, who rent the entire fairgrounds on weekends.
This may include allowing the use of or closing Graham IV during events such as Gold
Rush and other events that rent the entire fairgrounds.
10. Rochester Hockey will receive a Capital Ice Credit (No Charge) at the Graham
Complex in the form of 23.5 hours of free ice per week. This Capital Ice Credit will be
granted during the Graham West season only, (usually 21 weeks).
11. Rental rates for the Graham Complex will be reviewed, set and approved by the
Rochester Board of Park Commissioners on an annual basis, such that the rental rates
and other funds credited to the City of Rochester, Graham Arena Operating Revenue
Account will cover the costs of operation. The City will work closely with the County and
Rochester Hockey to ensure a break even operation.
12. Any discounting of the price of ice usage will be done only to maximize the
overall income stream attributable to the ice arenas.
13. Rochester Hockey shall pay all City ice bills in a timely manner and in the full
amount of the invoice. Any discrepancies will be adjusted on the following month bill.
Per City policy, a late fee of .5% (one half of one percent) will be charged on the un-paid
balance after 30 days.
14. All revenue from the concession stands and vending machines will be used
exclusively for additional capital improvements and repairs to the Graham Complex.
15. All revenue (10% of gross) generated from alcohol sales received at the Graham
Complex will be applied to the City of Rochester, Graham Arena Operating Revenue
Account.
16. The Graham Complex concession rights are granted to the Rochester Hockey for
the exclusive purpose of funding building improvements at Graham Arena. Separate
concession revenue accounts shall be kept and provided to the City upon request.
Rochester Hockey has the right to sub -contract (with an approved concessions vendor)
over-the-counter concessions and vending machine service in the Graham Arena
Complex. Specific vendor responsibilities and rights are spelled out in "Section 9 of the
Use Permit' document for non -ice events.
17. Rochester Hockey may, during the term of this agreement, maintain a rent-free
business office and novelty/pro shop within the Graham Complex.
18. Rochester Hockey will be allowed the non-exclusive right to sell hockey dasher
board advertising and wall advertising in the Graham Complex and retain 100% of the
advertising revenue. All advertising signs or banners are subject to the approval of the
Page 4 of 6
0 1�
Director of Sports Facilities or Graham Arena Manager. Said approval will not be
unreasonably withheld and will be issued in a timely manner. Rochester Hockey shall
assume responsibility for all costs and expenses associated with the creation,
installation, and maintenance of these signs. The City also has the right to sell hockey
dasher board advertising and the exclusive right to sell on -ice advertising and keep
100% of the revenue to be applied to the City of Rochester, Graham Arena Operating
Revenue Account. It is understood that Graham Arena West, East and North are
seasonal hockey facilities and any advertising done on the hockey dashers will be in
place as long as the dasher boards are installed. Wall advertising will remain in place
for twelve months or for the duration of the Rochester Hockey contract with the
advertiser.
19. The City reserves the right to negotiate an exclusive Soft Drink Beverage
Contract for the entire Graham Arena Complex. The Soft Drink Contract will be binding
on all vendors who operate in the Graham Complex. The Soft Drink Contract will be part
of an over-all Parks and Recreation Department advertising plan with Graham Arena
advertising revenue assigned to the City of Rochester, Graham Arena Operating
Revenue Account.
20. Rochester Hockey will work with the City and the Olmsted County Fair Board to
ensure that efforts will be is made that Graham IV is not used for activities that involve
livestock.
21. The parties hereto acknowledge that the cooperation of all the parties is
necessary to effectuate the results desired to be obtained by this agreement and that
the duties and responsibilities are dependent upon each other in order to accomplish
the goals sought through this agreement.
22. This agreement replaces an agreement titled "GRAHAM ARENA /
ROCHESTER YOUTH HOCKEY ICE USE AGREEMENT 2004 — 2007" dated
November 19, 2004 and signed by the Rochester Board of Park Commissioners and the
President of Rochester Hockey. This agreement constitutes the final expression of the
parties' agreement and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon.
This agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, agreements or
representations except that the existing operations agreement between the City and
County shall remain in full force and effect. No waiver, consent, modification, or change
of terms of this agreement shall bind any party unless in writing and signed by all
parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change shall be effective only in specific
instance and for specific purpose given.
23. No party shall assign its liabilities, duties, or obligations under this agreement
without written consent of the other parties.
24. All parties have acted in good faith and have accurately represented the costs
associated with the running and maintenance of the Graham Arena Complex.
(I N
Page 5 of 6
25. This agreement shall be interpreted and construed under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
26. This agreement shall be considered null and void should Rochester Hockey
default in any of its payment responsibilities as outlined in the separate Memorandum of
Understanding related to the Graham IV construction.
This agreement is entered into the date and year first above written.
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Rochester Juvenile Hockey Association
By:
Its: President
By:
Its: Secretary
Rochester Mite Hockey Association
By:
Its: President
By:
Its: Secretary
City of Rochester
By:
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: City Clerk
Page 6 of 6
55.
Olmsted County
Dated: By:
Dated: By:
Its: Board Chairperson
Its: Administrator
T:TWDATA\County Board AgendalAdministration%2006 Graham Facility Use Agreement.doc
6�
COUNTY OF OLMSTED - CITY OF ROCHESTER
GRAHAM ARENA MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made between the County of Olmsted, a political subdivision
of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the County, and the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, a municipal corporation and city under its Charter and the Laws of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter called the City.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County, with the cooperation and financial assistance of the
Rochester Youth Hockey Association (RYHA) and the City, have constructed three multi-
purpose ice arenas, and with the cooperation and financial assistance of Independent
School District #535, Lourdes, RYHA, and City will be constructing an additional multi-
purpose ice arena, "Graham Arena IV", on the Olmsted County Fairgrounds/Graham Park
which collectively are referred to as "Graham Arenas" or "arenas"; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City are desirous of entering into an agreement
under the authority of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Minnesota Statute Sections
471.59, 471.15, and 471.16) whereby the City, through its Park and Recreation
Department, will manage, supervise and maintain Graham Arena East, West, North, and
IV.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed between the County and the
City as follows:
1. During the period two weeks prior to the week of, and one week after the
annual Olmsted County Fair, all multi -purpose Graham Arena buildings shall be
under the supervision and control of the County to be devoted to whatever
purposes the County deems proper.
2. During the balance of the year, all Graham Arena buildings shall be under
the supervision and control of the City for the purpose of providing an exhibition
center and a public ice skating facility.
3. During the time that the Graham Arenas are under City control, the City
shall perform all functions relating to supervision, scheduling, administration,
operation, and maintenance of the building including necessary snow removal on
walks, drives, and parking areas immediately adjacent to the building. Major
capital repairs ($25,000 or more) shall require prior approval of both the City Board
of Park Commissioners and Olmsted County Public Works Director. The City and
County will equally share the costs of these major capital repairs.
4. The City shall submit to the County Public Works Director and County
Administrator, for review and approval, the proposed operating and capital budgets
1
CADocuments and SettngskbastantLoeal Settings7emporary Internet Files%OMEMULTIAGRrevised 1213.DOC
ttadmin\muttiagr.doc
for the Graham Arenas prior to its budget process and adoption by the City. The
itemized budget will include details of revenues and expenses. The proposed ice
and non -ice rental rates for all users will be included in revenue projections. The
City and County will jointly prepare a 5 Year Capital Improvement Program for the
arenas. The first year will be included in the capital budget portion of annual
budget requests.
5. Each party shall be responsible for providing general liability coverage while
operations are under their direction and control, either by purchase of general
liability insurance, a self insurance program, or by obtaining certificates of
insurance and hold harmless agreements from leasees. The County shall insure
the building and improvements for full replacement cost with all risk fire and
extended coverage insurance. The City shall insure all contents which it owns.
City and County agree that in the event all or any part of the premises
(including any buildings, improvements or other real or personal property located
thereon) are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty and/or if any time loss
is suffered as a result thereof, the rights or claims of either party or its employees,
agents, successors or assigns against the other with respect to such liability for
any loss, destruction or damage suffered as a result of negligence of either party
or their employees or agents, are hereby released and discharged and any and all
subrogation rights or claims under any insurance coverages insuring the Premises
and City or County property on the Premises are likewise waived to the extent of
the insurance coverage carried. All policies of fire and extended coverage,
vandalism, malicious mischief and all risk insurance coverage covering the
Premises (including all buildings, improvements and other real or personal
property) and time element exposures, shall contain a clause or endorsement
providing that the insurance shall not be prejudiced if the insureds have waived
their rights of recovery (including subrogation rights) against any person or any
company prior to the date of loss, destruction or damage.
6. The City and County shall each pay one-half of net operating loss or equally
share net operating profit.
7. The City and County shall keep an accurate record of all fees and revenue
received and all expenditures made and expenses incurred in the operation of the
arenas. "Net operating loss" or "net operating profit" shall be determined by
subtracting the sum total of all expenditures made by the City and County in the
operation of the arenas and revenues received by the City and County in the
operation of the arenas. As soon after December 31st of each year as income
and expense figures are available, the City Parks and Recreation Superintendent
and County Public Works Director, or representatives of each, shall meet and
agree upon the County's financial contribution as determined under the guidelines
established in Section 4 and 6 of this Agreement.
2
CADocuments and SatdngslrbastianlLccal Settings\Temporary Internet Flles\OLK9EWULTIAGRreAsed 1213.130C
tladminMultiagr.doc
AIM/a] - 11,Zn.m
The City Parks and Recreation Superintendent, or designee, shall inform
the Olmsted County Public Works Director (prior to booking any event) of any
special rates, discounts, exchange of facility use, or other arrangements that differ
from normal established rental rates or agreements.
8. The City will charge ISD 535 and Lourdes, and any other public or private
school or district schools the "established user rate", the same as RYHA, (currently
$130 per hour) for all ice rental at Graham Arenas West, East, North, IV, and the
Rec Center.
For purposes of this Agreement, $600,000 of the funds Olmsted County
paid towards the construction of Graham Arena IV shall be considered the schools'
share. Part of the capital cost repayment to the County for the schools' share will
be funded from the ice rental fees paid by all schools. An ice rental surchage
(currently $40 per hour) will be added to all ice rentals at Graham Arena West,
East, North and IV and Rec Center until the County financing for Graham Arena IV
debt is repaid in full.
The City Parks and Recreation Superintendent will provide a detailed
accounting of the schools ice rental use at the Rec Center and Graham Arenas.
The City Finance Department will forward the repayment funds so
calculated to the County Finance Department on a monthly basis and the County
will apply the payments against the debt service interest bearing contribution
amount. This arrangement will continue until the contribution has been repaid in
full.
9. The City and County acknowledge the financial support for the
construction of the $5.3 million "Graham Arena IV" project from the following
organizations:
Down Annual Annual Project
Organization Payment (Yrs 1 -12) (Yrs 13 -) Total Percentage
Youth Hockey $1,000,000 $ 213,807 $ 363,806 $ 4,657,102 66.0%
Olmsted County - 0 - $ 75,000 - 0 - $ 900,000 12.8%
City of Rochester - 0 - $ 75,000 - 0 - $ 900,000 12.8%
ISD 535/1-ourdes - 0 - 40,00 40.00 $ 600,000 8.5%
Total $1,000,000 $ 403,807 $ 403,806 $ 7,057,102 100.0%
RYHA will make a $1 million down payment. The estimated bond issue
cost is $100,000. The $4.4 million balance will be financed by the County for 15
years, at estimated 4.4% interest rates, with estimated annual payments of
$403,807 paid semi-annually.
10. This Agreement shall automatically renew each April 1st, unless terminated
in writing by either party. Any termination shall be effective on March 31st of any
3
CADocuments and Settingslrbastlan%Lcral SettingsiTemparary internet F ieslOLK9EWULTIAGRrevised 1213.DOC
Aadmin%mulllagcdcc
year, and shall be accomplished by written notice given by the terminating party to
the other party at least 180 days prior to December 31st.
11. This Agreement supersedes the "Graham Arena Management Agreement'
endorsed by Olmsted County, Dated September 13, 1983, October 28, 1993,
September 13, 1995, and April 8, 1997 and endorsed by City of Rochester, Dated
October 3, 1983, November 9, 1993, September 7, 1995, and May 6, 1997 and
any other prior agreement between the parties concerning Graham Arena.
DATED:
DATED:
COUNTY OF OLMSTED
m
Chairperson
Board of County Commissioners
ATTEST
Clerk -Administrator
CITY OF ROCHESTER
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
4
CADocuments and SettingskbastlanlLocal Settings7emporary Intemet FilestOLUMMULTIAGRrevised 1213..DOC
Ndminlmultiagr.doc
A IA107 - i 1 •zn .m
N,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (FINAL. 10.26.05)
RYHA, CITY OF ROCHESTER and the COUNTY OF OLMSTED
GRAHAM IV
Memorandum of Understanding dated this _ day of , 2005 by and between
Rochester Juvenile Hockey Association, Inc., in cooperation with Rochester Mite Hockey
Association, Inc. (hereinafter together referred to as "Rochester Hockey" or "RYHA"),
the City of Rochester ("City") and the County of Olmsted (hereinafter called "County").
WHEREAS, Rochester Hockey desires to build a new ice arena and amenities thereto
(Graham IV) currently estimated to cost $5.3 million at the Graham complex, to be used
by Rochester Hockey and others for hockey games, practices, and other uses and is
willing to contribute $1.0 million in advance of design toward that estimated cost, and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to issue bonds for approximately $4.3 million to
finance the remainder of the project, payable over not less than fifteen (15) years, and
WHEREAS, the County is desirous of owning the building and accepting payments by
RYHA towards the Graham IV financial investment, and
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester is desirous of managing the ice arenas in cooperation
with Rochester Hockey and other ice users and Rochester Hockey is desirous of the City
managing the ice arenas, and
WHEREAS, all of the parties hereby desire to have this commitment memorialized
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Upon acceptance by the County, Rochester Hockey agrees to pay $1 million
dollars to the County representing the down payment on this project. Said
payment shall be made prior to any facility design or the letting of any
construction contracts.
1.1 The County will own the facility
1.2 In the event the project is terminated for whatever cause the unexpended
funds contributed by RYHA will be repaid to RYHA
1.3 The County will issue the bonds to finance the balance of the estimated costs
of the facility after the RYHA downpayment.
1.4 The County will hire the design firm with the concurrence of RYHA and the
City.
1.5 The County will let bids for the construction of the project.
1.6 The County will select the site with input from the City, the Fair Board, and
RYHA. The parties agree that Graham IV should be designed so that it
allows useable and attractive access to Graham East, West, and North when
not in use for hockey purposes. Graham IV will be designed for multiple
uses. Hockey may be its primary use but shall not be the only design goal.
1.7 No gambling operations may be conducted or headquartered in any of the
Graham Buildings without the prior approval of the City under the
Management Agreement.
1.8 If occupancy of any of the four Graham facilities by RYHA for offices, retail,
or any other type of space causes portions of the properties to be subject to
real estate taxes under Minnesota law, the City will collect the necessary
payments in lieu of taxes and remit them to the County.
2. The County agrees to contribute the sum of $900,000 at the rate of $75,000 per
year for twelve (12) years representing the County's share of debt repayment on
the issued bonds.
3. The City agrees to contribute $900,000 at the rate of $75,000 per year for twelve
(12) year as its share of the debt repayment of the issued bonds. Such payments
will be made semiannually to the County more than 15 days prior to the Principal
and Interest payments required by the bond issue.
4. From ice rentals paid by ISD 535 and Lourdes High School at the Graham
Complex and at the Recreation Center, the City is currently holding out $ 40.00
per hour that is being used to pay off the bonds issued for the Graham North
construction. The City agrees to review and/or adjust this capital surcharge on an
annual basis. A total of $600,000 will be collected from this surcharge during the
fifteen (15) year period of the bond and will be used to pay off the debt incurred
for the construction of Graham IV. The goal is to retire this obligation at the
approximate rate of $ 40,000 per year, for a period of fifteen (15) years. These
monies shall be paid over to the County.
5. Rochester Hockey agrees to become contractually obligated to the County to
make the semiannual payments necessary over a 15 year period to cover the debt
service not covered by others in Paragraphs 2,3, and 4 above. These payments
shall be made so as to completely fund the debt service 15 days prior to being
due. In the event RYHA fails to make said payments, the County will not be
obligated to allow any of the Graham arenas to be used for hockey purposes. If
Rochester Hockey can meet its payment obligations by adjusting the ice rental
rates of its users, the County in its sole discretion may choose to continue to
permit RYHA to use the arenas for hockey.
6. All Graham buildings will be available for the exclusive use of the Olmsted
County Fair Board for a four -week period comprised of the two -week period prior
to the week of the fair, the week of the fair, and one week after the fair, and the
Fair Board shall have all income generated therefrom during this time.
Graham IV will be available for RYHA hockey usage eleven (11) months of the
year for a minimum of two years following the occupancy of the building for
hockey purposes so long as it is financially feasible as determined by the County
Board of Commissioners.. Graham East, West, and North will be available for
hockey usage for six (6) months of each year. The City shall use its best efforts to
rent out these 3 buildings during the remainder of the year.
8. Efforts will be made to ensure that Graham IV is not used for activities that
involve livestock
9. A three-way management agreement must be entered into between the County,
RYHA and the City. The City must supply to RYHA and the County detailed
budgets and annual financial statements for the entire Graham complex with
detailed staffing costs. The agreement must be complete and signed before any
design or construction commences.
10. The parties hereto acknowledge that the cooperation of all the parties is necessary
to effectuate the results desired to be obtained by this agreement and that the
duties and responsibilities are dependent upon each other in order to accomplish
the goals sought through this agreement. All legal agreements used to accomplish
the goals of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be subject to approval by
the Olmsted County Attorney.
This agreement is entered into the date and year first above written. The terms herein
shall expire upon the payment of the project bond.
b3
Rochester Juvenile Hockey Association
Dated: By:
Its President
Dated: By:
Its Secretary
Dated:
Dated:
Rochester Mite Hockey Association
By:
Its President
By:
Its Secretary
County of Olmsted
Dated: By:
Its Board Chairperson
Dated: By:
Its Clerk -Administrator
City of Rochester
Dated: By:
Its Mayor
Dated: By:
Its City Clerk
4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1/9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Police and City Attorney
ITEM NO.
_
I DESCRIPTION: Check Diversion Agreement
PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
The Rochester Police Department and City Attorney's Office have an agreement with the Retailers Protection
Association (RPA) to provide the City with a Bad Check/Diversion Program.
Previously RPA provided check diversion services to the city as an alternative to conducting lengthy worthless
check investigations.
RPA is no longer providing worthless check services for law enforcement and has assigned all of its rights and
responsibilities to Financial Crimes Technology Services, LLC (FCTS). RPA is refocusing its efforts on
working with law enforcement and the business community on organized financial crimes.
Financial Crimes Technology Services (FCTS) is now providing the Bad Check/Diversion Services. FCTS
provides improved services and has invested in new accounting technology for tracking cases. Additionally
FCTS provides grants to law enforcement through the Midwest Economic Crime Foundation. Grant amounts
are based upon the number of checks recovered by FCTS. Grant funds must be used for law enforcement
support for finding directly related to financial crimes. This includes law enforcement programs on theft and
fraud prevention, training, investigation cost, purchase of law enforcement equipment, and officer overtime.
There is no match associated with this grant program.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to enter into a worthless check program agreement with Financial Crimes Technology Services, LLC.
Approval to apply for and accept grant funds from the Midwest Economic Crime Foundation (MECF) for the
purpose of providing funding to support costs related to investigating financial crimes. Approval for the Mayor,
City Clerk, and Police Chief to execute a program agreement with Financial Crimes Technology Services LLC.
Approval for the Mayor, City Clerk, and Police Chief to execute grant applications with the Midwest Economic
Crime Foundation.
NCIL ACTION: Mofion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
TING
MEETING (A�
DATE: 1/9/06 �C
Consent Agenda I Police
of IBIS (Identification Based Information
�-a3
PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal apprehension has selected the Rochester Police Department to participate in
the 2 Finger Identification Device Initiative. As a result, our agency will receive one wireless 2 Finger
Identification Unit, also known as IBIS (Identification Based Information System) device.
The Rapid Identification equipment is designed to aid law enforcement personnel in the identification of persons
through the evaluation of fingerprints. The Rapid Identification System is a subsystem of the Automatic
Fingerprint Identification system that is capable of searching submitted index finger fingerprints and returning
identification and/or criminal history data in a short time, typically less than three minutes.
Prior to receiving the IBIS device the department must approve and sign a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with
the State. Once the JPA is received the department will seek review and acceptance of the terms from the
Rochester City Attorney.
A condition for receiving the IBIS unit is that after one year our agency must agree to fund the cellular charges
and maintenance costs for the IBIS device. The projected costs for this condition are approximately $600
annually.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to accept the IBIS device from the BCA and enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of
Minnesota for the use of the device. Approval for the Mayor, City Clerk, and/or Chief of Police to sign the
documents necessary to accept the 113IS device.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
-ter
MEETING 01-09-06
DATE:
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM NO. J
� �Jr/T�,
CONSENT AGENDA
V1 AMENDMENT #1 TO 2005 ROCHESTER CITY LINES
PREPARED BY: /�
CONTRACT
A KNAUER �Y
This is a request to amend the 2005 Rochester City Lines contract. The company is reimbursed on
a deficit basis. (Expenses less revenues.) Through November 2005 it has been noted that specific
expenses items are over budget including some wage categories and fuel costs. For example fuel
costs for 2005 are expected to amount to over $440,000. The budget for fuel provided for
approximately $227,000.
Increased ridership and corresponding revenues have covered some of the increase costs.
However, based on year end projections it appears thatthe deficit will be $64,186 over budgeted.
The budget provides for a deficit of $1,593,699. Current projections show a deficit at year end of
$1,657,885 for a difference of $64,186.
At this time there appears to be federal and State funds available under contract to cover the
increased deficit.
The contract and any amendments are subject to the availability of federal and State funds.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution amending the 2005contract with Rochester City Lines increasing the
maximum reimbursement for the operating deficit to $1,657,885 subject to available State and
federal funding.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 01-09_p k
DATE:
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM NO.
REVISEDiby�
CONSENT AGENDA
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT - CENTER STREET
PREPARED BY: �
PARKING GARAGE RESTORATION PROJECT
A KNAUER ��(
A contract was awarded in September 2005 to Brent Anderson Associates Inc. of Fridley, Minnesota for
concrete restoration and other miscellaneous work in the Center Street Parking Garage at a cost of
$62,597.25. The contract was based on estimated quantities.
The work has been completed at a final cost of $71,424.90. The additional project cost of $8,827.65
included $3,288.45 for quantities over estimate and $5,539.20 for heavy duty traffic coating not identified in
the original plans.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
1. Adopt the prepared resolution approving a Supplemental Agreement for the additional quantities and
the heavy duty traffic coating with Brent Anderson Associates Inc, for City Project J2592-05 for
Center Street Parking Ramp Restoration in the amount of $8,827.65 for a final project cost of
$71,424.90.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENTAGENDA I PUBLIC WORKS
AWARD OF BIDS / REVENUE AND ACCESS CONTROL EQUIPM
FOR PARKING RAMPS.
ITEM NO.
/
PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER ,..
Bids forthe purchase and installation of parking revenue/ access control (PARC) equipment to be
installed in 4 of the city's parking garages were opened on December13, 2005. The locations
include; Center Street, First Street, Second Street and Civic Center parking garages. The new
equipment will include credit card in and out and an integrated software system for reporting and
accounting. Alternate pricing was also required for automatic vehicle identification for contract
parkers and price extensions for additional facilities.
Bids were received from McGann Associates of Minneapolis and the Don Harstad Company of
Fridley. Both bidders were considered qualified with equipment meeting the specifications.
McGann provides Amano equipment. Harstad is a vendor for Ski -Data Equipment. Attached is a
comparison of the base bids, alternates and options. Don Harstad company is the low bidder.
References for the low bidder ranging from the City of Minneapolis to universities and private
garages gave the Harstad Company and /or Ski -Data Corporation (the actual equipment
manufacturer) very high marks.
The base bids were as follows:
McGann $749,995.00
Don Harstad $509,495.00 (Low bid)
The specifications call for project completion by May 1, 2006. Staff recommends awarding the
base bid plus the following alternates to Don Harstad Company Inc.
Base bid $509,495.00
Alt 1. Cashiers Booth at 2°d St $13,211.00
Alt 3. AVI at all entry/ exit lanes $51,798.00
Alt 4. AR Software $13,400.00
Total $587,904.00
(The 2006 ClP budgeted $720,000 for the project. The funds are provided from the Parking
Enterprise Funds retained eamings. This amount also includes engineering and fiber optic
connections yet to be contracted.)
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
1 Adopt the prepared resolution awarding a contract for "Project J2680-06 Revenue and Access
Control Equipment for City Parking Garages" to Don Harstad Company Inc., 7103 Highway 65
NE, Fridley, MN 55432-3302. in the amount of $587,904.00 plus unit costs per specifications.
NCIL ACTION: Motion bv: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
-1�/
1/9/05
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
�-0-1
IT DESCRIPTION: Advertisement of Bids: Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer,
PIZEPARED BY:
I
Phase II, J7751
J. Loehr ,)("
if I IN
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the
office of the City Clerk on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 and considered by the City Council on
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 for the following project:
Project No. M1-95-2-06, J7751
"Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve Portions of Sewer District 16 in Marion
Township, Phase II."
The Bear Creek sub-trunkline sanitary sewer phase II project is included in the 2006 - 2011 Capital
Budget.
The project is necessary to provide sanitary sewer service to the Rochester Towne Club Development
and the surrounding sewer service area.
The project is proposed to be funded from future Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges and future Sewer
Availability Charges.
Platinum Development, the developer of Rochester Towne Club is required to enter into a Development
Agreement with the City, and Dennis Thein the owner of two separate 80 acre parcels is required to
enter into a Contribution Agreement with the City for their respective share of the project costs prior to
the award of contract for the project.
.
Platinum Development has entered into their Development Agreement with the City.
The Contribution Agreement for the Thein property has been presented to Dennis Thein for his
consideration and signatures.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid
opening on February 14, 2006 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk:
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning January 13, 2006.
Attachments: Notice of Bids
Project Location Map
C NCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO,7
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
�—LZD
M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement # 1; Project M3-24 (J4014)
PRtPARED BY:
3rd Ave. N.W. 31st St. to Chalet Drive.
J M. Easley Q(/
The plans provide for the construction of 3Id avenue N.W./ from 31st St. to Chalet Drive, as well
as, drainage ditch and bike path improvements along the Elton Hills Ravine from 3`d Ave. to 91h
Ave. N.W.
During the course of construction it was determined that construction of the both 3'd Ave. and
the bike path, at planned elevations, would not provide for proper drainage from an adjacent
backyard of a private residence. It therefore became necessary to install a culvert under the
bike path to provide for lot drainage.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement # 1; Project M3-24 (J4014) in the
amount of $1,643.00 to cover the cost of;
1. 42' of 15' HDPE Culvert Pipe.
2. Two 15" Culvert Aprons.
The Department of Public Works has reviewed these costs and find them typical for work of
this nature.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement # 1 in the amount of
$1,643.00, Project # M3-24 (J4014)
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �I
DATE: 119/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
�Z
—M DESCRIPTION: Grading Plan Checklist
PREPARED BA�(
D. Nelso
Background: The City of Rochester requires a Grading Permit for development involving site grading
activity. This requirement is found within the attached sections of the Land Development Manual (LDM)
and the City of Rochester Code of Ordinances.
Specifically, LDM Chapter 61.151 states the Purpose: "The City shall review any development project
involving significant changes in land form to review impacts on drainage patterns, protect ground water
supplies, to minimize risks from shifting or settling soils or rock formations, and to mitigate the visual
impact of major grading."
Furthermore, LDM 61.154 refers to "...the City's grading plan checklist for identification of the
information to be included in a grading plan."
The Department of Public Works has prepared grading plan preparation checklists since 1998. The
purpose of these checklists is to aid the design professionals in the preparation of grading plans for sites
in Rochester and the city's urban service area. These checklists are intended to assist in completing
quality assurance reviews of grading plans.
The current Grading Plan Checklist was last updated and approved by the City Council in May 2000.
Since that time three significant rule/ordinance changes have occurred.
• In August 2003 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) issued anew NPDES
Construction Activities Storm Water Discharge Permit.
• In September 2003 the City of Rochester adopted the International Building Code.
• In October 2003 the City of Rochester adopted the Storm Water Utility ordinance.
Each of these three changes has affected the criteria and requirements for grading plans. As each rule
or ordinance was enacted the designers and the city staff reviewing the grading plans modified their
criteria used for the preparation and review of these plans. However, there has not been a formal
revision to the official (City Council approved) grading plan checklist. The attached 2006 revisions to the
checklists incorporate the changes and additions necessitated by the new rules and ordinances and
further clarifies the meaning of items previously listed on the 2000 checklist.
In that there are significant differences in many aspects to grading plans prepared for site grading vs.
permanent storm water management (ponds) vs. single residential lot grading, three separate checklists
are to be used; one for each of the three types of plans.
The Department of Public Works request the City Council approve the three (3) grading plan checklist
(Single Residential Lot Grading Plan Checklist, Permanent Storm Water Management Plan Checklist,
and the Subdivision and Non -Residential Lot Grading Plan Checklist).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopted a Resolution requiring the use and submittal of the attached three (3) grading plan checklist as
an aid in the Grading Plan Permit review and approval process.
__jUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Ica
KEY
❑✓ = Yes
❑x = No
Blank = Not Applicable
SINGLE RESIDENTIAL LOT
GRADING PLAN CHECKLIST
Site:
Prepared By:.
Reviewed By:
GENERAL
Completed grading permit application form.
Owner name(s) and address(es) listed on Grading Plan.
❑ Plan is I"=50' or larger scale. North arrow shown.
❑ Plan is drawn in two -foot contours. All contours are
labeled. Or many spot elev. and arrows alternative.
Existing contours are dashed and proposed are solid.
Directional arrows are shown for proposed drainage.
Details of terrain and drainage are provided for areas
adjacent to the proposed grading.
Existing public and private utilities are shown.
Property limits are shown. Streets are labeled. Lot &
block information. Street address shown, if unknown.
❑ Schedule of BMP installation shown.
❑ BMP details included.
SITE GRADING, SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL
Down -slope sediment control scheduled before grading.
Adjacent property protected from drainage and sediment.
Stabilized vehicle exit(s) are provided, minimize number.
All storm sewer inlets, existing and proposed include
temporary sediment control &control remains until up -
slope sources stabilized.
❑ Temporary stockpiles include additional silt fence or
other sediment control.
®Percent of slope is shown for drainage swales.
Fill & cut property line setbacks are >2' for cut slope ht.
>10' or fill slope ht. >4'and setback is dimensioned on the
plans.
All proposed lot corner elevations are shown.
Proposed elevations of garage and lowest floor, ground at
front and rear of building, along with the structure type
are indicated on the plan.
Top of foundation is min. 6" from the ground.
Grade 1' below top of foundation 10' from building.
Drainage flows away from structures at min. 2%.
Freeboard to structures. Floor el. or the grade adjacent to
the building is at least V above any overflow elevation,
and at least 2' above any pond 100-year water level,
whichever is greater and min. V above FEMA flood el.
❑ Minimum lot slopes for vegetated areas are 2% minimum.
* As a reference document see
http://Www.pea.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/index.htmi
revised January 20(
Date:
Date:
❑ Areas within 200' of surface water seeding scheduled
within maximum time allowed.
❑ Steeper than 3:1 — 7 days.
10:1 to 3:1 —14 days.
Flatter than 10:1 — 21 days.
❑ Maximum unbroken 3:1 or steeper slope of 75 feet horz.
❑ Temporary or permanent cover is indicated for all
disturbed areas. Temporary seeding specifies seed mix
and includes disk anchored mulch on all slopes longer
than 200' or > 5%. Permanent cover specifies 4" topsoil,
seed mix and disk anchored mulch, or 4" topsoil and sod.
❑ Slopes in excess of 4:1 and 4:1 slopes longer than 30' are
seeded and protected with erosion control blankets or
sodded and staked. Blanket category specified per
Mn/DOT 3885.1. Plan depicts required blanket locations.
❑ For sites where temporary or permanent cover will not be
complete by November 15, plan indicates adequate
measures to control spring erosion & sedimentation.
DRAINAGE SWALES & EASEMENTS
HDrainage easements are shown and labeled on the plan.
Drainage easements are provided where concentrated
flow is received from more than I adjacent lot and also
where concentrated flow is received from more than 1
acre of adjacent property. 100-year flow in easement.
❑ Minimum drainage easements for flows from 1 acre or
less or 4 lots or less are a minimum of 15' wide. Ditch is
1.9' deep V-shaped with 4:1 slopes.
❑ Minimum drainage easements for flows from more than t
acre or more than 4 lots are a minimum of 20' wide.
Ditch is a minimum of 2' deep with a 4' bottom and 4:1
slopes up to the easement line. 100-year runoff contained
in easement.
❑ Easement documents are signed and submitted to Public
Works with recording fee or included in plat.
ElControl elevations for drainage ways are provided.
Minimum slope of small drainage swales is 2%.
Drainage easements for flow from more than 1 acre or 4
lots are seeded and protected with erosion control
blankets or sodded. Blanket category specified per
Mn/DOT 3885.1. Plan depicts required blanket locations.
❑ Ditches stabilized within 24 hours of connection to
surface water or outlet.
PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN CHECKLIST
revised January 2006
KEY Site:
❑✓ == Yes Prepared By:
❑X = No
Blank = Not Applicable Reviewed By:
Date:
Date:
GENERAL
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, INLETS, & OVERFLOWS
❑
Size of the drainage area served shown:
❑
All apron elevations (inlets and outlets) are labeled. Area
• Total project area and total impervious surface areas
inlet elevations are labeled. Pipe sizes are labeled,
of project.
❑
400' max. manhole spacing for lines 15" diameter or less.
• Total estimated impervious surface areas of ultimate
❑
500' max. manhole spacing for lines 18" to 30" diameter.
development.
Flow direction change is g 90• at junctions.
❑
Final plan is signed by a licensed professional.
Apron inlets to the storm sewer include trash racks.
Owner name(s) and address(es) listed.
Trash racks on inlet structures in wooded areas designed
Plan is 1"=50' or larger scale. North arrow shown.
assuming a minimum of 50% plugging condition.
Plan is drawn in two -foot contours. All finished contours
and adequate existing contours are labeled.
OUTLETS
& ENERGY DISSIPATION
Existing contours are dashed and proposed are solid.
Existing public and private utilities are shown.
❑
Discharge direction of flow generally 45 degrees or less
Soil types shown (in drainage report).
to the flow direction of receiving ditch or stream.
Areas not to be disturbed clearly defined.
❑
Discharges to rear property lines shall generally be piped
ALL receiving waters, including wetland, within %, mile
to at least the rear property line.
hewn or identified.
❑
Where discharge pipe velocities are 10 fps or less, riprap
Temporary stockpiles include silt fence or other sediment
and filter volumes are indicated in accordance with
control.
Mn/DOT Standard Plate.
❑
Property limits are shown. Streets are labeled. Lot &
❑
Where discharge pipe velocities are greater than 10 fps,
block information shown if platted. Street address shown
energy dissipater is provided along with riprap and filter.
if unplatted.
❑
Discharges on slopes steeper than 10% shall not be
Drainage easements are shown and labeled on the plan,
allowed unless discharge is into existing drainage ditch
Storm water management areas are platted as outlets. A
and volume of water in ditch is not greater than 110% of
facility that will serve only the lot on which it is located
the pre -developed condition.
may simply be a drainage easement on that lot.
❑
Pipe outlet energy dissipation complete within 24 hours of
❑
Schedule of BMP installation shown.
connection to surface water or outlet.
❑
Evaluation of downstream adequacy provided capacity &
DRAINAGE SWALES & EASEMENTS
stability).
❑
Control elevations for drainage ways are provided. 100-
year flow contained in easement
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS
Minimum slope of drainage swales is 2%.
Drainage easements are seeded and protected with erosion
❑
Sized to store 2-year, 24-hr storm from the drainage area
control blankets or they are sodded where concentrated
below the outlet pipe (no smaller than 1800 cf/acre of
flow from more than I acre or 4 lots is directed. Blanket
drainage area), or
category specified per Mn/DOT 3885.1. Plan depicts
❑
Sized at 3,600 cf/acre of drainage area.
required blanket locations.
❑
Designed to minimize short-circuiting.
❑
Velocity computations are provided for drainage
Floating debris discharge prevented.
easements where concentrated flow from more than 2
Designed for full dewatering.
acres or 8 lots is directed. Where 10-year velocities
❑
Energy dissipation on outlet pipe.
exceed 5 8/sec, permanent turf reinforcement mats are
❑
Principal and emergency spillway designed per BMP
installed per City std. plate 7-05. Blanket per Mn/DOT
storm frequency standards.
8.2A2 or manufacturer and product is specified. Plan
Fenced if slopes exceed 4:1 per city detail.
fas8
piers blanket locations and cross sections.
Plan requires any permanent or temporary sediment ponds
ement documents are signed and submitted to Public
to be constructed at the beginning of construction.
Works with a check for recording if not included in plat.
❑
Ditches stabilized within 24 hours of connection to
surface water or outlet.
PERMANENT PONDS
❑ Entire drainage/service area shown (in drainage report).
50 scale or larger grading plan with pond cross section.
Where possible, provide a forebay at the inlet; locate inlet
and outlet at opposite ends of pond; and provide length to
width ratio > 3.
❑ Multi -cell design where practical.
❑ 10:1 bench is provided for first I foot of depth below
normal water elevation.
❑ 4:1 max slope from normal water elevation to 100-year
water elevation.
3:1 max slope below normal water elevation.
Pond depth is 4 to 10 feet based on normal water level.
Normal water elevation is shown.
100-year high water level is shown.
Inlets are at or below normal water level.
❑ Outlet is designed to prevent short-circuiting and
discharge of floating debris.
❑ Permanent pool volume 1800 cf per acre drained.
❑ Water quality volume equal to '/, inch runoff total
impervious surface area, at ultimate development.
❑ Outlet size to discharge no more than 5.66 cfs/acre of
pond surface.
❑ Energy dissipation on outlet piping.
❑ Areas less than 1 acre not draining to pond:
Grassed swales.
Small ponds.
❑ Grit chambers.
❑ Other
❑ Emergency overflow spillway is provided to
accommodate 100-year event. High point elevation and
direction of overflow are marked on plans.
❑ Emergency overflow spillway is located to protect
adjacent property and large fill sections.
❑ 100-year runoff which is designed to flow to the pond
does not bypass the pond; unmodeled 100-year flow does
not enter the pond.
Minimum 10' width at top of dam (if dam is < 15' high).
12' wide access and turn -around area for maintenance
vehicles is shown on a slope 5 15%, cross slope 5 6%.
❑ Pond access is included in a min. 15' wide portion of the
pond outlot. If access is in an easement across private
property, a 12' wide paved access road is provided.
❑ Seed mix Mn/DOT 310 for a 10' perimeter around the
pond. Seed mix Mn/DOT 350 for the remainder of the
pond outlot.
❑ DNR dam safety permit obtained if dam height is > 6' and
storage to top of dam is > 15 acre-ft.
* As a reference document see
http://www.pea.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/index.htm]
INFILTRATION/FI LTRATION
❑ Type(s) used.
❑ Infiltration basins
❑ Infiltration trenches.
❑ Rain gardens.
❑ Sand filters.
❑ Organic filters.
❑ Bioretention.
Natural depressions (wetland not included)
Other
eFloatables removed before infiltration/filtration system.
Site sensitivity analysis included
❑ Evaluation of hydrologic impact included.
❑ Infiltration scheduled after full site development and
stabilization.
❑ Runoff route away from infiltration system during
construction.
®Site controlled to minimize soil compaction.
Pretreatment sediment removal included. Use appropriate
checklist area.
❑ Designed for inch of runoff from total impervious
surface areas for ultimate development within 48 hours.
❑ System bypass for flows that cannot be filtered.
❑ Minimum vertical separation of 3 feet between seasonal
high ground water and bottom of infiltration system.
❑ Soil test results, system capacity calculations, and
computer modeling results included.
Minimum 10' width maintenance access provided.
Infiltration systems not permitted for vehicle fueling or
service areas.
ALTERNATIVE AND COMBINED PRACTICES
Combined practice (narrative in drainage report).
Alternative practice (narrative in drainage report).
Full calculations and plans included (narrative in drainage
report).
&3
SUBDIVISION AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LOT
GRADING PLAN CHECKLIST
KEY Site:
0 = Yes Prepared By:,
❑X = No
Blank = Not Applicable Reviewed By:
GENERAL
eNPDES permit including SW W WP is referred to on plan
Completed grading permit application form.
❑ Final grading plan is signed by a licensed professional, 5
copies. One copy of other documentation.
Owner name(s) and address(es) listed on Grading Plan.
Plan is I"=50' or larger scale. North arrow shown.
Plan is drawn in two -foot contours. All finished contours
and adequate existing contours are labeled.
Existing contours are dashed and proposed are solid.
Directional arrows are shown for proposed drainage.
Details of terrain and drainage are provided for areas
adjacent to the proposed grading.
Existing public and private utilities are shown.
Boundaries of drainage areas shown. (in drainage report)
Soil types shown (in drainage report).
Areas not to be disturbed clearly defined.
LL receiving waters, including wetland, within ''/, mile
shown or identified.
❑ Property limits are shown. Streets are labeled. Lot &
block information. Street address shown, if unknown.
®Proposed walk is shown for commercial/industrial sites.
County or Mn/DOT permit obtained for work their ROW.
❑ Substantial Land Alteration approved for elevation
changes >_ 10' or other criteria that require a SLA.
Any City Council approval conditions are met.
The following areas are tabulated for residential (acres):
• Total platted area (site area)
• Total area disturbed
• Total developable area for residential (exclude
floodway, natural steep slopes, wetlands).
❑ The fallowing areas are tabulated for non-residential
(acres):
• Total project area
• Total impervious areas of project, existing &
proposed.
• Tabulation of total and impervious area by tax parcel.
Schedule of BMP installation shown.
BMP details included.
Dewatering activities discharge to sediment basin.
SITE GRADING, SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL
Down -slope sediment control scheduled before grading.
Adjacent property protected from drainage and sediment.
Stabilized vehicle exit(s) are provided, minimize number.
Silt fences are provided per BMP Manual 6.31. In
concentrated flow areas is "high flow, heavy duty" type.
❑ All storm sewer inlets, existing and proposed include
temporary sediment control &control remains until up -
slope sources stabilized.
❑ Maximum unbroken 3:1 or steeper slope of 75 feet horz.
revised January 2006
❑ Temporary stockpiles include additional silt fence or
other sediment control.
❑ Percent of slope is shown for streets and drainage swales.
❑ Fill & cut property line setbacks are >2' for cut slope ht.
>10' or fill slope ht. >4'and setback is dimensioned on the
plans.
❑ All proposed lot corner elevations are shown.
❑ Proposed elevations of garage and lowest floor, ground at
front and rear of building, along with the structure type
are indicated on the plan.
❑ Top of foundation is min. 6" from the ground.
Grade 1' below top of foundation 10' from building.
Freeboard to structures. Floor el. or the grade adjacent to
the building is at least 1' above any overflow elevation,
and at least 2' above any pond 100-year water level,
whichever is greater and min. V above FEMA flood el.
Drainage flows away from structures at min. 2%.
Temporary or permanent diversion swales, stabilized with
turf mat, pipe, riprap, are used at the tap of slopes
exceeding 4:1, when applicable.
Minimum lot slopes for vegetated areas are 2% minimum.
Areas within 200' of surface water seeding scheduled
within maximum time allowed.
Steeper than 3:1 — 7 days.
10:1 to 3:1 —14 days.
Flatter than 10:1 — 21 days.
❑ Temporary or permanent cover is indicated for all
disturbed areas. Temporary seeding specifies seed mix
including disk anchored mulch on all slopes> 200' or>
5%. Permanent cover specifies 4" min. topsoil, seed mix
and disk anchored mulch, or 4" min. topsoil and sod.
❑ Slopes steeper than 4:1 and 4:1 slopes longer than 30' are
seeded and protected with erosion control blankets or
sodded and staked. Blanket category specified per
Mn/DOT 3885.1. Plan depicts required blanket locations.
❑ Statement that slopes steeper than 4:1 are stable from
land -sliding and surface erosion. Geotechnical report for
slopes >3:1.
❑ For sites where temporary or permanent cover will not be
complete by November 15, plan indicates adequate
measures to control spring erosion & sedimentation.
DRAINAGE SWALES & EASEMENTS
❑ Drainage easements are shown and labeled on the plan.
❑ Drainage easements are provided where concentrated
flow is received from more than 1 adjacent lot and also
where concentrated flow is received from more than 1
acre of adjacent property. 100-year flow contained in
easement.
❑ Minimum drainage easements for flows from I acre or
less or 4 lots or less are a minimum of 15' wide. Ditch is
1.9' deep V-shaped with 4:1 slopes.
4
❑ Minimum drainage easements for flows from more than I
acre or more than 4 lots are a minimum of 20' wide.
Ditch is a minimum of 2' deep with a 4' bottom and 4:1
slopes up to the easement line. 100-year runoff contained
in easement.
❑ Control elevations for drainage ways are provided.
❑ Minimum slope of small drainage swales is 2%.
❑ Drainage easements for flow from more than I acre or 4
lots are seeded and protected with erosion control
blankets or sodded. Blanket category specified per
Mn/DOT 3885.1. Plan depicts required blanket locations.
❑ Velocity computations are provided for drainage
easements where concentrated flow from more than 2
acres or 8 lots is directed. Where 10-year velocities
exceed 5 ft/sec, permanent turf reinforcement mats are
installed per City std. plate 7-05. Blanket per Mn/DOT
3888.2A2 or manufacturer and product is specified. Plan
depicts blanket locations and cross sections.
❑ Easement documents are signed and submitted to Public
Works with recording fee or included in plat.
❑ Ditches stabilized within 24 hours of connection to
surface water or outlet.
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, INLETS, & OVERFLOWS
❑ All apron elevations (inlets and outlets) are labeled. Area
inlet elevations are labeled. Pipe sizes are labeled.
400' max. manhole spacing for lines 15" diameter or less.
500' max. manhole spacing for lines 18" to 30" diameter.
Drainage from subdrains, sump pumps, and building
storm drains does not flow through public CB's.
❑ Not more than 3 CB's in a series (at an intersection)
before connecting to the storm sewer main.
❑ Storm sewer main generally does not flow through CB's.
Flow direction change is 5 900 at junctions.
Drainage does not cross intersections (no valley gutters).
CB spacing as necessary for inlet capacity, curb spread,
and not exceeding 1000' on residential streets or 600' on
collector and arterial streets.
❑ Apron inlets to the storm sewer include trash racks.
❑ Trash racks on inlet structures in wooded areas designed
assuming a minimum of 50% plugging condition.
❑ For other than RI & R2, drainage from impervious
surfaces is collected on -site and not sheet drained onto
sidewalks, rights of way or adjacent property.
❑ Concentrated drainage is collected in CB before crossing
walk.
' As a reference document see
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/index.htmi
❑ Overflow swales are provided which limit the depth of
ponding in the street to 2' or less.
❑ Emergency overflow with the high point elevation and
direction of overflow are clearly marked on plans.
❑ Emergency overflow swale meets minimum drainage
easement standards noted above.
OUTLETS & ENERGY DISSIPATION
❑ Discharge direction of flow generally 45 degrees or less
to the flow direction of receiving ditch or stream.
❑ Discharges to rear property lines shall generally be piped
to at least the rear property line.
❑ Where discharge pipe velocities are 10 fps or less, riprap
and filter volumes are indicated in accordance with
Mn/DOT Standard Plate.
❑ Where discharge pipe velocities are greater than 10 fps,
energy dissipater is provided along with riprap and filter.
❑ Discharges on slopes steeper than 10% shall not be
allowed unless discharge is into existing drainage ditch
and volume of water in ditch is not greater than 110% of
the pre -developed condition.
❑ Pipe outlet energy dissipation complete within 24 hours of
connection to surface water or outlet.
❑ Evaluation of downstream adequacy provided (capacity &
stability).
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS
❑ Temporary sediment basin provided or provisions for the
use of existing City facilities.
❑ Sized to store 2-year, 24-hr storm from the drainage area
below the outlet pipe (no smaller than 1800 cf/acre of
drainage area), or
❑ Sized at 3,600 cf/acre of drainage area.
®Designed to minimize short-circuiting.
Floating debris discharge prevented.
Designed for full dewatering.
Energy dissipation on outlet pipe.
Principal and emergency spillway designed per BMP
storm frequency standards.
eFenced if slopes exceed 4:1 per City detail.
Plan requires any permanent or temporary sediment ponds
to be constructed at the beginning of construction.
❑ For areas draining less than 10 areas alternative sediment
control.
Multiple lines of silt fence.
Small basins
Vegetative strips (full permanent vegetation before
upslope excavation).
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: January 9, 2006
--NDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Police
D�P�e
�ITEM
DESCRIPTION: SEMNTF Joint Powers Agreement
PREPAD BY:Roger
terson
The purpose of the Southeast Minnesota Narcotics Task Force (SEMNTF) joint powers agreement is to create a
cooperative law enforcement effort that involves at least one full-time investigator dedicated to narcotics
investigations, to create a system for sharing intelligence information among participating agencies, to establish
an advisory board comprised of representatives from each participating agency that meets on a regular basis, and
to establish an interagency agreement that addresses staffing, supervision, program income, equipment
purchases, and expenditures.
The coordinating agency for the SEMNTF will be the Olmsted County Sheriff's Office. Olmsted County will
also act as the fiscal agent.
This agreement is similar to the SE MN Narcotics Task Force Joint Powers Agreement the council approved in
May 2002. The participating agencies are the Austin Police Department, County Attorney Legal
Representative, Dodge County Sheriffs Office, Fillmore County Sheriff's Office, Goodhue County Sheriff's
Office, Houston County Sheriff's Office, Kasson Police Department, Mower County Sheriff's Office, Plainview
Police Department, Olmsted County Sheriff's Office, Red Wing Police Department, Rochester Police
Department, Wabasha County Sheriff's Office, Winona County Sheriff's Office, and the Winona Police
Department.
Member agencies agree to provide a cash match in the amount of $5,000 per agency per year.
The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution approving the City of Rochester to enter into a joint powers agreement with the Southeast Minnesota
Narcotics Task Force for regional narcotics investigations. The Department requests the council adopt a
resolution authorizing the Mayor, City Clerk, and/or Police Chief to sign the agreements.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
DATE: 1/9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NOABY.
Public Hearings
City Administrator
L
G
ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing Relating to Proposed JOBZ Business Subsidy for NRI
PREPAR
Electronics, Inc. and Resolution of Support for JOBZ acreage transfer
T. Spaet
The City has been working with NRI Electronics, Inc. which is a Minnesota based electronic manufacturing services
company that provides printed circuit board assembly, wire harness / cable assembly and electromechanical integration
for industrial, medical, transportation and aviation markets.
At this time, NRI is an existing Rochester company with 32 employees that presently leases space in Northbrook
Center. The lease will not be renewed beyond October 2006. The company also has facilities in Anoka and Aurora,
Minnesota. They are considering relocation of their Rochester operations to Aurora, which has offered them JOBZ
incentives. They have indicated that they would prefer to stay in Rochester and have requested that the City of
Rochester provide JOBZ incentives. In return for the JOBZ incentives, NRI will retain the 32 existing jobs at their
facility and are willing to commit to create 6 new jobs within the next 12months (This is a JOBZ Program requirement).
They have indicated that it is their hope to be able to create an additional 15 jobs over the next 3 years.
The company is looking at leasing approximately 30,000 square feet at the former PEMSTAR location at 2535 Hwy. 14
West. This location is not presently in a JOBZ Zone, so we are proposing to transfer 2 acres from the airport JOBZ site
to this location. This requires resolutions of support from the Council, County Board and School Board. Based upon the
information provided by the company, the City and RAEDI staff recommends proceeding with providing JOBZ
assistance and transfer of JOBZ acreage.
In this instance, the "business subsidy" is the state and local tax exemptions provided for under the JOBZ
rogram. The term of the JOBZ benefits shall extend until December 31, 2015. In return for the JOBZ
enefits, NRI Electronics, Inc. has the following obligations:
(1) The qualified business shall retain the 32 existing FTE jobs and create six (6) new FTE jobs by October
1, 2007 during the Job Zone Term and within the subzone boundary.
(2) The qualified business shall provide an average wage and benefit level for the new FTE jobs of at least
$10.23 per hour, during the Job Zone Term and within the subzone boundary. (Please be aware that the
$10.23 is the State minimum required under the JOBZ Program. The Company's average wage level will
exceed that figure by 40-50%.)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for Mayor & City Clerk to enter into a JOBZ Business Subsidy Agreement with NRI
Electronics, Inc. and also Council adoption of Resolution of Support for transfer of JOBZ acreage.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1-9-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARLNGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 by BIG DE Development.
PREPARED BY:
The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for
Nlitzi A. Baker,
approximately 9 acres of land located south of Overland Drive NW and east of
Senior Planner
Ban delRoad NW, to change the Land Use designation from `low density
residential" to "commercial: and to change the zoning map from R-1 (Mixed
Single Family) to B-4 (General Commercial) (see ZC 05-16).
December 29, 2005
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this item at the December 14, 2005, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 based on staff's recommendations.
Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0
Council Action Needed.
T. The Council shall hold a public hearing. 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. The Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of
law supporting their decision.
Distribution:
rj
(t1 i
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
1. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
2. Planning Department File
3. This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday January 9, 2006 in the Council / Board Chamber at the
Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
''^UNCIL ACTION: n:
tion By: Seconded By: ) _ Action: r I
I
mum Immomas
ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
L00„r, OF www.olmstedcounty. com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: December 8, 2005
�' -�-- rat �•
k'I 77i ll.,1 L'GUS'l •�•.
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 by BIG DE Development. The
applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for
approximately 9 acres of land located south of Overland Drive NW and
east of Bandel Road NW, to change the Land Use designation from "low
density residential' to "commercial: and to change the zoning map from
R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to B-4 (General Commercial) (see ZC 05.16).
Planninq Department Review:
Petitioner: BIG DE DEVELOPMENT
706 County Road 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3" Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: The property is located along the south side of Overland
Drive NW, on both the east and west side of the new Bandel
Road alignment, at the intersection of Bandel Road and
Overland Drive NW.
Existing Land Use: A home had been located on a part of this property, which
was removed to accommodate the re -alignment of Bandel
Road. The property is currently undeveloped.
Proposed Use: The applicant requests to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 9
acres of land for "commercial" uses and to rezone that
portion of the property to the B-4 (General Commercial)
district (see ZC 05-16).
Adjacent Land Use and North of Overland Drive is the proposed Prairie Crossing
Zoning: development, which is zoned B-4 (General Commercial).
The area to the west is not currently in the City, but part of an
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDFESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224
�..n.w,
PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
OD
FAX 507/287-2275
AN FOI IAI nPPnRTI INITV/AFFIRMATIVF ACTVIN FMPI (,VFR
op
Page 2
LUPA 00-06
December 8, 2005
area the City will consider annexing and zoning in the near
future. The portion of the property lying east of the new
Bendel Road alignment is adjacent to a stormwater pond to
the east and a single family subdivision to the south.
Transportation Access:
Access to this property will from Bendel Road. Proposed
access locations are identified on the accompanying
amendment to General Development Plan #149 (Hidden
Oaks Valley) and #210 (Bendel North Second & Third).
Wetlands:
There do not appear to be hydric soils on this property.
Referral Comments:
1. See comments attached to Amendment to GDP 149 &
210.
Report Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Area Land Use Plan Map
3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
Considering other regional shopping development (Prairie Crossing) adjacent to this property, the
proximity to TH 52 and plans for a future interchange at TH 52165' Street, staff determined that
the "regional shopping center" category would be the appropriate land use category to evaluate
this proposal.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan states that regional shopping centers
are best suited in areas with the following characteristics:
a) Located at the Intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or
higher level streets. Overland Drive and Bendel Road are both identified as Major Urban
Arterials on the Functional Designation Map of the Long Range Transportation Plan 2035. In
addition, the Plan identifies a future interchange at TH 52 and 65'h Street. NW.
b) Having level terrain. This site has slightly rolling terrain.
c) Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. Bendel Road and Overland Drive
are identified as Major Urban Arterials on the Long Range Transportation Plan 2035
Functional Designation Map. Bendel Road was recently re -aligned at the intersection of
Overland Drive and is now open to traffic. Overland Drive is constructed to 18'h Avenue and
includes pedestrian facilities on both sides of the road. Additionally, the 65'h Street (Overland
Drive) overpass was opened in the last few weeks. The Long Range Thoroughfare Plan
2035 identifies a future interchange at 651h Street/TH 52. Existing improvements recently
completed and future improvements planned provide this property with good pedestrian and
vehicular access.
d) Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. The Prairie
Crossing development to the north includes approximately 65 acres for commercial
development. This property, when considered together with the Prairie Crossing
development, exceeds 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development.
Page 3
LUPA 00.06
December S, 2005
Staff Recommendation:
It appears that findings can be made to support an amendment to the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 9 acres of land, included in this petition, for
"commercial" land uses. Staff recommends approval of this petition.
Z
W
Z /
J
a_
W—�
0
D W
Z Z
� UW
O W
Z z
a o
od
0 3=
r
r
r
,
.I.
tl
„
0
N
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
4. The proposed access location subjectZOlmstedCounproval for access
spacing. In addition, thedesign the pust meet City design
standards.
5. The developer shall construct a bitum oSAH 16 at the access
into the development.
AND
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10, and Zoninq District Amendment #05-16 by BIG DE
Development. The applicant is reguesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map
for approximately 9 acres of land located south of Overland Drive NW and east of Bandel
Road NW, to change the Land Use designation from "low density residential" to
"commercial: and to change the zoning map from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to B-4
(General Commercial).
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated December 8, 2005, to the Commission.
The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Discussion ensued regarding changing the zoning designation to the B-1 zoning district for the
eastern portion of the development.
Discussion ensued regarding the difference of the B-1 versus the B-4 zoning district.
The applicant's representative, Ms. Kristi Clarke, from McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third
Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. She explained that she did not
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
know that staff was suggesting the B-1 zoning district in the eastern portion of the development.
Therefore, they have not had time to discuss it with the applicant.
Ms. Clarke made the following comments:
• She showed the original general development plan for Hidden Oaks Valley (approved in
May 1999). She noted that the document is over 5 years old and has indicated potential
commercial use since that time.
• She discussed amendments to the general development plan due to right-of-way
locations for Overland Drive and Bandel Road in 2000. She discussed the potential
changes occurring with Overland Drive over time.
• She showed the general development plan approved in July 2003 showing an alignment
of Overland Drive.
• She discussed the development occurring around the proposed general development
plan that generates the proposed amendment.
• The reasons for the proposed amendment include: Thoroughfare Plan shows two
completed arterial roadways through the site location. The City is proposing to rezone
parcels near the site location. Neighboring property is already zoned B-4 (Prairie
Crossing property).
• B-4 is appropriate as they will provide a 20 foot buffer in addition to a permanent
landscape buffer. Given the site's location, they will only have 2 access points. The
development agreement has already been signed and they will only have 2 access
points. They want to provide potential clientele with most ability to get a use in there.
There is a limitation that, within 200 feet from residential home, no lights can reflect to
neighboring properties.
• The only request, with regard to the general development plan, is that they be allowed to
continue with the B-4 zoning distribution.
Mr. Burke asked how the elevation compared from the commercial area to the residential area.
Ms. Clarke responded it would be about 10 feet higher.
Ms. Clarke suggested that a condition be made that they must have a neighborhood meeting
during the site plan process.
Mr. Svenby explained the difficulty of staff approving or denying the plan based on a
neighborhood meeting. All that the applicant needs to do is meet the zoning regulations for the
proposed use found in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
If the neighbors wanted additional landscaping, staff couldn't enforce it if isn't required by the
City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Mr. Burke asked what the maximum buffer could be asked for.
Mr. Svenby responded that it would depend on the use that is proposed. It appears that an F
bufferyard (10 feet to 30 feet in width) would be the most common, which at 10 feet would
require a berm or fence, in addition to plantings. A 15 foot wide bufferyard would require a
fence, in addition to plantings.
Discussion ensued regarding what would happen if the developer did not agree to what the
neighborhood requested at the neighborhood meeting.
Page G
City Planning and Zoning Commission btinutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
Ms. Clarke stated that the neighbors could come to the Planning Department and indicate their
problems.
Mr. Wallace asked why they were requesting the B-4 rather than the B-1 zoning district.
Ms. Clarke responded that the B-4 zoning district allows a 24 hour use.
Ms. Clarke discussed the unique shape of the property after the right-of-way was changed. She
explained the challenge from a marketing standpoint.
Ms. Clarke stated that, other than the B-4 zoning designation, the applicant is in agreement with
the staff -recommended conditions.
Ms. Katherine Donahoe (residing at 3027 Bandel Drive NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed
the Commission. She explained that there are 30 children living a 4 house area in the corner by
the proposed development (age 18 down to infants). Also, there are in -home daycares along
the roadway (Bandel North First development). She expressed concern with regard to what
kind of commercial businesses could occur in the B-4 zoning district (ex. adult establishments).
She also expressed concern about any type of 24 hour business.
Mr. Ohly explained that an adult establishment could not occur in that development, as it would
be too close to a residential neighborhood. He further explained what other types of uses would
not be allowed, according to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual.
Ms. Donahoe expressed concern about safety, even with a buffer. She further expressed
concern about traffic and environmental issues. Presently, they hear traffic 24 hours a day from
Highway 52. She suggested other types of businesses to be located in the development that
cater to children.
Discussion ensued regarding restrictions of putting an adult establishment in the area by a
residential area and criteria they would have to meet.
Ms. Peggy McCarty (residing at 2981 Bandel Ct NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the
Commission. She asked about the timing of the proposed development.
Ms. Clarke responded it would probably be spring of 2006. She explained that the proposed
development would act as a buffer to the noise from the highway. She further explained that
1,000 feet from the property boundary puts them in the Prairie Crossing Development, so an
adult establishment could not be placed in the proposed development.
Ms. Clarke stated that the applicant would prefer to add a condition of approval on the general
development plan that a neighborhood meeting must occur during the site development plan
process rather than reducing the zoning to the B-1 zoning district.
Ms. McCarty expressed concern about just now finding out what types of uses could be allowed
in the proposed development.
Ms. Clarke explained, at the neighborhood meeting, there were only 7 individuals that attended
and none of them were adjacent property owners.
Page 7
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
Ms. McCarty explained that she works 14 hour days, along with her neighbor.
Ms. Clarke suggested a neighborhood meeting be held at the site development plan process.
Ms. McCarty stated that she doesn't mind commercial property, as long as it is reasonable. She
stated that she just doesn't want a 24 hour use.
Ms. Clarke stated that two property owners had talked with her and explained that the realtor
that sold them their homes did not tell them of the commercial use on the property, but indicated
the R-1 zoning district. She stated that they were misled by the realtors. Commercial has been
designated on the property for over 5 years (according to the general development plan).
Ms. Donahoe stated that this is the first that she had been notified of any meetings regarding
the proposed development. She stated that the public should be involved more; not just through
a.neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Haeussinger explained that the Commission only makes a recommendation to the City
Council. There will be another public hearing before the City Council that she will be notified of.
He explained that the City Council makes the final decision.
Mr. Svenby explained that the separation distance between a residential area and an adult
establishment is 750 feet.
Mr. Ward Opitz, from Bigelow Enterprises (706 County Road 3 NW, Byron MN 55920),
addressed the Commission. He explained that Bandel Road has been finished; therefore, the
B-4 zoning district is reasonable. They would prefer the B-4 zoning district to leave their options
open for marketing reasons.
Mr. Burke asked if he would be OK with a stipulation that, during the final site plan process, a
neighborhood meeting be required. The reason is to let the neighborhood have input regarding
bufferyards, etc.
Mr. Bigelow responded that it would be OK
Mr. Svenby explained that the Council has placed a requirement on past general development
plans that developers provide a 20 foot buffer adjacent to single family homes. He indicated
that they could recommend that a bufferyard be provided along the south property line with a
certain amount of trees.
Mr. Burke stated that he is more concerned with the visual aspect. He indicated that more
information is needed. He discussed how the process could be achieved with public
involvement.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing.
Mr. Haeussinger suggested a caveat that there be a required meeting with the neighborhood
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Amendment to General Development Plan
#149 known as Hidden Oaks Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as
aI
Page s
City Planning and Zoning Commission ivtimnes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
Bandel North Second and Third with the staff-recommei
(removing staff -recommended condition number 1). Mr
motion carried 6-0.
CONDITIONS:
findings and conditions
Barry seconded the motion. The
2. Development shall be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities.
3. The Controlled Access indicated on the GDP should not be considered to indicate all
Controlled Access that may be required for development within this GDP. Segments
of Controlled Access, in addition to those shown on the GDP, may be required as
determined through the platting process. A specific example location would include,
but is not limited to, tie first 75 feet of the "Future 66 ft right-of-way" extending north
from Overland Drive NW.
4. Parkland dedication shall
5. The builders must install
as required by the Minnea
Additionally,, water main
must be extended to adjai
ae met via cash in lieu of land.
ressure-rec 4cin9 devices near the domestic waterme.ters
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10.based on
staffs recommendations. Mr. Ohlyseconded the motion:. The motioncarne' d 6-0.
Mr. Burke discussed adding a condition to the zone change that the site plan and landscape
plan be presented as part of the final general development plan process and have a required
neighborhood meeting prior to that date. He further indicated that the B-4 zoning district be
designated for both areas on the proposed plan.
Mr. Svenby explained that the Commission could not place conditions on a zone change. He
indicated that conditions can only be placed on the general development plan. He further
explained that the proposed general development plan is being sent to the City Council as the
"final" review. He indicated that the Commission could suggest to the City Council to add a
condition to the general development plan regarding Mr. Burke's suggested condition.
Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission should change the staff -recommended findings on page
125 of the staff report with regard to finding 2(a if they are recommending the B-4 zoning district.
Mr. Burke stated that the property is well suited for uses in the B-4 zoning district and uses in
the B-4 would be appropriate on that property and compatible with the adjacent uses. The site
and traffic support the B4 zoning on the east portion of the development. The proposed
amendment does not involve spot zoning.
Mr. Wallace expressed concern with any type of 24 hour operation next to a residential property.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-16 with the
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December N, 2005
staff -recommended findings, revising 2)a as listed below. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay.
REVISED FINDING:
The property is well suited for uses in the B-4 zoning district and uses in the B-4 would be
appropriate on that property and compatible with the adjacent uses. The site and traffic support
the BA zoning on the east portion of the development. The proposed amendment does not
involve spot zoning.
Discussion ensued regarding the general development plan being moved forward to the City
Council as a "final" action and that the site plan and landscape plan must be presented to the
Council at that time, according to Mr. Burke's added condition.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #05-16 by BIG DE Development.
The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for
approximately 9 acres of land located south of Overland Drive NW and east of
Bandel Road NW, to change the Land Use designation (see LUPA 05-10) from
"low density residential" to "commercial and to change the zoning map from R-
1 (Mixed Single Family) to B-4 (General Commercial).
/
MEETING qI
DATE: 1-9-06
ITEM NO.
//
C� —3
PREPARED By:
Mitzi A. Baker,
Senior Planner
December 29, 2005
Please note that the findings in the Staff Report do not support B-4 zoning on the east side of the newly re -aligned Bandel
Road, but do support B-1 zoning. The Planning Commission recommended in favor of B-4 zoning, as petitioned, and
modified the findings to support their recommendation.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2005, to consider this petition.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-16 with the staff -
recommended findings, revising 2)a as listed below. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion
carried 6-1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay.
?EVISED FINDING:
The property is well suited for uses in the B-4 zoning district and uses in the B-4 would be appropriate on
that property and compatible with the adjacent uses. The site and traffic support the B-4 zoning on the east
portion of the development. The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning.
Council Action Needed:
The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision
on this zone change.
If the Council approves this 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 for the property.
.� tr-
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached p'"
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday January 9, 2005 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
JUNCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
O0
RE -ZONING
DESCRIPTION:
SEE ATTACHED;
EXHIBIT
RECEIVED
,-1
"O BIG DE
DEVELOPMENT CO.
SCALE,
rr = 300'
APAWN 9y1
K.C.
706 CO. RD, 3 N.W.
McGhie Betts, inc,
BYRON,
MN 55920
Cmsultyp Cnyneers Ls,rtl Surveyors
na7,
10-25-as
ACtr. NII 1
1084CJ5a59
JOB NO.
1084C/5459
Planners
164E 9rs AVE. S.E. Rxnester. sn 55%4 50-289-3919
C09 Na
5459ZONE.DWO
V
r , 7
z1
Ilvtl�.N P.rvj
LU
z
U
w
z
a
J
J
d
w
w
z
z
J
U.
U
o
w
z
z
tq
►=
as
0
��
=ui�
s
Lue
- I-111.L
-
I; II; Ci:
.1-E-1 • It- FYI'
M
a
N
m. W.
V
0 T;
1
7
!i
0
cn Fez
'\ W
1
0.I. O a
Q
N c
C z
W W
00 0
A
C uj y
1 LULI
w a'
occ
o� /
ROCAESTER-OLDISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
c o u ,,.. OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
ftb
�2
Jk'I f'e u:a u c u.. r<..
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: December 8, 2005
RE: Zoning District Amendment #05-16 by BIG DE Development. The
applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for
approximately 9 acres of land located south of Overland Drive NW and
east of Bandel Road NW, to change the Land Use designation (see
LUPA 05-10) from 'low density residential' to "commercial and to
change the zoning map from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to 3-4 (General
Commercial).
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: BIG DE DEVELOPMENT
706 County Road 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: The property is located along the south side of Overland Drive
NW, on both the east and west side of the new Bendel Road
alignment, at the intersection of Bendel Road and Overland Drive
NW.
Requested Action: The applicant requests to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 9 acres of land for
"commercial" uses and to rezone that portion of the property to the
B-4 (General Commercial) district.
Existing Land Use: A home had been located on a part of this property, which was
removed to accommodate the re -alignment of Bandel Road. The
property is currently undeveloped.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant requests to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan (see LUPA 05-10) to designate approximately
9 acres of land for "commercial' uses and to rezone that portion of
the property to the B-4 (General Commercial) district.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITVIAFRRMATIVF ACTION FMPI nvPR
Page 2
December 8, 2005
Adjacent Land Use and North of Overland Drive is the proposed Prairie Crossing
Zoning:
development, with the property to the north zoned B-4 (General
Commercial). The area to the west is not currently in the City, but
part of an area the City will consider annexing and zoning in the
near future. The portion of the property lying east of the new
Bendel Road alignment is adjacent to a stormwater pond to the
east and a single family subdivision to the south.
Transportation Access:
Access to this property will from Bendel Road. Proposed access
locations are identified on the accompanying amendment to
General Development Plan #149 (Hidden Oaks Valley) and #210
(Bandel North Second & Third).
Wetlands:
There are no known Wetlands on this property.
Referral Comments:
1. See comments attached to Amendment to GDP 149 and
GDP 210
Report Attachments: 1. Area Zoning Map & Proposed Zone Change Map
Analysis for Zoning District Amendment:
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the
Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application
requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria:
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal
petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the
proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as
found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter
3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan;
or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to
rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
Proposed B-4:
If Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 is approved, re -zoning approximately 9 acres of
land to the B-4 district would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The area has
changed and is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to re -zone the
area.
Page 3
December 8, 2005
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
Proposed B-4:
The area lying east of Bandel Road abuts a single family subdivision to the south. The
broad range of uses permitted in the B-4 District coupled with no limitation on hours of
operation for most uses may present conflicts with the abutting neighborhood. The
petition to Amend General Development Plan #149 (Hidden Oaks Valley) and GDP #210
(Bandei North Second and Third), which includes this property and is being considered
concurrent with this petition, was revised by the applicant shortly before completing staff
reports to identify a 20 foot landscape buffer along the southern line of the proposed B-4
District abutting the single family homes in Bandei North First subdivision. The Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) would require a buffer, but with
a minimum width of 10 feet. Regulations in the LDM also require a 6'solid wood fence to
be constructed as part of a bufferyard for many of the uses in a B-4 district abutting single
family homes, except that an increased bufferyard width also would allow for eliminating
the fence with increased separation. The B-1 district should be considered as an
alternative that is generally more compatible with low density residential development and
limits the hours of operation for most uses to between 6 AM and 10 PM.
The area lying west of Bandel Road is well suited for uses in the B-4 zoning district and
uses in the B-4 would be appropriate on that property and compatible with the adjacent
uses.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that
assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in
this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state).
Proposed B-4:
If Land Use Plan Amendment #05.10 is approved, the proposed amendment will not
involve spot zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
The findings support approval for B-4 zoning for the parcel lying west of Bandel Road, but do not
support B-4 for the parcel lying east of Bandel Road. If the Commission and Council concur with
these findings, the petition to re -zone should be approved for the parcel lying west of Bandel
Road, and denied for the parcel lying east of Bandel Road. The parcel lying east of Bandel Road
should be considered for B-1 (Restricted Commercial) zoning. Since the B-1 district is less
intense that the B-4 district, this action could be taken now, without re -publishing or re -notification.
Rochester
Minnesota
Land Surveying
Urban - Lind Planning
Consulting - Civil Engineering
Geotechuical Engineering
Construction Material Testing
Landscape Architecture
1648 Third Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
December 6, 2006
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Consolidated Planning & Zoning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RECEIVED
DEC ^ 7 2005
RUCnEsTcR - OL-M1ISTED
REVISED
RE: Amended Hidden Oaks Valley General Development Plan and Re -
Zoning
Dear Ms. Baker:
In accordance with Section 60.605 (B) of the amended zoning ordinance,
we are submitting, on behalf of the applicant, Big De Development, a
copy of the minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting which
was held on December 1, 2006, 7:00 P.M. at the Evangelical Free Church,
in Rochester, Minnesota.
I
An attendance list is also enclosed for your reference.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
McGhie & Betts, Inc
Kristi L. Clarke AICP, Planner
KLC/
Attachment
PC: Ward Opitz
Tony Bigelow
Joel Bigelow
FA
Tel. 507.289.3919
Fax. 507.289.7333
e-mail. mbi@mcghiebetts.com
poi
Minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting
For
Amended Hidden Oaks Valley General Development Plan
In Attendance: See attached attendance list
Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the
neighborhood and to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need
further investigation or consideration.
General Discussion:
Ms. Kristi Clarke of McGhie & Betts, Inc. made a brief presentation on the proposed
project.
She explained the history of the property beginning in May of 1999 with an approved
GDP outlining areas for single family residential, street patterns, open spaces, a detention
pond and a future commercial site in the northwest corner of the parcel. We spoke at
length about the various changes in the right of way's of Bandel Road, Overland Drive
and Highway 52.
The development process for the City of Rochester was reviewed and Ms. Clarke
explained that the GDP and re -zoning was the next step in this process. A proposed
commercial site plan would be reviewed by city staff members at a later date.
Proposed future public hearing dates were then discussed. Those meeting dates are as
follows: December 14, 2005 for the Planning and Zoning public hearing and the first
City Council meeting scheduled for January 4, 2006.
Ouestions/Comments by Attendees:
Question 1: What are the potential uses within the B-4 zone?
Answer 1: We briefly described the permitted uses within the B-4 zone.
Question 2: Will Big De Development re -grade the site and the detention pon Answer 2: Yes, to city approved standards. AEVISED
Question 3: Will there be a frontage road for Highway 52? RECEIVED
DEC - 7 2005
Ans)ver 3
Question d
As Jar as we know, Bandel Road N. 6Y. will continue through Prairie
Crossing creating a ftonlage road for Highway 52.
What happens if we say we don't want this re -zoned?
Answer 4: Ms. Clarke outlined the dates of the Planning and Zoning and City
Council public hearings and recommended that he attend those or write to
the commissioners prior to the meeting to discuss his concerns.
Question 5: What is the timeline for this development?
Answer 5: Mr. Ward Opitz of Big De Development explained that the earliest
potential development would be in the summer of 2006
Question 6: Will the commercial use be allowed to use the area 24 hours a day?
Answer 6: The City of Rochester's LDM was explained as it pertained to "night
operations" Specifically that only light from stationary windows or
required fire exits within 200 feet of an R-district is allowed. However,
the parcel could have uses 24 hours a day.
Question 7: Could this parcel be sold to the city as a nature preserve or park?
Answer 7: No
Question 8: Can the neighborhood have a say as to what goes into this parcel?
Answer 8: This neighborhood meeting is your opportunity to review the proposed
uses and access to the site and participate in the public hearing process in
December and January 2006.
Question 9: Did the city use eminent domain to acquire the right-of-ways for Bandel
Road or Overland Drive?
Answer 9: No. They purchased the parcels through negotiated sales.
Question 10: Will another driveway (access to Bandel Road N.W.) be approved?
Answer 10: No. The access shown just north of the water tower is one of two
approved accesses along Bandel RoadN.W. The other access is the
public r.o.w. of Bandel Drive N.W.
DEVISED
RECEIVED
DEC - 1 2005
ROCHESTER - OL MSTED
PI +NNING DEPARTMENT
R o c h e s t e r
M i n n e s o t a
1648 Third Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
•
•
Tel 507289,3919
Fax. 507.289.7333
e-mail. mbi@mcghiehetts.com
Equal Oppodunity Employer
PROJECT:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE
Attendance Roll
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Sandel Commercial GDP/LUPA/Rezone
December 1, 2006
7:00 — 8:30 p.m.
Evangelical Free Church
5500 251h Avenue NW
Rochester MN 55901
11
vo�
REVISED
RECE'�'ED
DEC - ; 2005
NAME
ADDRESS
ROC"ES'"��
l 'h
r ; EfLQNE= / F X NO./
RESS
2.
3.
Z?A 1
A.
- 0 o
4.
6.
7.
42VCV �Qh
�a `�O^ l� L
aZ5a'Sp9
a.
Lo ode f`'Lr
r -
—
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1-9-06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
HEARINGS
ITE N0
PUBLIC PLANNING
EM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known
PREPARED BY:
as Hidden Oaks Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as
Mitzi A. Baker,
Bandel North Second and Third. The property is located east of Bandel
senior Planncr
Road NW, on the north and south sides of Overland Drive NW, west of
Granite Drive NW.
December 29, 2005
Please note that the condition added by the Planning Commission is a recommendation for action to be taken by the
applicant prior to Council action on this General Development Plan application. If the Council does not deem it
necessary to review a site plan prior to taking action, that condition should be removed.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2005. Please see the attached minutes
for additional detail, discussion and input from the neighborhood.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known as
Hidden Oaks Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as Bandel North Second and Third with
the staff -recommended findings and conditions (removing staff -recommended condition number 1). Mr.
Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
. Burke moved to amend his original motion to recommend approval of Amendment to General
velopment Plan #149 known as Hidden Oaks Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as
Bandel North Second and Third to add a condition that "The applicant must present a site plan and
landscape plan at the time of final general development plan action to the City Council for a public
hearing". Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
CONDITIONS:
Development Plan be revised to eliminate the labeling "Potential rutum
The General (GDP) shall
n•
dentified north of Overland Dr2wa NIA9
2. Development shall be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities.
3. The Controlled Access indicated on the GDP should not be considered to indicate all Controlled
Access that may be required for development within this GDP. Segments of Controlled Access, in
addition to those shown on the GDP, may be required as determined through the platting process. A
specific example location would include, but is not limited to, tie first 75 feet of the "Future 66 ft right-
of-way" extending north from Overland Drive NW.
(continued on next page)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
PAF
Page 2
RCA
December 29, 2005
4. Parkland dedication shall be met via cash in lieu of land.
The builders must install pressure -reducing devices near the domestic water meters as required by
the Minnesota Plumbing Code in the higher pressure areas. Additionally, water main in the cul-de-
sac streets must be looped and water mains must be extended to adjacent property per the
requirements of RPU.
6. Tfte-a scant m , t present a siteplan and I dscape plan at the time of final general development
plan action to sty Council for a p lic hring.
Council Action Needed.
1. If the Council wishes to approve the General Development Plan it should instruct the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney:
3. Planning Department File
4. This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m
Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
on Monday January 9, 2005 in the Council / Board Chamber at the
4
WIN
W
Am
ago
i"
W
.l. 1 o +li
O >
O
N ae
a
O
M z
W
m
W
LU
a
0
W
CD
O
O
Er
A
N
CM
0
0
N
N
W
O
d
n
El
y
asw,rr�yy b...,�. aram
V N
Q
Xa
N
11JJ
c�R
r
�
O
j 1
a
.33
r s�
A
62
W, moy rr,a3yyr do uourr,oi axns
,
spiieeee ��e116eo o��.
ROCHESTER-OLIISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
0 0 0 N T, OF www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: December 8, 2005
u�,C11 P:ti 1'F:R 1 i
l
G;" 2sC'-"
°t v1.
�4 !� ]
kl.''.1y'0
RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known as Hidden
Oaks Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as Bandel
North Second and Third. The applicant is proposing to amend the
Plan to identify commercial land uses proposed south of Overland
Drive, east of Bandel Road as proposed with Land Use Plan
Amendment #05-10 and Zoning District Amendment #05-16. Other
proposed amendments include: introducing potential commercial
land use north of Overland Drive NW, west of the intersection with
Bandel Drive NW; modified labeling of a future road extending
north of Overland Drive NW, across from Bandel Drive NW;
identification of private cul-de-sac south of Hidden Oaks Valley
subdivision and 67th Street NW; and future re -alignment of Bandel
Road NW. The property is located east of Bandel Road NW, on the
north and south sides of Overland Drive NW, west of Granite Drive
NW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Consultants:
BIG DE Development
706 County Road 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3fd Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: The GDP amendment currently under consideration includes land
extending east from the "old" Bendel Road alignment (the road was
recently re -aligned), to the intersection of Granite Drive NW and
Overland Drive NW and from the southern boundary of Bendel North
First and Second subdivisions north to include vacant land abutting
the Hidden Oaks Valley Subdivision.
Existing Land Use: Portions of the GDP are already platted and developed, specifically
BUILDING CODE 50712B5-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGNAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAX 5071287-2275
Page 2
General Development Plan
December 8, 2005
the Bandel North First and Second subdivisions are platted, as well as
the Hidden Oaks Valley subdivision. Overland Drive is constructed
and open, as is the newly re -aligned Bandel Road. The remaining
portions of the GDP are undeveloped, though a Final Plat application
was recently filed for the area labeled as Bandel North Third.
Proposed Use: The two areas located adjacent to the east and west side of Bandel
Road, south of Overland Drive are being considered for "commercial'
land use designation and B-4 zoning concurrent with this GDP
amendment. On the north side of Overland Drive, the GDP proposes
primarily low density residential uses, with an area also proposed for
"potential future commercial land use".
Land Use Plan: A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are
being considered for the two parcels lying east and west of Bandel
Road, south of Overland Drive NW. The balance of the GDP is
identified for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan.
Zoning: The portion of the property lying north of Overland Drive, and abutting
the Hidden Oaks subdivision is not annexed to the City. The single
family attached dwellings located south of Overland Drive, west of
Bandel Drive NW are zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential), the
balance of the property is zoned R-1, with a Land Use Plan
Amendment and Zoning District amendment being considered
concurrent with this petition for the parcels adjacent to Bandel Road
just south of Overland Drive.
Streets: A private roadway is proposed to serve Bandel North Third. The
north/south roadway extending north of Overland Drive is indicated to
be a future public roadway.
Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required on both sides of all new public
roadways. A 10' wide bituminous path is located along the entire
frontage of both sides of Overland Drive NW.
Drainage:
An existing stormwater pond is located along the south side of
Overland Drive NW, providing detention for a portion of the
development.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the
property is platted or developed.
Wetlands:
According to the Soil Survey, no hydric soils exist on this property.
The property owner is, however, responsible for identifying wetlands.
Public Utilities:
Both sanitary sewer and watermain are proposed to be extended from
the west.
Parkland
Parkland dedication requirements for this development need to be
Dedication:
satisfied via cash in lieu of land.
Tree/Brush
The applicant indicates that at this time there is no intent to remove
Disposal:
trees/brush.
Page 3
General Development Plan
December 8, 2005
Report 1. Proposed General Development Plan & Narrative
Attachments: 2. Referral Comments
Background & Summary of Proposal:
In March of 2000, the City approved General Development Plan (GDP) #149, known as Hidden
Oaks Valley (see attached). In July of 2003, the City approved General Development Plan #210,
known as Bandel North Second & Third. These two GDP's overlapped slightly, and the applicant
is now proposing to amend both of these Plans. The GDP amendment currently under
consideration includes land extending east from the "old" Bendel Road alignment (the road was
recently re -aligned), to a the intersection of Granite Drive NW and Overland Drive NW and from
the southern boundary of Bendel North First and Second subdivisions north to include vacant land
abutting the Hidden Oaks Valley Subdivision.
Changes being proposed with this amendment include:
• Proposing B-4, General Commercial, zoning and land uses in the area lying south of
Overland Drive NW, on both the east and west sides of the re -aligned Bendel Road
• Introduction of single family lots, served by a private roadway, located north of Overland
Drive and east of Bandel Drive NW.
• Identification of "Potential Future Commercial Land Use" for the area lying north of
Overland Drive NW, west of Bandel Drive NW.
• Re -labeling the vacant land abutting the Hidden Oaks Valley subdivision (north of
Overland Drive NW across from Bandel Drive NW) to propose "Future Low Density
Residential", where the Plan previously identified "Future Single Family Development 18-
54 Lots".
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan. Staff suggested findings are In bold italics
print.
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 and Zoning District Amendment #05-16
are being considered concurrent with this application for the portion of the
GDP labeled "Commercial Land Use" south of Overland Drive NW and
abutting Bandel Road NW.
Page 4
General Development Plan
December 8, 2005
The area identified as "Potential Future Commercial Land Use" does not
have site visibility, access and orientation characteristics similar to the
property located at the intersection of Bendel Road and Overland Drive and
does not warrant a commercial land use designation. The GDP should be
revised to eliminate this labeling.
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 and Zoning District Amendment #05-16
are being considered concurrent with this application for the portion of the
GDP labeled "Commercial Land Use" south of Overland Drive NW and
abutting Bendel Road NW. The proposed commercial area lying east of
Bendel Road abuts a single family subdivision to the south. This GDP was
revised by the applicant shortly before completing staff reports to identify a
20 foot landscape buffer along the southern line of the proposed B-4
District abutting the single family homes in Bendel North First subdivision.
The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM)
would require a buffer, but with a minimum width of 10 feet. Regulations in
the LDM also require a 6' solid wood fence to be constructed as part of a
bufferyard for many of the uses In a B-4 district abutting single family
homes, except that an increased bulferyard width also would allow for
eliminating the fence with Increased separation.
Proposed lot sizes for the undeveloped portions of the GDP are identified
only for the area labeled as "Bendel North Third". Lot sizes, density,
access and circulation for other portions of the property will have to be
evaluated further as development plans or applications are filed.
The area identified as "Potential Future Commercial Land Use" does not
have site visibility, access and orientation characteristics similar to the
property located at the Intersection of Bendel Road and Overland Drive and
does not warrant a commercial land use designation. The GDP should be
revised to eliminate this labeling.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate
public facilities.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
This development includes both single family detached and single family
attached homes and offers a variety of lot sizes for the single family
detached homes.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property
as appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. Uses proposed
on the property would be consistent with the current land use designation.
The mix of housing would help further the policies and goals found In
Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan,
which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles.
Yf Page 5
General Development Plan
December 6, 2005
This development could also help to further goals and policies found within
Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the supply of housing.
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.
Overland Drive and the re -aligned Bandel Road are now constructed and
open. The Plan Identifies these improvements. There is a 10' bituminous
path on both sides of Overland Drive as well.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate
public facilities.
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.
Overland Drive and Bendel Road are both Identified as Major Urban
Arterials on the Functional Designation Map of the Long Range
Transportation Plan 2035
Overland Drive and the re -aligned Bendel Road are now constructed
and open. The Plan identifies these improvements. There is a 10'
bituminous path on both sides of Overland Drive as well.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrency with
infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the development.
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
Page 6
General Development Plan
December 8, 2005
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.
This property is within the Northwest High Level Water System
Area, which is available along the east side of the Bandel Road re-
alignment, at the intersection of Bendel Dr. NW and Overland Dr.
NW and a the east side of the proposed Bendel North Third. The
builders must install pressure -reducing devices near the domestic
water meters as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code in the
higher pressure areas. Additionally, water main in the cul-de-sac
streets must be looped and water mains must be extended to
adjacent property per the requirements of RPU.
It appears that site modifications (grading) may be required to
provide gravity flow sanitary sewer to the parcel abutting the
Hidden Oaks Valley subdivisions, labeled as "Future Low Density
Residential'.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the
property is platted or developed.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways.
A 10' wide bituminous path was constructed on both sides o/
Overland Drive NW.
Parktand dedication for this development will need to be met via
cash in lieu of land.
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.
An existing pond is located along the south side of Overland Drive which
collects storm water for much of the development. Detailed grading and
drainage plans will be required and reviewed in detail when the property Is
platted or developed.
Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
Land Use Plan Amendment k05-10 and Zoning District Amendment #05-16
are being considered concurrent with this application for the portion of the
GOP labeled "Commercial Land Use" south of Overland Drive NW and
abutting Bendel Road NW.
';`
Page 7
General Development Plan
December 8, 2005
Proposed lot sizes for the undeveloped portions of the GDP are identified
only for the area labeled as "Bandel North Third". Lot sizes, density,
access and circulation for other portions of the property will have to be
evaluated further as development plans or applications are filed.
The area identified as 'Potential Future Commercial Land Use", north of
Overland Drive does not have site visibility, access and orientation
characteristics similar to the property located at the intersection of Bendel
Road and Overland Drive and does not warrant a commercial land use
designation. The GDP should be revised to eliminate this labeling.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate
public facilities.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions and/or modifications:
1. The General Development Plan (GDP) shall be revised to eliminate the labeling
"Potential Future Commercial Land Use" identified north of Overland Drive NW.
2. Development shall be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public
facilities.
3. The Controlled Access Indicated on the GDP should not be considered to indicate
all Controlled Access that may be required for development within this GDP.
Segments of Controlled Access, in addition to those shown on the GDP, may be
required as determined through the platting process. A specific example location
would Include, but ins not limited to, tie first 75 feet of the "Future 66 It right-of-
way" extending north from Overland Drive NW.
4. Parkland dedication shall be met via cash in lieu of land.
5. The builders must install pressure -reducing devices near the domestic water
meters as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code in the higher pressure areas.
Additionally, water main in the cul-de-sac streets must be looped and water mains
must be extended to adjacent property per the requirements of RPU.
NOTE: A portion of the property lying north of Overland Drive NW, abutting the Hidden
Oaks Valley subdivision, is not annexed to the City at this time. The property will need to
be annexed prior to Final Plat application or development.
ROCHESTER
M4Vw1uo.
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4`h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
FROM: Mark E. Baker 507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
DATE: 12/2/05
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for AMENDED General
Development Plan GDP# 149 & #210 for the Hidden Oaks Valley / Bandel North 2"d & 3"1
properties. The following are Public Works comments on this request:
1. A Development Agreement and subsequent Supplemental Agreements and
Agreement Amendments have been executed for the Property and all development is
subject to the terms of the Agreement(s).
2. The Controlled Access indicated on the GDP should not be considered to indicate all
Controlled Access that may be required for development within this GDP. Segments
of Controlled Access, in addition to those shown on the GDP, may be required as
determined through the platting process. A specific example location would include,
but is not limited to, the first 75 feet of the "Future 66 fit ROW" extending north from
Overland Dr NW.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the
Development Agreement(s) and / or City -Owner Contract(s) for the Property with the
exception of a Plant Investment Fee which will be calculated at the time of individual lot
development through the Building Permit process.
C:lDocuments and SettingslplajgarnlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet FlleslOLK6IZDP149 210 AMENDED Hidden
Oaks Valley - Bendel North 2nd 3rd.doc
Land Use Plan
The Proposed Commercial Property is located south of Overland Drive, east of Bandel
Amendment # 05.10
Road. It is bounded by Bandel Road North First Subdivision and detention pond on
K ZDA # 05.16
the east and south, MNDOT ROW for Bandel Road NW on the west and the
AND Amendment to
Overland Drive NW to the north.
At the moment the following road projects and GDP's are in various stages of project
GDP # 149 known as
Hidden Oaks Vallev
and GDP # 211)
known as Bandel
development or under consideration:
North 2"d •md 3
• Completion and opening of 65"' Street overpass.
• Development of Prairie Crossing East and West.
• The City of Rochester is seeking approval of access to TH 52 at 65" St to permit
construction of a future interchange to replace the overpass. The City of
Rochester, assisted by the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments
(ROCOG), is preparing a request for Interchange Access Approval that would
need to be approved by MNDOT before construction of an interchange could
occur. This approval process will require completion of
o An Arterial Street System Study to evaluate alternative system
improvements to meet future traffic needs in lieu of an interchange
o A freeway operational analysis study to determine whether introduction
of an interchange at 65"St will detrimentally impact the interchanges at
55ih and 75" St
o A complete Environmental Assessment to determine what impacts and
mitigation need to be considered to achieve
o Completion of a geometric layout plan for the preferred alternative
Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG), City and Olmsted County
have adopted the Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 in July 2005. The plan has
established a classification hierarchy that influence design and operational features for
existing and future non -local roads, identifying the relative importance of the road in
the network. The ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan has also included the
Urban Area Bikeway Map and Regional Bikeway Map.
The adopted Functional Designation Map shows Overland Drive and Bandel Road
as Major Urban Arterials. The Street Design Classification Map recognizes
Overland Drive as 1+ Median LTL type design and Bandel Road as 4U type street.
Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Map shows Bandel Road and Overland Drive as Class
1 Bike Facility which means off -road paths on both sides of Overland Drive and
Bandel Road will be required in future.
The developer/applicant will be responsible far bike path on the east side of Bandel
Road and south side of Overland Land Drive all along their properly line as per the
ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan.
Summary
The issue of Right of Way (ROW) requirements along the Bandel Road and Overland
Drive West Frontage Road should be addressed prior to approval of the development
plan if it is not discussed with the applicant before hand. Bandel Road as a future
Major Urban Arterial with a Street Design indicated to be four lanes undivided. The
ROW suggested in the Long Range Transportation Plan for this type of roadway
I I varies depending upon its projected traffic level, as follows:
lP�
Swale/Ditch
Curb/Gutter
Right of Way for 4
125 ft
100 It
Lane urban arterial or
2+ road up to 20,000
ADT with bike path
Right of Way for 4
135 ft
110 ft
lane urban arterial or
2+ road over 20,000
ADT with bike path
Issues relative to right of way requirements that need to be addressed include a
determination of whether the Overland Drive along the north side of the site will
require additional ROW for drainage, safety, operational or multimodal needs. The
issue of land use intensity at the corner of Bandel Road and Overland Drive and
whether a future interchange will be present at 65" St will impact the ultimate traffic
level on the Bandel Road and determine whether additional ROW would be needed
instead of 125 feet.
2. The access control as per spacing guidelines included in the ROCOG Transportation
Plan will be needed along both Bandel Road and Overland Drive NW. The guidelines
require minimum of 660' for local street spacing and 375' for driveway spacing (35-
45 MPH) on major urban arterial (4 lanes or 2+ urban arterial). See the table below
for Intersection Transition ROW requirements:
Additional ROW
Transition Distance
Width
Bandel Road NW
15 ft
480 ft
(4 lanes urban arterial or 2+
road up to 20,000 ADT and
operating speed (OS)<=40
MPH)
Overland Drive NW
25 ft
330 ft
(4 lane urban arterial or 2+
road over 20,000 ADT and
OS<=40MPH)
Overland Drive NW
25 ft
480 ft
(4 lane urban arterial or 2+
road over 20,000 ADT and
OS >40 MPH)
Miratesota Department of Transportation
$ Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6
;my FSa° 2900 48th Street N.V.
OF TRP Rochester, MN 55901-5848
November 28, 2005
Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive Southeast -Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Office Tel: 507-280-3188
Fax: 507-285-7279
E-mail: chris.meates@dot.state.mn.us
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-10 and Zoning District Amendment #05-16 by BIG DE
Development. The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map
for approximately 9 acres of land located south of Overland Drive NW and east of
Bandel Road NW, to change the Land Use designation from "low density residential' to
"commercial" and to change the zoning map from R-1(Mixed Single Family) to B4
(General Commercial).
Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known as Hidden Oaks Valley and
General Development Plan#210 known as Bandel North Second and Third. The
applicant is proposing to amend the Plan to identify commercial land uses proposed
south of Overland Drive, east of Bandel Road as proposed with Land Use Plan
Amendment #05-10 and Zoning District Amendment #05-16.
US Highway 52, Control Section 5508
Dear Ms. Gamess:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation Qv1n/DOT) Planning Office has reviewed the
above described pro�osals for new development east of US Highway 52 and south of
Overland Drive (65 Street NW).
As MWDOT has commented previously there is no direct impact to Mn/DOT right of way or
roadways from the above noted proposals, however, these requested land use changes include
additional commercial uses that may indirectly affect traffic levels at already congested
interchanges with US 52. As such, these developments must be accounted for in the current
Operational Analysis (OA) which has been requested by Mn/DOT to identify transportation
needs and options to accommodate growth in northwest Rochester.
Any questions about this response may be directed Fred Sandal, Principal Planner, at (507)
285-7369 or Debbie Bement, Transportation Specialist, at (507) 281-7777.
PhnsM
� 1 ,
oates
District 6 Planning Director
cc: Rhonda Prestegard
Mike Schweyen
Fred Sandal
Debbie Bement
File
rpu
,we 1i/edj , ive de"frer
November 23, 2005
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known as Hidden Oaks Valley and
GDP #210 known as Bandel North Second & Third.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced general development plans is complete and our comments follow:
1. This property is within the Northwest High Level Water System Area, which is available along the
east side of the Bandel Road re -alignment, at the intersection of Bandel Dr. NW and Overland Dr.
NW and at the east side of the proposed Bandel North Third.
l�l
2. Anticipated static water pressures within this area will range from the upper 50's to the low 100's
PSI depending on final grades. The builders must install pressure -reducing devices near the domestic
water meters as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code in the higher pressure areas.
3. The water main in the cul-de-sac streets must be looped and water mains must be extended to
adjacent properties per our requirements.
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 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Gale Mount, Building & Safety
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Big De Development
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: Amendment to General Development Plan #149 known
as Hidden Oaks Valley and General Development Plan #210 known as Bandel North
Second and Third
® No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
❑ Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the
information as part of this application.
❑ A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department.
❑ A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss,
Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department.
❑ A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
❑ No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to
the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for
wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands.
❑ Other or Explanation:
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
Narrative for
General Development Plan Amendment
For
Hidden Oaks Valley—Bandel Commercial
The Bandel Commercial property is approximately 8.99 acres bounded by Bandel North First
Subdivision and detention pond on the east and south, MNDOT right of way for Bandel Road
N.W. on the west and the Overland Drive N.W. to the north.
The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with
Appendix B E-3.
a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create
potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design and
construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to
overcome the limitations.
The property slopes from the southwest corner with a high point elevation of
approximately 1126 to the northeast corner with a low point elevation of approximately
1090. The average slope from the water tower to the center of the site is approximately
6%. The average slope from the center of the site to the eastern property boundary is 12-
14%.
The soils are a combination of three silt loam soil families: the Port Byron, Lindstrom
and Timula. These soils are typically well suited for building site development and
sanitary facilities with the proper base materials.
b) Storm drainage problems, which in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs
that will exceed normal storm drainage costs.
The General Development Plan shows the existing detention pond located along the
south of Overland Drive N.W. just east of the future commercial area. This pond can
hold the additional storm run-off from the property on the east side of the future Bandel
Road NW to the pond. The property on the west side of the Future Bandel Road NW
will most likely be graded westward and the water will be conveyed to another off -site
pond.
At this time, we do not anticipate storm drainage problems that would result in costs
exceeding that of normal developments of this scope.
c) Identification of potential off -site drainage problems.
At this time, we do not anticipate storm drainage problems that would result in costs
exceeding that of normal developments of this scope.
RECEIVED
NOV 1 6 2005
d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration.
A sanitary sewer line and water line is presently being constricted along the relocated
alignment of Bandel Road N.W. This connects the existing utilities in Bandel Drive NW
to Overland Drive NW.
e) Identification ofpossible erosion problems, which may arise in the estimation of the
applicant.
A large portion of the developable future commercial site has 6% or less slope with very
little potential for erosion concerns. A small portion located in the northeastern corner of
the site has between 12-14% slope. Additional care may be required to reduce erosion
problems in this area and will be constructed prior to development through normal
engineering standards.
A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on
the property tinder the control of the applicant.
Both the western and eastern commercial sites, adjacent to the future Bandel Road N.W.,
will be developed in one phase. The property noted as "Phase 2" will be developed when
utilities are available to serve the site. Long term plans for gravity sanitary sewer include
the extension of future facilities planned north of this development.
RECEIVED
NOV 1 6 2005
ROCHESTER- CLNISTED
F' `NNING DEGARTVENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1-9-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
"UBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
i i'EM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #05-42 to be known as Overland Pointe
EPREPAREDry:
r
January 4, 2006
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated January 4, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following modifications/conditions:
1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees shall be paid, per the
December 6, 2005 memo from the GIS/Addressing Staff.
2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $8,000 as specified in the December
9, 2005 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation.
3. No Parking signs shall be posted along one side of the private roadway.
4. The name of the private roadway shall be approved by the GIS/Addressing Department.
\J
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
f�
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, January 9, 2006 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
1000 ft. Notification Area of Final Plat #05-42
to be known as Overland Pointe
located in Pt NE 1/4 NE 1/4
Sec 9 Cascade TWP
SAGEWOOD CT NW
Final Plat #0542
by BIG DE Development
PI Ns: 74.09.11.072787
74.09.11.069563
Neighborhood Assoc: None
Council Ward: 3
12/16/05
u arr '
♦ ■or
♦f�n.11 Par..
a �
I.
Mom
rim �d E� ♦�
QnsiaJCounty ianN ruponslNu bmmrflarr xwnn fbNa9r0lnrrn. ttU�eTpanoua an IwN ximnrlw map, paw nowt
ne G6 dioon. Rwrnnrdmal.c Luny PYmp dmrrral. 21.} Larrpua drlr SE. Roaeaim, MN 559W,lail Pa5dA2
w
rncsl
n+l
� OC[I.Id
c
Y. gA.4q
/
/ p
/ w
W
86
gp
liQQ
S
gg yy�
d3�r
Ci
asm. go
5vt:.>
Mas
.I§
F EB
W
� YO'LBB
/ h
9 / w
>Ky"� Fely P
10
h
a <r
a �
! 4 uSnaq /
� y RYl 1
,4
O Wyk Is
�+ 40
•ayAc
Cc
RECEIVED
@DCHESTER- OLMSTED
r fig, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
E�
cog 's Lam,
i O
\9
ei
ROCiiESTER-OLIMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
c c u x r r OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
DATE: January 4, 2006
RE: Final Plat 405-42 by BIG DE DEVELOPMENT to be known as
Overland Pointe.
Planning Department Review:
ApplicantlOwner: Big De Development
706 County Road 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
Surveyors/Engine McGhie & Betts, Inc.
ers: 1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Report 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
Attachments: 2. Referral Comments
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development
Review. -
�..RU ULL.STrat� rrt.Y1
Location of The property is located along the north side of Overland Drive NW, south
Property: of 671h Street NW, east of the Bandel Drive NW/Overland Drive NW
intersection.
Zoning:
The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map.
Proposed
The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 10.45 acres into
Development:
13 lots for single family residential development and 1 outlot which will be
a private roadway to serve the development.
Streets:
The Plat does not dedicate any right-of-way for new public roadways.
The development will served via a private roadway which takes access
for Granite Drive NW.
Utilities: Public utilities plans have been approved by the City to serve the
development.
Sidewalks: Since the property is being served by a private roadway, a sidewalk is not
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
b PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
GGG��� AN EQUAL OFPUHTUNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLnYFR
Page 2
January 4, 2006
required.
Drainage:
The grading and drainage plan was approved by the City on December 2,
2005. Drainage from the development will directed to a temporary storm
water detention facility located to the west.
Wetlands:
No wetlands are located on this portion of the property.
Parkland
Parkland dedication should be met via cash ($8,000) in lieu of land with
Dedication:
payment due prior to recording the final plat documents.
Tree/Brush
The applicant has indicated that removal of trees and brush from the site
Disposal:
may consist of burning on site, chipping on site or salvaging and
removing from the property.
General
This property is part of the amendment to the Bandel North Second and
Development
Third GDP #210.
Plan:
Preliminary Plat:
There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this
Plat and there is not a need to provide connections through this plat to adjacent properties.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual and would recommend approval of this final plat
subject to the following conditions / modifications:
1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees
shall be paid, per the December 6, 2005 memo from the GwAddressing Staff.
2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via cash in lieu of land In the amount of $8,000 as
specified In the December 9, 2005 memorandum from Rochester Park and
Recreation.
3. No Parking signs shall be posted along one side of the private roadway.
4. The name of the private roadway shall be approved by the G1S/Addressing
Department.
P,M Mi ff
The hand to reach for...
DAVID A. KAPLER
Fire Chief
DATE: December 13, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal
SUBJ: Final Plat# 05-42 by BIG DE DEVELOPMENT, to be known as Overland Pointe.
With regard to the above noted project 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.
a) The minimum fire flow for this residential development area shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at
20 psi.
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.
a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width.
b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets
less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street.
c) Minimum cul-de-sac diameter shall not be less than 70 feet in diameter
d) Cul-de-sacs less than 96 feet in diameter shall be posted "No Parking".
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any 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 (e-mail only).
Mark Baker — Rochester Public Works (e-mail only)
BIG DE DEVELOPMENT
McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only)
ROCHESTER
MZ4��
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 12/19/05
31
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 FP#05-42 For the proposed
Overland Pointe development. The following are Public Works comments on this proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and development is
subject to the terms of said Agreement.
Charges & fees applicable to the development of this property are/will addressed in the
Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract.
C:\Documents and Seningslplasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C\FP05-42 Overland Pointe.doc
0
Nil
FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: December 6, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
7-4
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GISIAddressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507) 285-8232
Fax: (507) 287-2275
CC: Pam Hameister, Wendy Von Wald; Jan Chezick;
McGhie and Betts Inc.
RE: OVERLAND POINTE
FINAL PLAT # 05-42
UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE
PAID BEFORE THE PLAT IS RECORDED. THIS APPLIES TO ALL PLATS
RECORDED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2005.
E911 ADDRESSING FEE: $910.00 (13 LOTS/ADDRESSES)
GIS IMPACT FEE: $660.00 (14 LOTS/OUTLOTS)
Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review.
2. Final Plats must be legally recorded before request for address Applications are
submitted to E911 Addressing Staff-Rochester/Olmsted County Planning Dept.
A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues:
1. The Private roadway illustrated on the plat as Outlot "A" needs to be named and coordinated
with our office. On a copy of the Grading Plan for this plat I saw the Private roadway
designated as HIDDEN POINTE LANE NW.
RECOMMENDATION: Rename the roadway as Hidden is not acceptable. Change the roadway
type from lane to Circle and keep the directional of NW.
00w&1?eCr-d,,
3 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
Rochester, MN DEPARTMENT
DATE: December 9, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Final Plat #05-42
Overland Pointe
Acreage of plat.......................................................... 10.45 a
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 13 units
Density factor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... .32 a
Fair market value of land ............................................. $25,000
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $8,000 (.32 a X $25,000 / a)
with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat.
J2898
OVARK DEDICATION\2005\NW 2898\OVERLAND POINTE.DOC
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROOM 150
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6164
FAX 507-281-6165
DSTOTZ@CI. ROCHESTER. MN. US
�39
A J„iNESpjq�p
OF T"
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation-➢istrict 6
2900 48" Street N.W.
Rochester, MN 55901-5848
December 9, 2005
Jennifer Garness, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive Southeast, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Office Tel: 507-280-3188
Fax: 507-285-7279
E-mail: cliris.moates@dot.state.mn.us
RE: Final Plat #05-42 by Big DE Development, to be known as Overland Pointe. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 10.45 acres of land into one
Outlot for a private roadway and 13 lots for single family development. The
property is located along the north side of Overland Drive NW, south of 671"
Street NW, east of the Bandel Drive NW and Overland Drive NW intersection.
US 52 CS 5508
Dear Ms. Garness:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Planning Office has
reviewed the above described proposal for new development east of US Highway 52
and south of Overland Drive (65th Street NW).
Mn/DOT recommends this development be accounted for in the current Operational
Analysis (OA) which has been requested by Mn/DOT to identify transportation needs
and options to accommodate growth in northwest Rochester.
Thank you for providing Mn/DOT the opportunity to comment. If there are any
questions, you may contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner at (507) 285-7369 or Tracy
Schnell, Regional Planning Assistant, (507) 280-5028.
RFCEWED
Sincerely,
ROChES'IIi.C_1g;=
Chris Moates C PLANNING _?ARTME�
District 6 Planning Director
cc: BIG DE DEVELOPMENT, 706 County Road 3 NW, Byron, MN 55920
McGhie and Betts, Inc., 1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904
Fred Sandal, Debbie Bement, Tracy Schnell, Rhonda Prestegard,
Mike Schweyen, File
r
DISPOSAL OF TREES AND BRUSH
In November 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The text of the amendment is as follows:
61.200 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES:
The requirements of Sections 61.200 through 61.584 identify
approvals that will be required to authorize any subdivision activity
which is defined as a subdivision by statute or City ordinance.
Any person seeking approval of subdivision activity, development
activity or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there
will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part
of the subdivision activity.
In order to apply this provision, you will need to indicate at the bottom of the page plans
for disposal of trees, slash, and brush. Please sign and date the form. You must
submit this information to the Planning Department prior to applying for a burning permit
from the Fire Department. If plans change prior to obtaining a burning permit, you will
need to notify the Planning Department.
Within this &ej!gt�.JD 12O1AJT-J'F development, as proposed through the
ppwy nane)
development application, trees, slash, and brush will be disposed by:
Burning on site
Chipping on site
Salvaging and removing from the property
Other; describe in detail:
(�L'QZ�
Sienfitfure'6f"Apokant of
De elopment Proposal
1.-Cf70G
Date
cAdocuments and settings\gregb%local settings\temporary internet fi1es\o1kC[920-85.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: l -9-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
�r�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11initiated by the Rochester Common
PREPARED BY:
Council to amend the land designation on the Rochester Land Use Plan of those
Brent Svenby,
properties located along 34 Avenue NW (currently designated for low density residential
Senior Planner
uses). The properties are all located with the Orderly Annexation Agreement with Cascade
Township and will be annexed in early 2006. The properties are located north of 59`h
Street, west of Bandel Road NW, east of the New Life Worship Center.
December 30, 2005
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2005 to consider the Land Use Plan
Amendment request for the properties. The Commission also reviewed a zone change petition for the properties.
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 is recommending approval based on the following finding:
a) This property is located adjacent to T.H. 52 but is not located on a highway approach. With the annexation of
the properties, W' Avenue NW will be a City roadway which serves the existing lots. With the existing approved
roadway alignments on the properties to the south and the existing residential developments further south,
development of a frontage roadway to 55th Street NE is very unlikely, therefore, access is limited to the
properties.
The recently adopted ROCOG 2035 Transportation Plan identifies a future interchange at 65'h Street NW and
Highway 52. As part of the ROC 52 project an overpass was constructed at 651h Street as well as a north/south
frontage road between 65th Street and 751h Street on the west side of TH 52. Also the City has recently completed
the reconstruction of Bandel Road which shifted its connection to Overland Drive further to the east.
b) This property has relatively level terrain.
c) Property to the south, which is currently undeveloped but recently had a final plat approved, is zoned B-4 which
would allow for the concentration of similar uses once development occurs. Four of the six lots are already
developed with commercial uses.
d) Development of this site should not change the appearance and character of the surrounding area and the
impacts are not expected to be detrimental. The properties are currently zoned highway commercial in Cascade
Township and 4 of the 6 lots have existing businesses located on them. The construction of an overpass and
associated frontage roadways and other roadways has significantly Impacted the character of this area.
Regulations in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual will set forth minimal
performance standards and bufferyards that must be complied with.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion
carried 6-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated December 8, 2005.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
r
Page 2
\ RCA
December 30, 2005
c:ounCll Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported L
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 shout
instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact an
conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated December 8, 2005
2. Minutes of the December 14, 2004 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on
Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building
Monday, January 9, 2005 in the Council / Boar
500 ft. Notification Area of
parcels located along HWY 52
in Pt of the NW 114 Sec 9
Cascade TWP
R
Proposed Zone Change #05-"
and Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11 '
City Council Initiated
Neighborhood Assoc: None R
Council Ward: 3 (Jean McConnell)
11/29105
City Limits
0
-III�illflil
�r+....-_snow
,� ��� � �� 1+2' ��•. a �j 5�1�
A IEip '_ FGcr°`�T'6'A"y, E'. • '° w�f-!r�'M#. - a ^i� ' `, p11i
l al icy r-'• kn a'.. S � r � T
»
j
ks,T
sir'"
` rla °U�dli��
3 E
'faRim
h' { 3 � � ♦ i �h'� °j 1vk" f'�' '° „.' .
7 rt
`y
1 0f' l i 1i1� ~ f �� H � 1 t f 11 ''a 4 11 II �ri•��'
Fj
AY
pc l 'lih r �e� f t
a
4 A4 i
x I C—wtSM
grltl"i»Vi
ti
+• t ,+
t
° � to •..-u � �r # V1P ' � Vri . � ,# ��4��'"�yl T � � T � t r �' e^t V
�yvc E 55
'1 #-s� ` qi r� �-!mI �.. i'M L �� '" vl �t. v �-• i =—��.+� `d. '1
wormy 1 n W
4A
\11 I \ r-
LAND USE PLAN MAP
70,
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
AREA PROPOSED FOR i
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION
rM
LEGEND
MRochester
City Limits
Future Land Use Plan Designations
®
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
000
,)7A
COMMERCIAL
MEDICAL 1
OD
INDUSTRIAL N
PUBLIC
REC AREA 8 OPEN SPACE
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
�
MEDIUM DENSITY PZ1004TA
-T
I I
LAW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
% /\ 4- / N III K l I I A /it V 1 IL 10d t60Ono
'P
Rochester Zoning Map
111111111111111111111111/1/1/1/1/1/1/11�
�11111111111/1111111/1/1/1/111111111/11�
�111111111111111111111/1111111f11111/11�
1111111111111111111f11111111111111/1/11�
�1111111111111111f1111111111111f11111/11�
�11111111111f111111111111111111/1111�11/11�
.r�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1��
.�1111111111111111111111111111111111111111�
♦1111111111/11111111♦
1111111111111/1111/111111111/11111111�
111111111111111♦♦1•
►1111/111/111111111
♦111111111111111111•
�
1111111111111111111111111111/111f1111� 111111111/11111111♦
•111111111111111111•
OAF
1111111111111/1111♦
1/,/��►111111f1111111111111f11�>111111/1/11�
- rlY�i1f111111111111�� 1111►1 J11111111/11�
11111ff f1111� �1 i�� �►111111111f11�
1•�11111111111111111f111111111111�
'11111111111111♦
♦.1111111111111♦
r11♦♦111f11111•
�1111111111111111111/11
►�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�
W1�
�11111111111111111111111111�1EAR
111111111111111111111111
►11111111111111111111111/11�
OAF
Olp
11111111111111111/1/1/1/11�
�1111111111111111111/1/11�
- ��11f1111111-111� �1 � <
�1♦♦ -
`1f;1��
•1�
. r : ° � ►1111�
♦11•
,s
r y
Roo HESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
°`T..,Tck_ura,tf
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, NIN 55904-4744
r
vnvw,olmsledcounty.comlplannirg
.. u�( j' '
December 8, 2005
TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11, and Zoning District Amendment
#05-17 initiated by the Rochester Common Council to amend the
land designation on the Rochester Land Use Plan of those
properties located along 341h Avenue NW (currently designated for
low density residential uses) and the zone those properties, as well
as the properties located west of Bendel Road NW, to a zoning
district that would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The
properties are all located with the Orderly Annexation Agreement
with Cascade Township and will be annexed in early 2006. They are
located north of 591h Street, west of Bendel Road NW, east of the
New Life Worship Center.
Backoround:
On November 21, 2005 the Planning Department asked that the City Council initiate a Land Use
Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendment on properties located north of 59" Street NW,
west of Bendel Road NW, east of the New Life Worship Center and south of 651" Street
NW/Overland Drive NW. All of the properties are included in the Joint Resolution/Orderly
Annexation Agreement that the City and Cascade Township entered into on May 17, 2004. In an
effort to "cleanup" the City limits in this section of the City, Staff will ask that the Council annex
these properties and the adjacent right-of-way at their meeting on January 9, 2006. Since most
of the properties already have uses on them it, it is felt that a zoning district other than the H
(holding) zoning district should be established on the property at the time of annexation.
In conducting a windshield survey of the properties, the properties that are development have
either a commercial or a light industrial use already established. The properties located to the
east of TH 52 are already designated for "industrial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area
Land Use Plan. The uses established on these lots consist of mini storage facilities, moving and
storage facilities, auto repair business, furniture upholstery shop, contractor's yards and other
similar uses. In addition, the surrounding properties (either to the south and north) are currently
zoned M-1 (mixed commercial -Industrial). The properties are currently zoned Industrial on the
Olmsted County Zoning Map except of the most northerly two which are zoned Highway
Commercial.
The properties located to the west of TH 52, south of 651" Street NW and along 341h Avenue NW
are designated of "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. The uses established on the lots consist of offices, playground equipments sales, light
manufacturing and other similar uses that would be typically permitted in the B-4 (general
commercial) zoning district- Two parcels are currently undeveloped. This area is currently zoned
Highway Commercial on the Olmsted Council Zoning Map,
BUILDING CODE 507/285-0345 • GIS(ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • wELUSEPTIC 507285.8345
FAX 507/267-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Analysis:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan includes locational criteria for four different
types of commercial centers. They are: 1) Neighborhood Shopping Centers (4-6 acres in size); 2)
Community Shopping Centers (15-25 acres in size); 3) Regional Shopping Centers (40+ acres
retail) and; 4) Highway Commercial Uses. Other types of commercial uses that are less easily
classified are also addressed for professional office use, business -serving commercial use,
isolated neighborhood -oriented commercial uses, and recreational commercial uses (see
attached).
Properties to the south (west of TH 52) went through a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone
Change in 2000 and 2002 to the "commercial" designation and the B-4 zoning district. At that
time staff used the locational criteria for "highway commercial' uses. Since the "highway
commercial' criteria was use on the adjacent properties it was felt the same locational criteria
should be used on these properties.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan states that highway commercial uses, which
include uses oriented primarily to serving the traveling public, such as gas stations, drive-in
restaurants, truck stops, motels, hotels, and so on, as welt as uses requiring large areas of
highway frontage, such as automobile dealerships, are most suitable in areas with the following
characteristics:
a) On major highway approaches with access to a frontage road (or in the case of
lodging establishments, in close proximity to major visitor attractions such as the
medical complex).
b) Having relatively level terrain.
c) Providing for concentration of similar uses.
d) Not detrimental to the safety or appearance of the surrounding area.
Sfaff Suagested Findings:
a) This property is located adjacent to T.H. 52 but is not located on a highway approach. With
the annexation of the properties, 34'h Avenue NW will be a City roadway which serves the
existing lots. With the existing approved roadway alignments on the properties to the south
and the existing residential developments further south, development of a frontage roadway
to 551h Street NE is very unlikely, therefore, access Is limited to the properties.
The recently adopted ROCOG 2035 Transportation Plan identifies a future interchange at 65ih
Street NW and Highway 52. As part of the ROC 52 project an overpass was constructed at
65'h Street as well as a north/south frontage road between 65'h Street and 751h Street on the
west side of TH 52. Also the City has recently completed the reconstruction of Bandel Road
which shifted its connection to Overland Drive further to the east.
b) This property has relatively level terrain.
c) Property to the south, which is currently undeveloped but recently had a final plat approved,
is zoned B-4 which would allow for the concentration of similar uses once development
occurs. Four of the six lots are already developed with commercial uses.
d) Development of this site should not change the appearance and character of the surrounding
area and the impacts are not expected to be detrimental. The properties are currently zoned
i�
highway commercial in Cascade Township and 4 of the 6 lots have existing businesses
located on them. The construction of an overpass and associated frontage roadways and
other roadways has significantly impacted the character of this area. Regulations in the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual will set forth minimal
performance standards and bufferyards that must be complied with.
Proposed Zoning for Consideration:
The B-4 (General Commercial) district is proposed for the properties located west of TH 52 and
the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial) is proposed for the properties located east of TH 52. The
properties are currently zoned either HC — Highway Commercial or I — Industrial on the County
Zoning Map in Cascade Township and existing uses consist mostly of commercial/industrial uses
Two of the parcels are undeveloped.
In preparing a recommended zoning map, staff took into consideration several factors, existing
uses on the lots, lot sized and dimensions, placement of existing building on lots, potential for
future additions.
Attached is a proposed zoning district map.
The amendment to the Rochester Zoning Map to establish zoning for this area is considered a
comprehensive amendment to the Official Zoning Map for the City of Rochester.
Criteria and Suggested Findings:
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.
Properties west of TH 52
Finding: The City has annexed (scheduled for January g") these properties since
they are 100 percent surrounded and there is an executed orderly annexation
agreement that allows the city to annex the property. Normally annexed property is
placed in the R-t (mixed single family) zoning district upon annexation; however,
existing commercial uses exist on most of the properties. A Land Use Plan
amendment Is being considered concurrently. If the Land Use Plan amendment from
"low density residential" to "commercial' is approved, zoning the property to the B-4
(general commercial) would be consistent with the "commercial' land use designation.
FA
Properties east of TH 52
Finding: The City has annexed (scheduled for January e) these properties since they
are 100 percent surrounded and there Is an executed orderly annexation agreement
that allows the city to annex the property. Normally annexed property is placed in the
R-1 (mixed single family) zoning district upon annexation. However, these properties
are designated for industrial land use on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. In order to be consistent with the RUSLUP designation these properties should
be zoned M-1 (mixed commercial -industrial). The adjacent properties are also zoned
M-1.
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
Both Areas
Finding: Most all of the properties are already developed with a commercial or
Industrial use on them so the uses would be compatible with the adjacent
properties. Permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning districts will be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and
any future redevelopment.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different
than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons Inconsistent with the
purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions
of courts In this state).
Both Arens
Finding; The proposed amendment does not Involve spot zoning. Adjacent
properties have the same zoning as what is proposed.
Staff Recommendation:
Contingent upon the City Council annexing the properties described in this staff, staff
recommends approval based on the above findings to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area
Land Use Plan to designate the properties located west of TH 52 for "commercial" types of uses,
as shown on the attached map.
r
Also, contingent upon the City Council annexing the properties described in this staff, staff
recommends approval based on the above suggested findings to zoning the properties to the B-4
(general commercial) and to the M-1 (mixed commercial -industrial) zoning district as shown on
the attached map.
ATTACHMENTS:
t. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Proposed Land Use Plan Map
4. Proposed Zoning Districts Map
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
staff -recommended findings, revising 2)a as listed below. Mr. Ohly seconded
The motion carried 6.1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay.
REVISED FINDING:
e property is well suited for uses in the B-4 zoning district and uses in the B-4 would be
a%oprizate on that property and compatible with the adjacent uses. The site and trafficthning on the east portion of the development. The proposed amendment doe�n
inof zonina.
Mr. Burke m ed to amend his original motion to recommend approval of mendment to
General Devel ent Plan #149 known as Hidden Oaks Valley and Ge al Development
Plan #210 known\to
Second and Third to add a condit! that "The
applicant must pand landscape plan at the time inal general
development play Council for a public hearing" Mr. Barry seconded
themotion. The .
CONDITIONS:
2. Development shall be phased to prc
3. The Controlled Access indicated on
rrence with adequate public facillt!es.
could not be considered to indicate all
Controlled Access that may be requ!' d for dev pment within this GDP.'.
of Controlled Access, in addition tyThose shown\pressure
, may b6 regL
determined through the platting ocess. A specie location'wo
but is not limited to, tie first 7 eet of the "Futureof-way" exten
from Overland. Drive NW.
4. Parkland dedication sh be met via cash in lieu o
5. The builders must' tall pressure -reducing devicdome wa
as required by t innesota Plumbing Code in thample
ressure a. sAdditionally, er main in the cul-de-sac streets ped and wa
must be ext ded to adjacent property per the requirements of RPU.
6. The ap ant must present a site plan and landscape plan at time of fill
devel ment plan action to the City Council for a public hearing.
:r meters
ion ensued regarding the general development plan being moved forward to the City
as a "final" action and that the site plan and landscape plan must be presented to the
at that time, according to Mr. Burke's added condition.
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11, and Zoning District Amendment #05.17 initiated by
the Rochester Common Council to amend the land designation on the Rochester Land
Use Plan of those properties located along 34th Avenue NW (currently designated for low
density residential uses) and the zone those properties, as well as the properties located
west of Bandel Road NW, to a zoning district that would be consistent with the Land Use
Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: Dccembcr 14, 2005
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated December B, 2005, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby stated that there is an area that is currently platted as right-of-way which should be
zoned 84 as this area will be eventually be turned back to the City. The area is located south
of Overland Drive NW, west of the realigned Bendel Road NW and east of the former Bendel
Road NW alignment.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment#05-11 initiated by
the Rochester Common Council with the staff -recommended findings. Mr. Burke.
seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.11
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-17`-initiated
by the Rochester. Common Council with the staff -recommended findings. Mr. Burke
seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Annual meeting — procedure to change scheduled date
Ms. Garness explained that the City Council had to move their meeting date to January 9, 2006,
which is when the Annual Meeting was to be held. Staff requested that the Commission make a
motion to suspend rules and procedure and schedule the Annual Meeting for January 23, 2006.
Mr. Ohly moved to suspend rules and procedure and schedule the Annual Meeting for
January 23, 2006`at Michael's Restaurant. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion
carried 6-0.
2. As may be brought up with members
No discussion items were brought forward.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Mr. Burke to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Wallace. Mr. Haeussinger,
Chair, adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
jig
Mr. Bob Haeussinger, Chair
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE- 1-9-f16
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
i i EM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #05-17 initiated by the Rochester Common
PREPARED BY:
Council to zone properties located west of Bendel Road NW, east of the New Life Worship
Brent Svenby,
Center and south of 65" Street NW/Overland Drive NW to a zoning district that would be
Senior Planner
consistent with the Land Use Plan. The properties are all located with the Orderly Annexation
Agreement with Cascade Township and will be annexed in early 2006.
<ez CPPPP�. wt } 4*--
December 30, 2005
U
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2005 to consider this zone change. Staff
noted that there was an area that is currently right-of-way located west of the realigned Bandel Road NW and east of the old
alignment of Bandel Road NW that should be placed in the B-4 zoning district. This area should have been included in the
staff report.
The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report dated December 8,
2005 and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings.
Motion by Mr. Ohly, seconded by Mr. Burke to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-17, with
staff•recommended findings. Motion carried 6-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
e attached staff report dated December 8, 2005
Council Action Needed:
The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision
on this zone change.
If the Council approves this 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
for the property
Attachments:,
1. Staff Report dated December 8, 2005
2. Minutes of the December 14, 2005 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Legal Description
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m, on Monday, January 9, 2006 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
-UNCIL ACTION:
ion By: Seconded By: Action:
M
500 ft. Notification Area of
parcels located along HWY 52
in Pt of the NW 1/4 Sec 9
Cascade TWP
sr
Proposed Zone Change #05-17
and Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11
City Council Initiated
Neighborhood Assoc: None
Council Ward: 3 (Jean McConnell)
11129/05
City Limits
m
F chester Zoning Map
.....................
....................
.o❖.•.00❖.❖o.❖.❖.❖.•o.�
.❖.❖oo❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.•.o•.
.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.00�
.....................
....................
...................
...................
.❖.❖.❖.❖.o❖.❖.❖.❖oe
...................
❖.❖o.❖.❖.❖.❖.o•,
..............
..............
o.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.�
..............
. aJ a �..� + • '
..: L��G� J a JJ .._ O ..�Yg• ..
��,.�:.•:.�A4?9.. .- ...�-aJ-c�_.O aa? as ly��:K ,� 7 j yRRi
ell I
-
a � a
1
................
J IaJ a� J
.. .:.. •......••.- .. .. .... �..•.. .. - : OJ ID J
as aaJa
�:..:- • : .:.:. ::. :. :.•, .. . J Ja J O a J Ja -• ,___J ,a J O
_..-.._•.._..-..-..•...................... .' a°J?`}.a Z tiaJJ J 'aJ?� •?/ /i i i/
/
RoctIESTER-OLitISTED PLANNING DEPAi(I'MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MIN 55904-4744
[""„„ OF www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
December 8, 2005
I jN{ •� -
J ) .
TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-11, and Zoning District Amendment
#05-17 initiated by the Rochester Common Council to amend the
land designation on the Rochester Land Use Plan of those
properties located along 34th Avenue NW (currently designated for
low density residential uses) and the zone those properties, as well
as the properties located west of Bandel Road NW, to a zoning
district that would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The
properties are all located with the Orderly Annexation Agreement
with Cascade Township and will be annexed in early 2006. They are
located north of 59`h Street, west of Bandel Road NW, east of the
New Life Worship Center.
Background:
On November 21, 2005 the Planning Department asked that the City Council initiate a Land Use
Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendment on properties located north of 591h Street NW,
west of Bandel Road NW, east of the New Life Worship Center and south of 65'h Street
NW/Overland Drive NW. All of the properties are included in the Joint Resolution/Orderly
Annexation Agreement that the City and Cascade Township entered into on May 17, 2004. In an
effort to "cleanup" the City limits in this section of the City, Staff will ask that the Council annex
these properties and the adjacent right-of-way at their meeting on January 9, 2006. Since most
of the properties already have uses on them it, it is felt that a zoning district other than the H
(holding) zoning district should be established on the property at the time of annexation.
In conducting a windshield survey of the properties, the properties that are development have
either a commercial or a light industrial use already established. The properties located to the
east of TH 52 are already designated for "industrial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area
Land Use Plan. The uses established on these lots consist of mini storage facilities, moving and
storage facilities, auto repair business, furniture upholstery shop, contractor's yards and other
similar uses. In addition, the surrounding properties (either to the south and north) are currently
zoned M-1 (mixed commercial -industrial). The properties are currently zoned Industrial on the
Olmsted County Zoning Map except of the most northerly two which are zoned Highway
Commercial.
The properties located to the west of TH 52, south of 65'11 Street NW and along 34'h Avenue NW
are designated of "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. The uses established on the lots consist of offices, playground equipments sales, light
manufacturing and other similar uses that would be typically permitted in the B-4 (general
commercial) zoning district. Two parcels are currently undeveloped. This area is currently zoned
Highway Commercial on the Olmsted Council Zoning Map.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224
,..,,.,,.,.., PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
C-1C7 ..,.i oni ini n�o..o., i,.,ir�,,. ee,oe�.,nve nrrinni eenel nveo
0
AnalVsis;
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan includes locational criteria for four different
types of commercial centers. They are: 1) Neighborhood Shopping Centers (4-8 acres in size); 2)
Community Shopping Centers (15-25 acres in size); 3) Regional Shopping Centers (40+acres
retail) and; 4) Highway Commercial Uses. Other types of commercial uses that are less easily
classified are also addressed for professional office use, business -serving commercial use,
isolated neighborhood -oriented commercial uses, and recreational commercial uses (see
attached).
Properties to the south (west of TH 52) went through a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone
Change in 2000 and 2002 to the "commercial' designation and the B-4 zoning district. At that
time staff used the locational criteria for "highway commercial' uses. Since the "highway
commercial' criteria was use on the adjacent properties it was felt the same locational criteria
should be used on these properties.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan states that highway commercial uses, which
include uses oriented primarily to serving the traveling public, such as gas stations, drive-in
restaurants, truck stops, motels, hotels, and so on, as well as uses requiring large areas of
highway frontage, such as automobile dealerships, are most suitable in areas with the following
characteristics:
a) On major highway approaches with access to a frontage road (or in the case of
lodging establishments, in close proximity to major visitor attractions such as the
medical complex).
b) Having relatively level terrain.
c) Providing for concentration of similar uses.
d) Not detrimental to the safety or appearance of the surrounding area.
Staff Suggested Findings:
a) This property is located adjacent to T.H. 52 but is not located on a highway approach. With
the annexation of the properties, 30 Avenue NW will be a City roadway which serves the
existing lots. With the existing approved roadway alignments on the properties to the south
and the existing residential developments further south, development of a frontage roadway
to 55th Street NE is very unlikely, therefore, access is limited to the properties.
The recently adopted ROCOG 2035 Transportation Plan identifies a future interchange at 65'h
Street NW and Highway 52. As part of the ROC 52 project an overpass was constructed at
651h Street as well as a north/south frontage road between 65'h Street and 75'h Street on the
west side of TH 52. Also the City has recently completed the reconstruction of Bandel Road
which shifted its connection to Overland Drive further to the east.
b) This property has relatively level terrain.
c) Property to the south, which is currently undeveloped but recently had a final plat approved,
is zoned B-4 which would allow for the concentration of similar uses once development
occurs. Four of the six lots are already developed with commercial uses.
d) Development of this site should not change the appearance and character of the surrounding
area and the impacts are not expected to be detrimental. The properties are currently zoned
highway commercial in Cascade Township and 4 of the 6 lots have existing businesses
located on them. The construction of an overpass and associated frontage roadways and
other roadways has significantly impacted the character of this area. Regulations in the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual will set forth minimal
performance standards and bufferyards that must be complied with.
Proposed Zoning for Consideration:
The B-4 (General Commercial) district is proposed for the properties located west of TH 52 and
the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) is proposed for the properties located east of TH 52. The
properties are currently zoned either HC — Highway Commercial or I — Industrial on the County
Zoning Map in Cascade Township and existing uses consist mostly of commercial/industrial uses.
Two of the parcels are undeveloped.
In preparing a recommended zoning map, staff took into consideration several factors, existing
uses on the lots, lot sized and dimensions, placement of existing building on lots, potential for
future additions.
Attached is a proposed zoning district map.
The amendment to the Rochester Zoning Map to establish zoning for this area is considered a
comprehensive amendment to the Official Zoning Map for the City of Rochester.
Criteria and Suggested Findings:
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.
Properties west of TN 52
Finding: The City has annexed (scheduled for January 9) these properties since
they are 100 percent surrounded and there Is an executed orderly annexation
agreement that allows the city to annex the property. Normally annexed property is
placed in the R-1 (mixed single family) zoning district upon annexation; however,
existing commercial uses exist on most of the properties. A Land Use Plan
amendment Is being considered concurrently. If the Land Use Plan amendment from
"low density residential" to "commercial" Is approved, zoning the property to the 8-4
(general commercial) would be consistent with the "commercial' land use designation.
Properties east of TH 52
Finding: The City has annexed (scheduled for January g`") these properties since they
are 100 percent surrounded and there is an executed orderly annexation agreement
that allows the city to annex the property. Normally annexed property is placed in the
R-1 (mixed single family) zoning district upon annexation. However, these properties
are designated for industrial land use on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. In order to be consistent with the RUSLUP designation these properties should
be zoned M-1 (mixed commercial -industrial). The adjacent properties are also zoned
M-1.
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
Both Areas
Finding: Most all of the properties are already developed with a commercial or
Industrial use on them so the uses would be compatible with the adjacent
properties. Permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning districts will be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and
any future redevelopment
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different
than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the
purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions
of courts in this state).
Both Areas
Finding: The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. Adjacent
properties have the same zoning as what is proposed.
Staff Recommendation:
Contingent upon the City Council annexing the properties described in this staff, staff
recommends approval based on the above findings to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area
Land Use Plan to designate the properties located west of TH 52 for "commercial' types of uses,
as shown on the attached map.
Also, contingent upon the City Council annexing the properties described in this staff, staff
recommends approval based on the above suggested findings to zoning the properties to the B-4
(general commercial) and to the M-1 (mixed commercial -industrial) zoning district as shown on
the attached map.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Proposed Land Use Plan Map
4. Proposed Zoning Districts Map
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1,
10
DATE: 1-9-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
EM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and renew Restricted
PREPARED BY:
Development Permit #05-06, by Rochester Sand and Gravel and Mathy
Mitzi A. Baker,
Construction. The applicant is proposing to extend the permit for a minimum of
Senior Planner
one year, and to make additional improvements to the existing Hot Mix Asphalt
plant including: extending the 130 foot stack another 30 feet; provide top of silo
containment and ductwork to capture fugitive air; and provide load -out
containment and ductwork to capture fugitive air. The property is located along
the east side of TH 63 S, south of 601h St. SE and northeast of "Machinery Hill".
716-12 ; rnMen a'�ty`� a s/« na fas
January 3, 2006 5tnf _<- y _(_
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On March 23, 2005 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider Restricted
Development #05-06. Mr. Wallace moved to recommend denial of Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and
renew Restricted Development Permit #05-06, by Rochester Sand and Gravel and Mathy Construction
with the below finding. Mr. Snyder seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Burke voting
nay.
FINDING:
The current solutions/conditions applied to the site are not being met and there is no proof that new
--nditions of approval would change the impact the business has on the neighboring properties.
eref ore, there is no reason to implement new conditions to renew the permit.
Council Action
Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either
approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Conditional Use Permit request based upon
the criteria included in the staff report.
Please see the attached staff report dated December 8, 2005, as well as the attached minutes from the Planning Commission
meeting.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 pm in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government
Center on Monday January 9, 2005.
--)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Andy Welti
State Representative
District 30B
Wabasha and Olmsted Counties
�y\,ppi.�rtn1114Minnesota
O
:,
House of
Representatives
COMMITTEES: AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 15. 2005
Margo and Bill Mestad
105 60th St SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Dear Margo and Bill Mestad,
Nearly one year ago, Margo and Bill Mestad contacted me to voice their concern about a vote that the
City Council was going to take granting a one-year permit for Mathy Construction. The vote was going
to allow the Hot Mix Asphalt facility (plant #53) to continue operation at its current location across from
60th St. SW and Hwy. 63 South.
After our initial phone conversation, I met with the Mestads at their home to see for myself where the
facility was located in relation to their home. It was winter and the facility was.not in operation. Margo
and Bill showed me a copy of the record they had been keeping as to the days that the odor from the
facility had drifted towards their home.
Following my visit to the Mestad home, I contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to find out
the history on the facility. I found out that the facility met the standard air quality tests. Although the
plant met the air quality standards, the odor of the air generated from the plant was still at issue. Having
viewed the location of the facility in relation to the homes of Bill and Margo Mestad, Mary Lou and Jim
Soukup, and the nearby homeowners, I could see that with a change in wind direction the odor could
become an issue. I told them to let me know when the odor became an issue so that I could better
understand what they were experiencing. Margo and Bill contacted me on two occasions during the
summer to let me know that the odor was an issue, but I was not able to visit them at the time of the calls.
On Saturday, November 5, 2005, I was able to visit the Mestad's home when plume from the Hot Mix
Asphalt facility was blowing toward their home. I did notice the odor in the air. Margo informed me that
she attempted to contact other elected officials but no one else was able to visit that day to experience the
odor. Therefore I wanted to inform you that I had detected the odor upon my visit.
Attempts have been made by Mathy Construction to mitigate the odor issue. While the attempts may
have led to some relief, an odor issue still exists. Mathy Construction has informed the Mestads that they
will be adding approximately 30 feet to the height of the stack and building a structure around part of the
facility to once again address the odor issue.
R.R. 2 Box 17, Plainview, Minnesota 55964 (507) 951-8857
State Office Building, 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul. Minnesota 55155-1298 (651)296-d378
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR ITEM
Imb
JANUARY 9, 2006 AGENDA
Mayor & Council
�-_Stevan Kvenvold
Gary Neumann
Terry Spaeth
Terry Adkins
Richard Freese
CALENDAR NOTES
FROM
MARGO MESTAD
op
n-
Sa
Cie
wa
�1.� d-� n r' "'�" � it �r /r �� Cif y•.
Glint 114,M�z� to ld uJr-n
a
61,1
r7cJtu�-Gu�rt �aI_l .L'f�! `cam. , d
LC ���,rliwG- ct. Ll-e o e�yt�-Lrxi.u..� trJ�.c cQa ram, �'rtP �✓uti� , %'�G:=;7 -L'
,
6 t Q Gam= eZXl/-&j X/11
4&n 4i� hoc. G c�o2 /4 . , 1
CZ
i
G
/�
lx -
Ct4�,q occaau�a
cl
Pn _,2 4L7tt� 0
tIR —`/z cv l Wv 1
Comments from Area Neighbors
MARY LOU SOUKUP
5905 Hay 63 So,
Rochester MN 55904
507.288.5339 mlouS01m5n.com
December 7, 2005
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
Rochester City Council
RE: Conditional Use Permit for HMA Facility
South Hwy 63, Rochester
Rochester Sand and Gravel/Mathy Construction, in their request for renewal of their
operating permit, are proposing to make more changes to their present facility. Please
note that changes made the past three asphalt seasons have not resolved the problems of
smell and pollution in our neighborhood. Mr. Pat Peterson stated one day this summer
(September 15) that the odor was "not acceptable." That was one day of many when
we've had unacceptable odors (see 2005 calendar attached).
This calendar contains our observations. In the lower left corner of each day we've noted
wind direction/speed as reported on KTTC-TV news. Significantly, please note that in
the month of November, for example, there is one notation of wind direction, and only
four days with odor problems., because the wind was mainly NW and we weren't
bothered by these odors even when the plant was operating. In contrast, during spring,
summer and early fall there are many notations of bad smells with a south or southeast
wind involved.
So far nothing has altered the problems as we all hoped. This facility simply does not
belong in a residential neighborhood.
Thank you for considering this statement.
Sincerely,
Mary Lou and Jim Soukup
RECEIVED
DEC 6 2005
RCCHESTER- CLaSTED
w�
T-
� 4n
r
s
0
Q -
Ln
C
C t
� aj V(�1I
O
t
Q
l<
N
W
v
=s?
E
z_
aco
wit,
d
l<
�q u m
so3 v, a�
Cif
s!
y�
l<
7
1
0
o
f
c
4
+
0
r�Im
`\ 3
9
3
3v
tJv
i
U,
n
173
5
NJ
"i ro G w a ��
MR
N
Wac
rJy�
SG
tog
0
_r.. �.
Q
-- n
W
C)
aG
<�
NNI
y W
mm
cc
m
C/tl
a
2 0
1
sw
f
N > V V l
Q
P C N - T
O W a N
l<
E�^
g
1
Cip
A
r
W
n
N
c, N
cr
n�' 1
0
C
J
�cs
w
4
tr
:r-'3 cAqq-T—'�
rSe
i
tNii p—a
l-
NN
vcwo'
�C
r
NN
c wrn�Nv�
� W� �•ti_ m �
1
j
o t
c
tJ
�
v
�-r p a
Ar r
I z t Lp
)� oo
Sa
maZ
9R
Ni
c
w
N
a
I
L_ _co
��- M1
e
r [
-j a
I
<
-Z i
C7
,.
�e
u ✓sum
�
o
W
Q
Ili
E
r
3
wl. A
n
N
w
i
N
-4
jpI
NJ
CG� L I
r
fA�
n � f
� N
6 �
'S
>6 i'ZZ O
r �
f +�cco
N
i
1
P b N ; m u 1
m N y V rn
coiOL
owu oNT a
I
N N —
V
m N A V Z
.NC Nllim"'iO O
WO m /��!
A V O W •"•� m JL.
vNim=aT a
N — N_
P .ONN
5
IrD
a
fD
Ln
a
a
&
w O
�
o
\
QI
{{
%
/
\\
�
) �
�
3
«
\fir co
\
!
q
3
p
g&�@a
# i� 3n L
a§5}~
7!§32
\T4
�
le
�
�
�
�
L
l
3
N
Vl
N
(A
N
W
s
Ni
-P
V
4
O
gm
i: Z V
O
N _ A T
3
� o
Z
V1 `�
m
WrD
s O.
N N —
W N T
owrn`o^�� D ^1 V
wN— LL tNii m-A `' D
rD
a d N Ln
N N — OL
T
L^
Vu
W -P,
i
V "
\
N
W
I feel that the Mestads, Soukups, and other nearby home owners affected by this stack have the right to
know how much longer the facility will be in place. I understand that the city has been granting one-year
extensions of the permit, leaving the homeowners without a definite answer as to how long the facility
will remain in the same location.
I also would urge Council members to work with the residents and Mathy Construction to find ways to
deal with the odor issue. Solutions could include moving the Hot Mix Asphalt Facility to the previous
site, moving it to a new site located further away from homes, or asking Mathy to pay for central air
systems to be installed in the affected homes.
The Mestads, Soukups, and many nearby homeowners have lived in this area for many years. The facility
was moved into place only three years ago. As City Council members in charge of renewing a permit for
this facility, I urge you to give. strong consideration to the concerns and recommendations that the
residents of the city of Rochester have regarding the Hot Mix Asphalt facility located in the quarry across
from 60`h St. SW and Hwy. 63 South,
Andy Welti
State Representative
®'-
0
}tut Illarlclt-Ol.�l,reu PI„���l.�c Dla\.�,.nlf:�r
21'2 C7r pu., ❑-,e SF. Su!w 100 4oche' r_ rL-! 55XJ 1,-14
0 o r, „ 0 F cr:•: 7r ,,,,d� cunl'i cow pl,wnrnr)
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: December 8, 2005
µpl ll l � i 116 t/11 l
RE: Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and renew Restricted Development Permit
#05-06, by Rochester Sand and Gravel and Mathy Construction. The applicant is
proposing to extend the permit for a minimum of one year, and to make
additional improvements to the existing Hot Mix Asphalt plant including:
extending the 130 foot stack another 30 feet; provide top of silo containment and
ductwork to capture fugitive air; and provide load -out containment and ductwork
to capture fugitive air. The property is located along the east side of TH 63 S,
south of 601h St. SE and northeast of "Machinery Hill".
Planning Department Review
Applicant:
Property Location:
Zoning:
Attachments:
Rochester Sand & Gravel, Div. Of Mathy Construction Co.
4105 E. River Road NE
Rochester, MN. 55906
South of 60th St. S. and east of T.H. 63 S. The property address is
5850 Highway 63 South, Rochester, MN 55904.
The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential).
LDM Excerpts
Referral Comments
Narrative Report (abbreviated version)
BACKGROUND & EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
In April 2003 the City Council approved a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit for a hot mix asphalt
facility/bituminous plant on this property. The application was approved to operate for two seasons, and the
permit expired January 31, 2005. The applicant had the opportunity to seek an extension of the 2003 permit, but
did not take action to do so prior to its expiration. The Council's action to approve this use for only two seasons
was to provide the opportunity to gather facts as to how the hot mix asphalt facility operation impacts the adjacent
property owners.
In February 2005, the applicant filed an application requesting approval of a Restricted Development Conditional
Use Permit to permit a hot mix asphalt plant on the property, which would in effect replace the previous permit.
The Planning Commission recommended approval with a 2 year limit to the permit (6-0). The CityCouncil
approved the permit in April 2005, subject to four conditions, including one that specified that the permit would
BWLOING CODE 507.285-8345 • 1i13,ADDFIeSSrIGDdAPPING 507i285-8232 • H0USING;11RA507.'285-8224
PLANfJINr;2CNIo4G 507285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-83d5
7`� FAX 507i287-2275
expire one year after the City Council's approval. This motion passed 5-2, and included waiving the Final Plan
phase.
OVERVIEW OF USEIPROPOSAL:
The hot mix asphalt (HMA) plant is located and proposed on property located east of TH 63 S, west of St. Bridget
Road/CR 20 and south of 601h St. BE. The Quarry property extends over several jurisdictions, including the City
of Rochester, High Forest Township and Rochester Township. The HMA plant site is in the City of Rochester
and therefore subject to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Access to this property is primarily from the north TH 63 quarry access. This access utilizes the existing frontage
read access which is across from the 60'1' St. SW access on TH 63. The frontage road also has a south access.
Secondary access to the property is from the east side of the quarry, at St. Bridget Road/CR 20. There should
be: no impact to residential roadways as a result of this application. Following the 2003 approval for a HMA plant
at this location, the applicant paved both accesses.
A layout of the HMA plant is included in the attached materials. Detailed explanation of the plan, equipment,
regulatory controls and monitoring were previously provided and are available upon request. The plant is
currently set-up and operational at this site.
The HMA plant operation includes the following:
• Addition of traffic from this site could be approximately 10 trucks/hour;
• Proposed hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday — Friday, and 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday, as needed;
• Import of materials originating off -site, as needed for producing and processing the bituminous;
• Three full-time employees for the operation of the HMA plant;
• Main components of the plant are the drum -dryer, silo, baghouse, tanks (liquid asphalt cement,
burner fuel and diesel fuel) and control house. In 2004 the applicant replaced the original "Parallel -
flow" asphalt plant with a "Double Drum" asphalt plant to make use of a different technology.
• Paved spill containment barrier to be installed beneath tanks to prevent contact between the product
and the ground.
• An extended baghouse stack to 130 feet above the quarry floor (completed in 2005)
• Installation of a charcoal filter system ("Demister") to capture the hot vapors escaping from the
asphalt cement and burner fuel tanks. This demister system operates 24 hours per day to capture
tank vapors exiting the tanks as they breathe. Captured vapors are processed in a charcoal filter
system. (completed in 2005)
With the current petition, the applicant is proposing to further amend the plant site to Include the
following additional improvements:
Extend the 130-foot stack another 30 feet to a total of 160 feet from the quarry floor. The applicant
anticipates this would reduce emissions by an additional 39 percent.
Provide top of silo containment and ductwork with a separate baghouse system to capture the
fugitive air from the slat conveyor and top of silos as it is carried from the mixing drum to the storage
silo.
Provide load -out containment and ductwork with a separate baghouse system to capture the fugitive
air from the truck load -out area, as provided in the Eau Claire HMA facility, to capture the air as the
truck is being loaded.
Please note that the Planning Department is not aware of any Conditional Use Permits issued by the City or
County for operation of the current quarry. The quarry was established many years ago and is considered a
grandfathered use. The proposal to establish a HMA plant at the site is a separate use of the property, which is
being proposed through the Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit process.
��I _'i01iU1
EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURE
The Restricted Development allows certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning
district on a permitted or conditional basis and which 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.
CRITERIA & ANALYSIS:
Since the Council previously approved this Restricted Development Permit, and waived the Final Plan Phase, this
petition to amend is being processed as an amendment to a Final Plan (Type III, Phase 111) with a review before
the Planning & Zoning Commission and a public hearing before the City Council.
Sections 62.706 and 62.708 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance set forth the standards upon which a Restricted
Development Final Plan is to be evaluated. The Council shall approve a permit it it finds that the development
has addressed and satisfied all of the applicable criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the final plan. Please see the attached excerpt from the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the applicable criteria.
The staff suggests the following findings for each of the Final Development Plan:
1) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The proposed hot mix asphalt (HMA) facility will not result in a need
for sanitary sewer or water facilities on -site. Electrical power needed for the facility is
available. Olmsted County Public Works will require the applicant to construct a right -turn and
by-pass lane on St. Bridget Road/CR 20.
b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards on the property.
e) Access Effect: Access to this property will be primarily from the north TH 63 quarry access.
This access utilizes the existing frontage road access which is across from the 60'" St. SW
access on TH 63. The frontage road also has a south access. Secondary access to the
property would be from the east side of the Quarry, at St. Bridget Road/CR 20. There should
be no impact to residential roadways as a result of this application. Following the 2003
approval of a CUP for an HMA plant at this location, the applicant paved both accesses.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian facilities and pedestrian circulation should not be
impacted by this proposal.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: This plant is not a permanent structure and the HMA site
sits on the floor of the quarry below grade and out of view from most of the surrounding area
(except for silos and stack). Foundation plantings would not be needed nor reasonable
considering the use and visibility of plantings that would be located near the equipment site.
f) Site Status: This criterion is not applicable to this project.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: This site offers unique opportunities for buffering and screening.
The height of the quarry wall directly west of the proposed site is approximately 100 feet. To
the north of the HMA site, the quarry wall drops to approximately 70 feet. Additionally, an
existing row of mature evergreen trees exists along a portion of the west property boundary,
t
between the north TH 63 entrance (across from the 6d" St. intersection with TH 63) and
Machinery Hill. Due to topography and design of the quarry it appears the HMA site would be
most visible from the east (i.e. east of St. Bridget Road'CR 20). From the west, the visible
portion of the HMA site would be the extended bag -house stack, which is proposed to be
approximately 130 feet above the quarry floor. Approximately the upper 30-60' would be
visible from the west.
h) Final Building Design: The final/proposed design would include increasing the height of the
existing stack from 130 feet above the quarry floor, to 160 feet above the quarry floor.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Internal loading and circulation patterns and site access are not
proposed to change from the previous approvals.
j) Ordinance Requirements: There should be adequate room on -site for employee parking and
internal circulation of truck traffic. This use will be subject to meeting the Industrial
Performance Standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
(Sec. 63.600 et. seq.).
In addition, this application is subject to the criteria for all conditional use permits, as identified in Section 61.146.
As identified in 61.146, the zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit
authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the findings with respect to the proposed development is
made as identified in 61.146.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a
development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with
respect to the proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on
the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a
significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental
to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers,
sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to
neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the
development.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public
streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage
the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access
to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site
plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards
provided by this paragraph.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses
within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of
conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such
as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has
not been secured by the applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This permit was approved by the City Council in April 2005 subject to the conditions listed below. If the
Commission and Council support permitting additional modifications of the Plant to further reduce off site
impacts, then the permit should be approved, subject to these same conditions.
1) Import of materials for processing shall be limited only to that necessary for the hot mix asphalt
facility.
2) This use will be subject to meeting the Industrial Performance Standards of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Sec. 63.600 et. seq.) including the standard applying to
odor in the M-1 and M-2 districts.
3) This permit shall expire one year after the Council's approval. The applicant must go through a
complete review process (public hearings) in order to renew the permit; and
4) No temporary use permit may be issued without Council approval
Note: The applicant is responsible for securing permits or approvals required by any other regulatory
agency prior to operating the HMA plant as proposed.
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL:
Multiple standards apply to evaluating this application. The following sections of the LDM apply to the
review of this application:
61.145 Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure that
it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area
surrounding its location; and that it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this
ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall
approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the
following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
9) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to
safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
10) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be
detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue
burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities.
11) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
12) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
13) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site
or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
14) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles.
15) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the
Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will
not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
16) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance
standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed
development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the
applicant.
61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a
Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications
or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure
compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146.
12/08/05
7
RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT:
62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a
preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all
the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the
public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for
unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712.
62.707 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall grant final approval
to a Type III Restricted Development if it finds that, in addition to satisfying the Preliminary
Development Plan Standards for Approval listed in the preceding paragraph, the
development has satisfied all the applicable criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(2) or a
modification for any unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712.
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve
with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following
criteria:
2) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area
are adequate to serve the proposed development.
b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as
unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the
development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the
Phase II plans.
c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement
of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the
existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site.
d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed
development:
1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential
streets;
2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets;
3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local
residential streets;
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will
not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual
improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent
streets have been identified where needed.
f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and
placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development. Factors to consider include:
1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a
majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year;
12/09/05
01
2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures
of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation.
g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are
related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for
permitted uses in the underlying zoning district.
h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the
preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable
orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed
are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding
residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas,
utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible
standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to
subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate
amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new
construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements.
k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density
and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the
established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the
development with its surroundings.
3) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the
requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have
been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside
from development.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as
to:
1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent
private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are
minimized;
2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise
from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles
entering or leaving the site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the
operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned
public improvements which will alleviate the problems have been provided.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians
can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and
�( I2/08/05
0
activities within the neighborhood area, and, where appropriate, accommodations
for transit access are provided.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared
which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of
the surrounding area.
Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future
maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the
completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to
guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and
landscaping.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains
earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs
identified in Phase I for the project.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles
identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and
Internal Site Design.
1) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and
circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of
design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage
and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility
and emergency access.
62.712 Modifications: The Council may waive the need to satisfy certain approval criteria during
the Type III review if it finds:
1) The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately compensates for
failing to address the criterion in question.
2) The strict application of any provision would result in exceptional practical difficulties to,
or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, provided the
modification may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the purposes of this ordinance or the policies of the Land Use
Plan.
�
r
-
l w.
w ;
Y
r, t
4
a
ai �
..��y 3�1
APPLICATION MATERIALS & INFORMATION
4105 East River Road NE
, MN 55906-3424
November 15, 2005
Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department
Attn: Mrs. Mitzi Baker
2122 Campus Drive, SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Renewal & Amendment Application to CUP 05-06
5850 Highway 63 South, Rochester
Dear Mrs. Baker,
Phone 507-288-7447
Fax507-252-3477
Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division of Mathy Construction Company, is applying for a
renewal, along with an amendment, of our CUP #05-06 currently in place to operate a hot
mix asphalt plant in the City of Rochester, High Forest Township, in Olmsted County.
The Criteria for Type III Development, as outlined in our letter dated February 22, 2005,
shall remain the same. (See Attachment # I for a copy of the letter.)
• This amendment request will not change the basic traffic flow, site layout and drainage,
plant layout, or plant capacity. Please reference our previous application for information
regarding our MPCA permits, Minnesota Emergency Response Commission notification,
Spill Prevention Plan, Daily Environmental Tracking forms, and our Environmental
Programs Resource Guide, all of which are not changing due to this Amendment
Proposal.
Since we have started operating under the current 2005 CUP # 05-06, we have
voluntarily made the following environmental improvements to the Hot Mix Asphalt
(HMA) processing plant:
As proposed in our previous application, the baghouse stack was extended to
130 feet above the quarry floor. (See attachment # 2 for an illustration of the
130 foot stack.)
In June, we installed a charcoal filter system (a "Demister", manufactured by
Ceco Corporation) to capture the hot vapors escaping from the asphalt cement
and burner fuel tanks. (See Attachment # 3 for an illustration of the installed
charcoal filter system.) This demister system operates 24 hours per day
capturing tank vapors exiting the tanks as they breathe. Captured vapors are
processed in a charcoal filter system.
• We feel these measures have exceeded our original intent and have been successful
beyond our initial expectations.
RECEIVED
NOV 16 ;005
i RGCr.ESTER- C,LMSTEJ
Mrs. Mitzi Baker
November 15, 2005
Page 2
As we move forward, we continue to work with the neighbors, addressing their concerns.
We are focusing on further improvement of the baghouse stack dispersal, as well as
capturing fugitive emissions from our Silo Truck Load -out and at the top of Silos, where
mix is transferred from the HMA drum to the storage and distribution silos. We propose
that the current CUP #05-06 be renewed for a minimum of one (1) year and amended to
include the following additional improvements:
1. Extend the 130-foot stack another 30 feet to a total of 160 feet from the quarry
floor. Our original stack extension measuring 130 feet total reduced
emissions by 80%. An extension of 30 additional feet (for a total of 160
feet) will reduce the current emissions by an additional 39%. To accomplish
the additional 30 foot extension, we have to boost the air system fan and
provide guywires from the stack for structural support.
2. Provide top of silo containment and ductwork with a separate baghouse
system to capture the fugitive air from the slat conveyor and top of silos as it
is carried from the mixing drum to the storage silo.
3. Provide load -out containment and ductwork with a separate baghouse system
to capture the fugitive air from the truck load -out area, as you were shown in
our Eau Claire HMA facility. Pictures of that facility are included for
illustration (see Attachment # 4). This would capture the air as the truck is
being loaded, but, of course, can not account for the vapors after the truck has
left the HMA facility.
By adding the proposed controls listed above, our plant will have engineering controls on
all possible aspects of this facility, providing control standards far exceeding HMA plants
operating in the Midwest.
We are respectfully submitting a request that the Rochester City Council waive the final
plan review.
Please find a check for the filing fee in the amount of $1,120.00, made payable to
Olmsted County, six (6) copies of the application documents, six (6) reduced size copies
of the site plans, and six (6) sets of Attachments 1,2, 3, & 4.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at (507) 288-7447 or via e-mail at
RECEIVED
Nov 16 2005
Pat Peterson
Vice President
Rochester Sand & Gravel
ATTACHMENTS
1��
Date: December 02, 2005
To: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner, Planning & Zoning
From: Pat Peterson, Division Manager, Rochester Sand & Gravel
Re: Questions & Responses to Rich Peter's questions dated 11-18-05
The following are our responses to Rich Peter's questions. I repeated the questions for
everyone's convenience. If you could pass them back, we would appreciate it.
Question #1: How many and how large are the spills of oils that have been associated
With the hot mix operation at this plant since it started operating?
Response #1: We have had one Asphalt Cement tank overflow at this HMA facility
since it started operating at this site in 2003. This spill consisted of approximately 1.35
tons of AC spilling onto the ground (caused by an un-seated valve & subsequent
overflow), cooling to ambient temperature, and easily cleaned up in a solid form.
Question #2: What is their system for storing and transferring the heavy oils into the hot
mix that controls fugitive emissions?
Response #2: We have 2 Asphalt Cement (AC) tanks on site totaling a storage capacity
of 50,000 gallons of AC on site. These tanks are kept heated at approximately 260
degrees and the AC is pumped directly into the HMA outer mixing drum during the
production process. Tanker trucks deliver the AC in approximately 7,000 gallon
increments. We also have a 15,000 gallon burning oil tank used to store fuel for the
HMA process.
We have installed a charcoal filter system to capture the hot vapors escaping from the AC
and burner fuel tanks. This demister system operates 24 hours per day during the
production season, capturing the fugitive vapors exiting the tanks as they breathe. These
captured vapors are processed in a charcoal filter system.
Question #3: What type and how effective are the drapes and covers for preventing
escape of fugitive hot mix fumes when mixing hot mix?
Response #3: The system we are proposing would enclose the top of the storage silos
with a sealed containment chamber. By creating negative pressure, the fugitive air from
the top of the storage silos and the HMA transfer conveyors are drawn into an
independent baghouse system. The containment system in place at our Eau Claire, WI,
HMA facility has shown that this technology is very effective.
N
Question #4: What type and how effective are the drapes and covers for preventing
escape of fugitive hot mix fumes when transferring hot mix into waiting trucks?
Response #4: We would enclose the sides of the loading area (long enough to contain
the whole truck) and install ductwork to allow us to capture the fugitive air as the HMA
falls from the storage silo into the truck. The load -out enclosure ends are not sealed, but
the fugitive air is drawn inward by another independent baghouse. Again, our load -out
containment system in place at our Eau Claire Hot Mix Asphalt facility has shown that
this technology is very effective.
Question #5: What type and how effective are the drapes and covers for preventing
escape of fugitive hot mix fumes from the loaded transport truck as they leave the plant
site?
Response #5: Most of the HMA trucks use a tarp system that is placed over the top of
the load after leaving the load -out containment. It is our Company policy for trucks to
tarp every load, but, unfortuneately, we cannot enforce the City, County, or other
customers to tarp their loads as it is not a state law. While these tarps help to contain the
heat and fugitive air, they are not totally sealed and some fugitive air will leave these
trucks as they travel down the roadway. This is the standard of the industry.
Question #6: What type and how effective are the drapes and covers for preventing
escape of fugitive hot mix fumes from residual products left in the returning emptied
transport trucks?
Response #6: Empty trucks do not cover their boxes. The fugitive air is generated from
the HMA, which is usually around 270 degrees as it is carried to the laydown crews. The
empty truck cools very rapidly to ambient temperatures and is consequently no longer a
source of fugitive hot mix fumes.
In July we took representatives from the Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council,
and a citizen from the Environmental Commission to witness and observe our Eau Claire
HMA facility while it operated. They were able to make their own assessments of the
effectiveness of the air controls we have in place there and are proposing to install under
the CUP #05-06.
If you have any additional questions, I can be reached via e-mail at ppeterson@mathy.com.
It would be best to run any questions through Planning & Zoning for proper
documentation.
D
4105 East River Road NE
Rochester, MN 55906-3424
ATTACHMENT #1
February 22, 2005
Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE , Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Type III, Phase II Development Application
Criteria for Type III Development
RECEID
NOY 1 6 2005
ft=WIt
Phone 507-288-7447
Fax507.252-3477
IA) Capacity for Public Facilities: Existing line -power of capacity capable of handling energy
needs exists on site. No water or sewer utilities are required for the HMA operation.
IB) Geologic Hazards: No geological hazards exist on the site, using stable quarry floor as
foundation for HMA plant.
1C) Natural Features: The HMA plant has been constructed in an existing quarry, which will
predominantly screen and shelter the operation from surrounding neighbors. Also a
vegetative berm extends along the northwest site of the quarry to aid as a visual and sound
barrier.
ID) Residential Traffic Impact: Traffic for the HMA plant operation will use State Highway 63
as the primary road. Access to State Highway 63 is by frontage road located on the east side
of State Highway 63. This frontage road is used by three other Businesses located on the
south end of the frontage road. There is a second access point to State Highway 63 at the
south end of the frontage road. The volume of traffic generated by the HMA operation will
have no effect of the business that shares access to the frontage road.
1E) Traffic Generation Impact: Traffic generated by the HMA operations is estimated to be about
10 +/- trucks per hour of operation, on average. This traffic already exists, having been
shifted from the St. Bridgets Road operation prior to 2003 to this location since May of 2003.
This volume of trucks should have no adverse impact on the Capacity of State Highway 63.
Criteria for Tvpe III Development (pace 2)
1F) Height Impacts: Placement of HMA plant will be within an existing limestone quarry with
highwalls of 70 to 100 feet. The HMA plant will be predominantly screened from view by
these quarry highwalls from the West, with the exception of the proposed extended bag -house
stack.
1 G) Setbacks: No setbacks are required at this site.
1H) Internal Site Design: HMA plant layout is explained in more detail in Section 2 of submitted
application booklet.
1I) Screening and Buffering: Locating HMA plant inside the limestone quarry creates a natural
screening and buffering environment. The quarry highwall and vegetative berms screen the
operation from view and also is an effective tloise buffer for the HMA operation. The
majority of residences of the area are located on the west side of State Highway 63 and
screened from view by these quarry highwalls and vegetative berms..
11) Ordinance Requirements: All employee parking is located on site. We will not exceed the
maximum noise levels provided for in the Ordinance.
IK) General Compatibility: Surrounding business are industrial in nature. There is an active
limestone quarry at the HMA site.
Sincer 1 ,
/� (— A��
Pat Peterson.
Vice President, Rochester Sand & Gravel
Attac meat ,42 �o
130' Baghouse Stack
Approximately 100 feet of stack extension was
added to the existing baghouse stack in the
spring of 2005 in a effort to increase stack
emission dispersion. The current stack height
is 130 feet above the quarry floor.
U
64
Cd
Ct3
o
s
�
e�
c
CZ
EL
a.>
aj
cs
nj
r
CA
ti
O
00
C
N
>
v
acz
o
y
4-
L
Cn
C' i
U
d
U
0.
cn
+�''
♦V
>
+-�
A
>
y
ci
c;3
th
d.%
U
++
En
c�
CAS
t�
U
Ln
}'
cz3
�6 I
L
M
O
JZ
t-0
C43
Pi
I
\A'
REFERRAL COMMENTS
kos
cpT o
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6
2900 48" Street N.W.
Rochester, MN 55901-5848
December 1, 2005
Jennifer Gamess
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Office Tel: 507-280-3188
Fax: 507-285-7279
E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us
RE: Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and renew Restricted Development Permit #05-06,
by Rochester Sand and Gravel by Mathy Construction. The applicant is proposing to
extend the permit for a minimum of one year, and to make improvements to the existing
Hot Asphalt plan. The property is located along the east side of TH 63 S, south of 601s St.
SE and northeast of "Machinery Hill."
Amendment to Final Plat #03-I1 to be known as Maine Street Development by Maine
Street Development of Rochester LLC. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 98.89
acres of land into 11 lots for commercial -industrial development and 11 Outlots. The
plat also dedicates public right-of-way for public roadways. The property is located east
of TH 63, north of 4816 Street SE and west of St. Bridget Road.
US 63 CS 5509
Dear Ms. Gayness:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has received for review the
above described amendments to developments along US Highway 63. These
proposals are consistent with previous reviews and are acceptable with Mn/DOT.
d 1 is should be monitored by the City of Rochester for cumulative
These eve opmen
impacts to US 63.
If there are any questions, you may contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner, at (507)
285-7369 or Debbie Bement, Transportation Specialist, at (507) 281-7777.
Sincerely,
`�
Chris Moates
District 6 Planning Director
cc: Rochester Sand & Gravel, a division of Mathy Construction Co.
4105 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906
Maine Street Development Company of Rochester LLC
4325 Garden Court SE, Rochester, MN 55904
Debbie Bement
Fred Sandal
Tracy Schnell
File
\� 3
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, December 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the
Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Robert Haeussinger, Chair; Mr. Jay Burke, Vice Chair; Mr. Jesse
Wallace; Mr. Paul Ohly; Mr. Vince Barry; and Mr. Bruce Snyder
Members Absent: Ms. Leslie Rivas; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; and Mr. Michael Quinn
Staff Present: Mr. Brent Svenby and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney
SET ORDER OF AGENDA:
Mr. Burke moved to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. Snyder seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr. Wallace moved to remove Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and renew
Restricted Development Permit #05-06, by Rochester Sand and Gravel and Mathy
Construction from the consent agenda. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Barry made a motion to approve the November 9, 2005 minutes. Mr. Burke
seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
REVIEW ITEM (taken off of the consent agenda as stated above):
Type III, Phase III Petition to amend and renew Restricted Development Permit #05-06, by
Rochester Sand and Gravel and Mathy Construction:
Mr. Wallace stated that the permit was before the Commission approximately 9 months ago. At
this time, there is no reason that the proposed changes would have a significant improvement
with regard to odor, noise, etc.
Mr. Burke explained that he did some research checking with neighbors, builders, and
developers questioning if there was a significant change in odor, noise, etc. There is
consideration of sending a petition around to gather further information.
Mr. Wallace stated that, during the summer, he drove to Stewartville several times. He
explained that the odor was obvious while driving, even with the window closed.
J
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
Mr. Haeussinger concurred with Mr. Wallace. He explained that he was reluctant to deny the
request, but also had reservations about approving it. To him, it appeared that this would be the
last and final attempt at fixing the issues.
Mr. Burke stated that, if the applicant had not brought forth a proposal to improve the
environmental issues, he would also be hesitant to approve the request. However, the proposal
is trying to address odor, noise, etc. He explained that it did seem as though it is the final
attempt to solve the problems. If it did not solve the current problems/concerns, it could be
concluded that the business is not placed in the correct site location.
Mr. Wallace and Ms. Alfredson discussed findings that current solutions/conditions applied to
the site are not being met and that there is no proof that new conditions of approval would
change the impact the business has on the neighboring properties. Therefore, there is no
reason to implement new conditions to renew the permit.
Mr. Haeussinger explained that the City Council has the final decision and that they would take
public testimony.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Mr, Brent Svenby presented the staff report,
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsti
With no one else wishing to be heard,
Mr. Svenby stated that a fax was
2005. This fax is on file at the Rc
December 1, 2005, to the Commission. The
fining Department.
inger closed the public hearing.
Jacobsen, & Stevens dated December 13,
@nning Department.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend ap oval of Land Nse Plan Amendment #05-08, initiated
by the Rochester Planning and. Zo g Commission, with the staff -recommended
findings. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1 /9/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
G
vI DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY KIN
J�
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
None Scheduled
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: