HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 3
REGULAR
MEME OF ALLEGIANCE
PAGE
1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
0- 0 3
FEBRUARY 6, 2006
7:00 P.M.
3-4 D)
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
5-12
2)
Sales Tax Funding for UCR/RCTC Sports Stadium Project
13-16
3)
Approval of Employment Agreement and Release for Previous City
Employee, Orville Woodruff
17-18
4)
Advertise for Bids for Perimeter Fencing Project at the Rochester
International Airport
19-20
5)
Professional Services Agreements for Perimeter Fencing Project at the
Rochester International Airport
21-22
6)
Change Order #1 for 2005 Airfield Runway and Electrical Improvements
Project
23-24
7)
Change Order #1 for 2005 Runway 13-31 Navigational Aids Construction
Project
25-26
8)
Professional Services Agreements for Maintenance Facility Expansion at
the Rochester International Airport
27-28
9)
Professional Services Agreement for Environmental Projects at the
Rochester International Airport
29-30
10)
Certify Applicants to Fill Vacant Third Ward Councilmember Position
31-34
11)
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities
35-36
12)
Name Change for the Sand Trap
37-38
13)
Approval of Accounts Payable
39-40
14)
Resolution Calling for a Hearing to Consider Issuance of Revenue Bonds
on Behalf of Mayo Foundation
41-44
15)
Investment Performance Report— December, 2005
45-46
16)
Acceptance of Donation — Fire Department
.y.y
Council Agenda
Monday, February 6, 2006
Page 2 of 4
47-50
17)
Promotional Appointment — Police Sergeant — Rochester Police
Department
51-52
18)
Wetland Replacement Plan — Prairie Crossing West, Menard's North
53-54
19)
FY2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant — JAG Grant
55-62
20)
Feasibility Report for the Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various
Locations — J4609
63-64
21)
DNR Local Trail Connections Grant Funds Solicitation
65-66
22)
Development Agreement — Century Hills South Development First
Supplemental Amendment
67-68
23)
Real Estate — Property Acquisition Authorization for the Elfred Fullerton
Sanitary Sewer Relief Line (J2175)
69-76
24)
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7743) 7" Street NW
from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge #55529
77-78
25)
Advertise for Bids: (J6526) Storm Sewer Along 2nd Street S.W. along
Grandville Frontage
79-80
26)
Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Overland Pointe —J5186
81-82
27)
Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Serve Kingsbury Hills Eighth —
J5201
83-84
28)
Real Estate — Settlement for Right of Way Acquisition for 20th Street SE
Sewer Project (J-9869)
85-86
29)
Revocable Permit for existing buildings on drainage and utility easements
in The Gardens
87-88
30)
Advertise for Bids: (J2588) Demolition of Buildings located at 300 18t
Street NE
89-90
31)
Development Agreement — Hunter Pointe Development
91-92
32)
Development Agreement— Morris Hills Development
93-94
33)
Development Agreement —Morris Hills North Development
95-96
34)
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
97-98
35)
2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 5
99-100
36)
2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 2
E) HEARINGS
101-108 1) Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the City of Rochester to Finance the
Acquisition and Equipping of a Public (Charter) School Project (Studio
Academy High School).
109-112 2) Obtaining Evidence Relating to a Graffiti Ordinance Violation Upon the
Property Located at 1756 Tenth Avenue S.E.
113-116 3) Establishing Development District No. 33, Development District Tax Increment
Financing District No. 33-1, and Adopt the related Tax Increment Financing
Plan.
117-132 4) The Gardens Manufactured Home Park — Notice of Closing
-r.
Council Agenda
Monday, February 6, 2006
Page 3 of 4
133-146 5) Continued Hearing on Land Use Amendment #05-06 by The Gardens LLC to
amend land from Industrial to Low Density Residential and from Industrial to
Medium Density Residential on property located along the south side of 40`h
Street S.E, along the east side of St. Bridget's Road S.E. and along the north
side of 45`h Street S.E.
147-152 6) Continued Hearing on Zone Change Petition #05-12 by The Gardens LLC to
change the zoning from M-1 to R-2 and R-3
153-182 7) Continued Hearing General Development Plan #261 by The Gardens LLC to
be known as The Gardens
183-196 8)
Continued Hearing on Amendment to Restricted Development Final Plan #99-
21 and #00-20 known as The Gardens by The Gardens LLC to amend the
approved plans to allow for the modifications to R-2 setback standards and
dwelling widths
197-206 9)
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08 initiated by the Rochester Planning and
Zoning Commission to amend the designation of land located along the east
side of St. Bridget Road and south of 40'h Street S.E. from industrial to
commercial
207-212 10)
Zoning District Amendment #05-14 initiated by the Rochester Planning and
Zoning Commission to amend the desination of land located along the east
h
side of St. Bridget Road and south of 409 Street S.E. from M-1 to B-1.
213-224 11)
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 by Prairie Crossing, LLC to amend to
commercial and mixed commercial -industrial on property located west of TH
52 and north of 65`h Street.
225-230 12)
Zoning District Amendment #05-13 by Prairie Crossing, LLC to amend the
designation to commercial and M-1 on property located west of TH 52 and
north of 651h Street.
231-282 13)
General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie Crossing West by
Prairie Crossing LLC
283-284 14)
Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South by Arcon Development, Inc.
285-290 15)
Vacation Petition #06-01, Channel One Food Bank and Food Shelf to vacate a
portion of a 15 foot wide utility easement located on the westerly side of Lot 4,
Block 2, Woodlake Park and located along the north side of 35`h Street S.E.
and west of Wood Lake Drive S.E.
291-298 16)
Annexation Petition No. #05-19 by Girl Scout Council of River Trails for
property located south of 8th Street S.W. and southwest of the Meadow Lakes
Estates Development.
299-300 17) Consider the Expansion of Residential Permit Parking Zone 6 on 6" Avenue
S.W. between 81h Street S.W. and 9`h Street S.W.
301-302 18) Annexation Petition No. #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix. The applicant is
proposing to annex approximately 1.46 acres of land located south of 19`h
Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks in
part of the Northwest '% of the Southwest '% of Section 29 of Cascade
Township.
Council Agenda
Monday, February 6, 2006
Page 4 of 4
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
303-304 1) Development Assistance Agreement with Residences of Old Town Hall,
LLC
305-306 2) Reconsider action on Final Plat #05-36, Valleyhigh Fourth Subdivision
307-316 3) Request to Clarify a Condition from Item E-2 from the July 18, 2005 City
Council Meeting regarding the Council Decision on Type III, Phase 1
Appeal #05-03 by Todd Powers DBA Pints Pub
G) RESOLUTIQNS AND ORDINANCES
317-318
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
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 followin@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.
�J
L "
Ij
:i
COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by Second by. to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING )
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D-1-36
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 you wish to have removed from the consent agenda
approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this
meeting consists of the following RCAs:
1)
Approval of Minutes
2)
Sales Tax Funding for UCR/RCTC Sports Stadium Project
3)
Approval of Employment Agreement and Release for Previous City Employee,
Orville Woodruff
4)
Advertise for Bids for Perimeter Fencing Project at the Rochester International
Airport
5)
Professional Services Agreements for Perimeter Fencing Project at the Rochester
International Airport
6)
Change Order #1 for 2005 Airfield Runway and Electrical Improvements Project
7)
Change Order #1 for 2005 Runway 13-31 Navigational Aids Construction Project
8)
Professional Services Agreements for Maintenance Facility Expansion at the
Rochester International Airport
9)
Professional Services Agreement for Environmental Projects at the Rochester
International Airport
10)
Certify Applicants to Fill Vacant Third Ward Councilmember Position
11)
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities
12)
Name Change for the Sand Trap
13)
Approval Of Accounts Payable
14)
Resolution Calling for a Hearing to Consider Issuance of Revenue Bonds on
Behalf of Mayo Foundation
15)
Investment Performance Report— December, 2005
16)
Acceptance of Donation — Fire Department
17)
Promotional Appointment — Police Sergeant — Rochester Police Department
18)
Wetland Replacement Plan — Prairie Crossing West, Menard's North
19)
FY2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant — JAG Grant
,A pr
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
February 2, 2006
Page 2
20)
Feasibility Report for the Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various Locations —
J4609
21)
DNR Local Trail Connections Grant Funds Solicitation
22)
Development Agreement — Century Hills South Development First Supplemental
Amendment
23)
Real Estate Property Acquisition Authorization for the Elfred Fullerton Sanitary
Sewer Relief Line (J2175)
24)
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7743) 7a Street NW from 13t"
Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge #55529
25)
Advertise for Bids: (J6526) Storm Sewer Along 2"d Street S.W. along Grandville
Frontage
26)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Overland Pointe — J5186
27)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Kingsbury Hills Eighth — J5201
28)
Real Estate — Settlement for Right of Way Acquisition for 20t" Street SE Sewer
Project (J-9869)
29)
Revocable Permit for existing buildings on drainage and utility easements in The
Gardens
30),
Advertise for Bids: (J2588) Demolition of Buildings located at 300 1st Street NE
31)
Development Agreement — Hunter Pointe Development
32)
Development Agreement — Morris Hills Development
�• 33)
Development Agreement — Morris Hills North Development
"'• 34)
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
35)
2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 5
36)
2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 2
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING - /
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM NO.
b
ITEM DESCRIPTION: SALES TAX FUNDING FOR UCRJRCTC SPORTS STADIUM
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
G. NEUMANN
Last fall the Council authorized $50,000 for a market analysis/feasibility study and a detailed cost
estimate for the UCR/RCTC sports stadium/wintertime dome project. Representatives of
UCR/RCTC met with the Council at the 1/23/06 Committee of the Whole meeting to present the
architect's predesign cost estimate and results of the consultant's market and operations analysis.
The RCTC representatives indicated that the market analysis was favorable for the project. In
addition they pointed out that the recommendation was to proceed to construct the $6.7 million project
in two phases, with some limited fund-raising required for phase one, but phase two is 100%
contingent on fund :raising efforts.
The first phase, estimated at $4.3 million would consist of the construction of the sports turf field,
bleachers for 1500, limited concession facilities and restrooms, and would include the wintertime
inflatable dome. Sales tax funding of $3.45 million was requested for this first phase. This was
intended to be the total amount of sales tax funding to be requested for the project, with no additional
sales tax funding for subsequent phases. Some fund-raising may also be needed for the first phase
of improvements. The second phase would include additional bleachers, lighting improvements and
other improvements. The Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation would lead the
fund-raising efforts.
A representative of the Greater Rochester Area University Center Board was in attendance and noted
-t°that GRAUC did support the provision of the $3.45 million in sales tax funding for the project as a
'one-time amount with no additional sales tax funding for subsequent phases
If approved, the provision of the $3.45 million in sales tax funding for the sport stadium project would
be contingent upon evidence that the remaining private funds from the fund-raising efforts for phase 1
are available to complete the first phase improvements.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED.
Authorize $3.45 million in sales tax funding for phase 1 of the stadium project contingent upon
evidence from RCTC that sufficient funds are available to complete the phase 1 improvements and
contingent upon Park Board approval of an operating agreement with RCTC for usage of the facility.
6�L
�
➢✓,�..,.+"��
�/� �' C�.tic� �(,.
//J{/"f"�`� pia
U
rYLLz+-a-'--s
&M x
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to:
�0..
h Y
k
c
�f
4
Sd
.H
�1
^a
t ri
Y
i
1
74
i
IME
29=
MW*�
IZZ
'77N
q
p
=3 U)
Q' 4-a
Q O O ` N
-O O O O 4=.
U O O C
m M M N
U U �
0 0o cn
c� co
T
■ � � .' fit '� x � � � � J%'
11
O
m cD
-a N
O +j
O t6
CD E E
O o E
c� 2-0a)
W
.0 pL N L- CN
^i rt.-aa) 3: U) N^ O a)O N
U U
/1/ ■ ■ ■
U
N
N
_A
m
ccr
M
L
'U
'm
O
L
N
�
C
U)
L
U.
clJ
X
Q
_0
_
C
_
4-
C
O
U)
0-
O
a
N
c
-Z5
a
�
C
o
.>
Q
o
L
(n
o06
o
=
°•�
o=
o
0UMER
0
—
�cz
MOMMM■_
0
ONSON
m
o
�—
M�
Q
N:
Efl
Ef}
(n
K}
M
6q
LL
NN
m-S i 'V Y'L, �'✓<d ���F�_v� Yu�-0d�:+k�n� `FC }�' M"FY V,
Ptfi �.
_.
0
CD
4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
-
MEETING i'�,
DATE: 2/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
(""SENT
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
I I > Ni DESCRIPTION: Approval of Employment Agreement and Release for Previous
PREPARED BY:
City Employee Orville Woodruff
TERRY ADKINS
The City has agreed to an Employment Agreement and Release with a former city employee, Orville
Woodruff. This Agreement occurs as part of a larger workers' compensation settlement. This Agreement
outlines the conditions by which the City and Mr. Woodruff terminated the employment relationship. I
enclose a copy of the Agreement. The conditions contained in this Agreement are similar to conditions
agreed -to in previous cases.
The City Administrator and Public Works Director recommend the Council approve the execution of this
Agreement. "
Council Action Requested
Motion to approve the execution of the Employment Agreement and Release concerning former city
employee Orville Woodruff.
.r•
GuLJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to.
\k
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement") is entered into this 1 0 day of January, 2006
between Orville Woodruff ("Employee") and City of Rochester ("Self -Insured Employer").
RECITALS
1. Orville Woodruff has commenced a workers' compensation action against City of Rochester
alleging the he is entitled to certain workers' compensation benefits as a result of an alleged
work -related injury occurring on or about 8/29/03, arising out of and in the course of his
employment with City of Rochester.
2. Orville Woodruffiaitd City of Rochester have agreed to settle Orville Woodruffs workers'
compensation action on mutually agreeable terms, by the signing of a separate Stipulation for
Settlement; to be filed with the Department of Labor & Industry, Workers' Compensation
Division.
3. The purpose of this agreement is to resolve,, potential employment disputes, if any, between the
parties relating to and arising from Orville Woodruff employment with City of Rochester.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the recitals stated above and mutual promises made below, and specifically in
consideration of the workers' compensation settlement made between the parties, as well as in
consideration of the payment by City of Rochester of S 100.00 to Orville Woodruff, the parties agree as
follows:
�• 1. Temrination Date
The Employee represents, understands, and agrees that his employment was terminated on or
about November 10, 2004("termination date").
2. Non -Admission of Liability
Nothing in this agreement is intended to be, nor shall be deemed to be, an admission of liability
on the part of City of Rochester that it has violated any state or federal statue, local ordinance or
principle of common law, or that it has engaged in any wrongdoing.
Waiver and Release
In consideration of the promises and undertakings stated herein, Orville Woodruff, on his own
behalf and on behalf of his insurers, heirs, agents, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns, agrees to and hereby does release and forever discharge City of Rochester and its
insurers, predecessors, successors, parent companies, subsidiaries, heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns, employees, past and present officers, shareholders, directors, owners,
agents, attorneys, and representatives, of and from all causes of action, suits and claims. Orville
Woodruff shall not authorize any other party, governmental or otherwise, to institute any claim
for damages through administrative or legal proceedings, and agrees that if he does so, the
released parties shall be entitled to damages, including attorney's fees, for breaching this
Agreement. He agrees to release all claims arising under the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
Minn. Star. § 363.01 et sec.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. C. § 2000 et se . (as
1�
amended); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S. C. § 621 et sea.; the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12191 et sea.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Family and Medical Leave
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, 29 U.S.C.§ 1001 et seq.; and any contract, quasi contract, statutory or tort claims,
whether developed or undeveloped, arising from or related to City of Rochester's hiring of him,
his employment with City of Rochester and cessation of his employment with City of Rochester,
and any other claim prior to the execution of this Agreement. He acknowledges that he has not
been discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity or religion.
4. Invalidity/Severability
In case any one 9r more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be found to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable intaity respect, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions
contained in this Agreement will not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
Rescission
Orville Woodruff has been informed of the right to rescind this Agreement as far as it extends to
potential claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et se .
(prohibiting discrimination in employment), and as set forth above in paragraph 3, by written
notice to City of Rochester within seven (7) calendar days following the execution of this
Agreement. To be effective, notice of rescission or revocation must be in writing and must be
delivered either by hand or mail to Terry L. Adkins, Rochester City Attorney, 201 4t° Street SE,
Rochester, MN 55904 within the seven (7) day period. If the notice of rescission or revocation is
delivered by mail, it must be: (1) postmarked within the seven (7) day period; (2) properly
addressed to Terry L. Adkins, Rochester City Attorney as set forth above; and (3) sent by
certified mail return receipt requested. This Agreement shall not become effective or enforceable
.., until the seven (7) day period described above has expired. Orville Woodruff has also been
+_ informed that the terms of this Agreement shall remain open for acceptance by his for at least
twenty-one (21) days, during which time he may consider whether to accept this Agreement.
6. Voluntary and KnowingAction
Orville Woodruff acknowledges that he has read and understood the terms of this Agreement and
that he has voluntarily entered into this Agreement to resolve his disputes against City of
Rochester.
7. Consultation with Counsel
Orville Woodruff acknowledges that he has been advised to consult with an attorney prior to
signing this Agreement.
8. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the United
States in the State of Minnesota.
9. Counterparts
This Agreement shall be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and same instrument.
�q
J
10. References
Except as required by Minn. Statue § 13.43, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
by reference, the City of Rochester shall respond to inquiries made by third parties outside the
City of Rochester for an employment reference on Employee by providing only dates of
employment and position(s) held.
11. Confidentiality
Except as required by Minn. Statute § 13.43, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
by reference, Orville Woodruff agrees that the fact of this Agreement and its negotiations and
terms, including4bM not limited to the amount or general magnitude of the monetary payment
herein and the fact of the monetary payment and all other terms of this Agreement, will be treated
as a strictly confidential matter between the parties and will not be released or disclosed to any
other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed on the day
and year first above written.
City of Rochester, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation
By
Its Mayor
., Attest
Its City Clerk
Date:
Date: / — /(. — (/ '�.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 02/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Rochester International Airport
j) , f
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids for Perimeter Fencing Project at the Rochester
PREPARED BY:
International Airport.
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Advertise for bids for Perimeter Fencing Project at the Rochester International Airport. This project has
both security and safety (wildlife prevention) benefits. We have been contacted by the FAA and told to
expect discretionary money for this project. This project is in the CIP. City Project #6971
t
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
C --- ;CILACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for this project.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 02/06/06
A SECTION:
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreements for Perimeter Fencing Project at the
Rochester International Airport.
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
NO.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
1. Execute a professional services agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. for plans/specifications and
construction documents.
2. Execute a professional services agreement with ACSG, Inc. for project administration to include federal
grant administratioh,-closeout documents and construction oversight.
This project is in"the CIP and has both security and safety (wildlife prevention) benefits. We have been
contacted by the FAA and told to expect discretionary money for this project. City Project #6971
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreements with McGhie &
Betts, Inc. and ACSG, Inc..
,,VJNCIL ACTION: Motion b7r. second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
a
DATE: 02/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITW NO.
Consent
Rochester International Airport
I i ttn DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1 for 2005 Airfield Runway and Electrical
PREPARED BY:
Improvements Project.
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Execute Change Order #1 for 2005 Airfield Runway and Electrical Improvements with Premier Electric.
This change order involves numerous work items that occurred throughout the project. The net effect of
this change order is a payment to Premier Electric of $33,147.99. With this payment we are still under the
original contract amoutit. AIP Project #3-27-0084-20-04, State Project #5501-137, City Project #6971.
Original ContracrAmount: $3,567,562.73
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
COIJXCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
w.,
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Change Order #1 and all associated documents with
Premier Electrical Corp..
%,uJNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 02/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
ITEM NO.
1 1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order 91 for 2005 Runway 13-31 Navigational Aids
PREPARED BY:
Construction Project.
Steven W. Legvc
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Execute Change Order #1 for 2005 Runway 13-31 Navigational Aids Construction Project. This change
order involves numerous work items that occurred throughout the project. The net effect of this change
order is a payment to Premier Electric of $52,743.26. With this payment we are still under the original
contract amount. AIP Project #3-27-0084-20-04, State Project #5501-137, City Project #6971.
Original ContracrAmount: $648,672.00
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
COLIDXIL ACTION REQUESTED:
.;,,
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Change Order # 1 and all associated documents with
Premier Electrical Corp..
LuuNCILACTION: mmennny Sewndby: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING at�
DATE- p1mlor;
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEFT:
O.
Consent
Rochester International AirportITEM
DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreements for Maintenance Facility Expansion
EPREPARED
BY:at
the Rochester International Airport.
W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
1. Execute a professional services agreement with RS&H, Inc. for plans/specifications and construction
documents.
2. Execute a professional services agreement with ACSG, Inc. for project administration to include federal
grant administratio4, closeout documents and construction oversight.
This project is in1he CIP. City Project #6971
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreements with RS&H, Inc.
and ACSG, Inc..
t, uJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Smondby: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 02/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Rochester Intemational Airport
_ Q
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreements for Environmental Projects at the
PREPARED BY:
Rochester International Airport.
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
1. Execute a professional services agreement with Liesch Associates, Inc. to revise, complete and
implement a new Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the airport. Total contract amount
$33,164.00
2. Execute a professional services agreement with Liesch Associates, Inc. for a two-year storm water
sampling program and for deicing material collection and analysis. Total contract amount $66,438.00
State Project #5501-147, City Project #6956
Funding: 70% Federal
30% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the two professional services agreements with Liesch
Associates, Inc.
CuuNCIL ACTION: moHonby Secondbya to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION /
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Clerk
`
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Certify Applicants to Fill Vacant Third Ward Councilmember Position
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
The City received six applications from eligible candidates interested in the appointment to fill the
unexpired term for Third Ward Councilmember Jean McConnell. Councilmember McConnell
passed away on December 13, 2005. The candidates are:
Michel Bromberg`,
Bill Hahn
Todd Hanson
Bill Moe
Devon Post
Bruce Snyder
Interviews will be conducted by the Council during the weeks of February 6 and 13.
Appointment is scheduled to be made at the February 22, 2006, Council meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to certify the names of the eligible candidates for appointment to the unexpired term for
Third Ward Councilmember.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3 ` /
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
b_ � l
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA ISCHO
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
St. John the Evangelist School
424 West Center St
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Raffle 5/12/06
SE Minnesota H.O.G. Chapter
7180 Highway 14 East
Rochester, Mn. 55904
Raffle for Cancer Telethon 8/27/06
Hangar Bar & Grill
7386'Airport View Dr SW
Bluffland Whitetails
""Route 2 Box 238
✓Preston, Mn. 55965
Raffle 2/25/06 AT
Radisson Plaza Hotel
150 South Broadway
Rochester Police Athletic Activities League
2014' St SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
Raffle 6/16/06
GAMBLING — PREMISE RENEWAL
Community Charities
115 South Riverfront Dr
Mankato Mn 56002
PREMISE AT:
Recreation Lanes
2810 North Broadway
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
nIrLICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE 2
FEBRUARY 6, 2006
TEMPORARY ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
Pax Christi Catholic Church
4135 181h Ave NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Fundraiser for Youth 3/17/06
HVAC
Air Corps LLC
3700 Annapolis Lane North,
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
MASTER INSTALLER
Michael Ericson
16910 20 Ave North
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
SIDEWALKS — CEMENT
Rochester Asphalt, Inc.
21 13s, ve SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
"MISCELLANEOUS
SE MN Celiac Support Group
%Coyla Shepherd
2805 Hidden Hills Ln NE
Rochester, Mn. 55906
Walk Around Silver Lake for Research 5/6/06
Arthritis Foundation
%Susan Hayes
2719 Spyglass Court NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
5K Arthritis Walk/Run around Silver Lake 5/20/06
Join the Journey
%Effie Psimos
1314 Westhill Dr SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Breast Cancer Walk 9/17/06
PAV
33 LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE
FEBRUARY 6, 2006
Rochester Track Club
Dr. Steven Fetzer 20K Memorial Run 4/8/06
Ramada Hotel to Bike Paths
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK
ITEM DESCRIPTION: NAME CHANGE FOR THE SAND TRAP
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06 J
ITEN. 1
PREPARED BY:
DONNA ]SCHOTT
Donald W. McBumey has requested a name change for The Sand Trap located at 3342 19d' St NW. The name
will now be McBurney LLC DBA The Sand Trap to take effect immediately.
Approval of the change would be contingent on the required fees, insurance certificates, any fees due the City of
Rochester and all departmeptal approvals. A confidential investigative report has been satisfactorily returned.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the request from Donald W. McBumey to change the name of The Sand Trap from Donald
W. McBumey DBA as the Sand Trap to McBumey LLC. DBA The Sand Trap.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
M EETI N G 3
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
FORIGNATING DEPT:
ITEM
Consent Agenda
Finance Department
I
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Approval of Accounts Payable
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements:
Investment purchases of $18,266,587.82
Accounts payable of $11,286,071.04
Total disbursements $29,552,658.86
(Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
,Yf
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2/06/2006
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
Finance Department
D - I 4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Calling for a Hearing to Consider Issuance of Revenue
PREPARED BY:
Bonds on Behalf of Mayo Foundation
Dale Martinson
Officials from Mayo Clinic in Rochester have requested the City call a hearing for February 22, 2006 to
consider a proposal to issue revenue bonds on behalf of the foundation for the purpose of:
(a) construction of a research building on the block between 41h and 5th Avenue and 3`d
and 4th Street in the City; and
(b) other capit1l projects involving renovations, acquisition of equipment and
construction at the Corporation facilities in the City including Mayo Clinic buildings at or near
200 First Street SW; Rochester Methodist Hospital at 201 West Center Street and St. Mary's
Hospital located at the 1200 to 1400 block of 2nd Street SW in the City.
The amount of the bonds is currently proposed to be $125 million. Further details of the project will be
available in the application packet that can be obtained in the City Clerk's office should the council
proceed with calling the hearing.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
+. Call a public hearing on February 22, 2006 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. to consider a proposal that the City
issue revenue bonds on behalf of Mayo Clinic.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 I
DATE: 02/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
Finance
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Investment Performance Report -December, 2005
PREPARED BY:
B. Atkinson
The following information summarizes the City's operating investment portfolio as of 1213112005.
1. Activity and Performance Information — attached
Amortized Cost Basis of Activity
Detail of Amortized Cost Basis Return
Annualtzed Comparative Rates of Return intended
Summary of Amortized Cost Basis Return
Maturity Distribution of Securities Held
(Unrealized gains or losses are "paper losses" only- It is intended that all
securities be held to maturity, thereby eliminating realized gains or losses.)
2. Diversification of Portfolio % Of Duration
Portfolio (Years)
Cash and Equivalents 2.49% 0.00
Commercial Paper 7.62% 0.17
US Instrumentality 89.89% 1.70
Council Action Requested: Receive 12/31/05 investment report.
a
II
Y A P 5 M
Y O� < Y
L
It
m
a°
a ri M ri v v p
4
9
a M ri M ri n en a
O
F.
6�
s
ag
!§|
2 ,k
She/ .
!-�}
t-®«f
,!r
-
k
[!)
§
-
�
,
k|9
vr(}
$
f
f�
R
■
�
|
�
ƒ
#
kF§
ƒE
m\
!!k
§!
� {
!�|
!k«/
...
�
�
�A
$
§ i
«
.
k
�
}
7
I
/
�fm6l;�
g
mo_OW.
\%
��,
%�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
i
Fire
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
DC Felsch
Rochester Fire Department requests approval to accept a $1000 donation
received from a citizen to go toward Fire Prevention Programs. Donor
requests their privacy be respected.
'1
... COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
' Approval to accept donation of $1,000.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion
Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 216/06
er_FNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational / Consent
Human Resources
_ 1-7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointment — Police Sergeant —
PREPARED BY:
Rochester Police Department
Linda G rud
The retirement of Police Sergeant Lou Bode effective February 10, 2006 creates a
vacancy for the position of Police Sergeant.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Section 9.00 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter states that the Mayor appoints all
members of the Rochester Police Department. Pursuant to that authority, the Mayor
has appointed Police Officer Tom Pingel to the position of Police Sergeant effective
February 16, 2006.
I This information is given to the Council so that council members are aware of the
appointment.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
VA
TO:
RE:
Mayor Ai deU F. Urecle
201 9th Street SE — Room 281
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
Phonc: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979
City Administrator Stevan Kvenvold
Promotional Appointment / Rochester Police Department
_ t
14,
Based on the Police Sergeant Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates, I am appointing
Police Officer Tom Pingel to the position of Police Sergeant effective February 16, 2006.
211/06
Mayor Ardell F. Brede Date
City of Rochester
Cc: Linda Gilsrud
Director of Human Resources
i
_.,.,R, , CM R4 CHE STER
POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
MICHELLE LEAK RICHARD DALE JAMES RUSSELL
February 1, 2006
Honorable Mayor Brede
City Hall
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Dear Mayor Brede,
The retirement of Lou Bode, Police Sergeant, effective February 10, 2006 creates a
vacancy for the position of Police Sergeant.
We•respectfully request that you make one appointment to the position of Police Sergeant
from the following list of three (3) names which stand highest on the Police Sergeant
Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates:
1. Tom Pingel
2. Craig Anderson
3. Paul Wilson
Police Chief Roger Peterson requests that the appointment be effective February 16,
2006,
Respectfully Submitted,
rikv"� �xk/'
Richard Dale
Secretary
Police Civil Service Commission
An' EqualOpponunity Employer
�
ROCHESTER
ROGER PETERSON
Chief of Police
Rochester Police Department
101 4th St. S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-3761
January 27, 2006 www.rochestermn.gov
Michelle Leak, Chairperson
Rochester Police Civil Service Commission
City Hall, Room 295
201 4`h Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Chairperson Leak:
We are requesting that the Civil Service Commission provide the Mayor with a list of the top three
candidates from the Police Sergeant's eligibility list for selection and appointment. This request is due
to the position made vacant by the retirement of Sgt. Bode on February 10, 2006.
....
.�it is our desire that this promotion would be effective February 16, 2006.
We appreciate the Commission's prompt attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
R er L. Peterson
Chief of Police
C: L. Gilsrud, Human Resources Director
S. Kvenvold, City Administrator
an �Fmm/Rnnmm�nini TmnJnusr
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
�1
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
' :NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
D - `Ca
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Replacement Plan — Prairie Crossing Nest, DIenard's North
PREPARED BY:
John l larluid, Se or
Plum
January 30, 2006
Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan:
The applicant proposes the filling of 2.93 acres of Type 2 wetland on property located north of 65"' St., NW Lind west
of US 52 and the site of a proposed new Menards store. The applicant must replace the wetland with a minimum of 5.
86 acres of wetland and buffer area. They propose a replacement plan that includes 4.4 acres of new wetland credits
and 1.46 acres of Public Value Credits in an existing wetland bank located in Haverhill Township, within the Zumbro
River watershed.
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) reviewed the alternatives and found that they meet the minimum standards for
Sequencing (MS Chapter 8420.020). The TEP indicated some concern with the proposed site design but they agree
that avoidance of the wetlands is a long term risk leading to the eventual loss of the wetlands due to the location of the
wetland and supporting water sources, the required location, significant change in grade and construction standards for
the relocated west frontage road, and long term impacts on the wetland from the future surrounding commercial
development.
replacement wetland proposed by the applicant is a part of the existing Schmidt wetland bank located in Section
v of Haverhill Township. The applicant has indicated that the wetland bank has adequate approved credits to be used
forShis replacement project.
Technical Evaluation Panel Recommendation: Based on the TEP review, the wetland sequencing and impact be
accepted by the council and that the replacement plan be approved.
City Council Action:
Approve the replacement plan with conditions. The conditions include:
1. the applicant must supply the necessary wetland bank withdrawal forms to the Planning Department after
completion of purchase of credits;
2. the approval by the LGU applies only to this proposed project; anew wetland replacement plan will be required if
either the applicant changes, or the site plan including road location and development proposal is changed.
The council will need to approve a resolution that supports the replacement plan with conditions.
ryr ''1
L� L`-
COUNCILACTION: Motionby: second by: to:
4.,
;•!
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda POLICE —
19
ITEM DESCRIPTION: FY 2006 Edward Byme Memorial Justice Assistance Grant - JAG PREPARED BY:
grant Roger Peterson
The Local Law Enforcement Block grant (LLEBG) Program was administered by the Programs Office of the
Bureau of Justice Assistance. Each year since 1996, Congress has appropriated funds to continue the program.
The purpose of the LLEBG Program was to provide units of government with funds to underwrite projects to
reduce crime and improve public safety. Historically, these funds have been used for the City of Rochester
Police Department's Crime Prevention Program. The LLEBG grant has been discontinued and the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant (JAG) was created. The JAG program blends the previous Byrne
Formula grant and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs.
The JAG grant requires the City of Rochester and Olmsted County remain partners for the purposes of this grant
program. This year the City of Rochester has been allocated $30,470.00. This dollar amount is $21,081 lower
than last years allocation. Olmsted County, while ineligible for direct JAG funding in FY 2006, for JAG
purposes remains a partner with the City receiving JAG funds, and must be a signatory on the MOU. The
Rochester Police Department and Olmsted County Sheriff's Department are proposing that the funds continue to
be used for the Crime Prevention Unit of the Rochester Police Department. Specifically these funds will go
toward National Night Out, Neighborhood Watch, VIPS, training for crime prevention staff, Cop Talk Live,
and other Crime Prevention Programs. Additionally, it is proposed that the City of Rochester be named the
fiscal agent for this grant.
There is no local match required for this program.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval to apply for and accept a FY 2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Approval for
the City of Rochester to act as the fiscal agent for this grant. Approval for the Mayor and City Clerk and /or
Police Chief to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Olmsted County specifying the amount of the
funds that are to be distributed to each of the units of local government and the purposes for which the funds
will be used. Approval for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign any grant agreement or document required for this
program.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
_PB.-.1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for the Construction of Public Sidewalk at
PRPARED
Various Locations, J4609
j M. Nigbur�,!
This is the Feasibility Report for the construction of public sidewalk at various locations in a project
described as follows:
Project No. M6-01, J4609
"Construct Public Sidewalk at Various Locations."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project is $179,394.79
The project is pr6posed to be funded by special assessments.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a Project Hearing for March 6, 2005.
3. Adopt a resolution establishing an Assessment Hearing for March 6, 2005.
Attachments: Feasibility Report
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
I
Feasibility & Background Information on the Sidewalk Gaps
Parcel ID Number — 7597 1843 28`h Street NW Owner - Judith A. Czaplewdki
The sidewalk along the westerly side -yard of the parcel was not installed when the
building was constructed. At that time the sidewalk would have terminated into
undeveloped property. Since then these properties have developed and the sidewalk is
needed. On July 1, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to
complete the missing sidewalk. Based on several phone conversations with the
property owner, she appears to be willing to complete the sidewalk construction,
however a conflict existed between the sidewalk location and utilities; electric,
telephone and cable TV. Late in the fall of 2005 a utilities location modification
(lowering df utilities to minimize the conflict) plus a minor sidewalk alignment
modification were worked out. This design alteration was achieved too late in the year
to complete the construction, but can be completed whenever appropriate construction
weather comes. The obligation to construct public sidewalk deferred at the time the
building needs to be fulfilled.
Parcel ID Number —16267 Owner - Ragan-Hexum Properties, LLC
This parcel is Outlot A of Northern Slopes Subdivision. The subdivision is primarily a
separated single family development. Homes within the subdivision have been
constructed with public sidewalk and the development has been built out for some time.
The parcel, Outlot A, has been recently rezoned as business and a GDP was approved
3/15/04 by Council. In the GDP approval, the obligation for the construction of
sidewalk along 6a Avenue NE was set forth. Public Works has received phone inquires
from residents of the area as to when the sidewalk along 6 h Avenue will be installed.
Within the last few years, the commercial areas north of Outlot A have developed and
there is a greater need for the construction of the sidewalk along Outlot A. In addition,
this segment of 6`h Avenue NE is a local residential street and the use of this street as
construction access to the Outlot A will be discouraged (Wellner Drive on the west side
of Outlot A is a commercial access street more appropriate to construction related
traffic). On July 6, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to
complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number —17462 Owner — Northridge Townhomes Assn.
This subdivision is located on the north side of 25`t Street NW west of 30a' Avenue
NW. At the time of the development of the Northridge twnhomes public sidewalk was
installed from the easterly side of the subdivision (connecting to other public sidewalk)
only to the east driveway into the twnhomes. At that time the area northwest of the
twnhomes was undeveloped. That undeveloped area was platted in 1999 as The
Brittanys. The sidewalk is needed to connect the sidewalk installed with the Brittanys
and the sidewalk east of the Northridge Townhomes. The obligation to construct public
sidewalk deferred at the time the buildings needs to be fulfilled. On July 1, 2005, a
letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing
sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 22855 322 37`h St. NE Owner — Brad Muck
This parcel is the car wash on 37`h Street constructed in 2002 as SDP 02-36. One of the
requirements of that site development approval process was the constriction of public
sidewalk along the frontage of both the Frontage Road and of Service Court. The
developer did not complete that sidewalk construction. On July 1, 2005, a letter was
sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing sidewalk and
they did not complete the construction: Although it is desirable to have sidewalk
constructed along both frontages, there is a greater need along the Frontage Road and
that obligation needs to be completed.
Parcel ID Number — 47982 3110 Northern Valley Dr. NE Owner — Abbas Tabatabai
This parcel and the parcel at 3024 Northern Valley Dr. NE are the last 2 parcels in the
subdivision still vacant. Northern Slopes 6`n was platted in 1991 and adequate transition
time has elapsed to allow for the construction of sidewalks. The developer did not
complete that sidewalk with the subdivision construction and the developed parcels
have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner
indicating the need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the
construction.
Parcel ID Number— 47983 3024 Northern Valley Dr. NE Owner —Abbas Tabatabai
This parcel and the parcel at 3110 Northern Valley Dr. NE are the last 2 parcels in the
subdivision still vacant. Northern Slopes 6a` was platted in 1991 and adequate transition
time has elapsed to allow for the construction of sidewalks. The developer did not
complete that sidewalk with the subdivision construction and the developed parcels
have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner
indicating the need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the
construction.
Parcel ID Number — 48346 1025 23`a Avenue SW Owner — Margaret Mbabazi
This parcel is the last parcel in the subdivision still vacant. Baihly Heights 6a` was
platted in 1991 and adequate transition time has elapsed to allow for the construction of
sidewalks. The developer did not complete that sidewalk with the subdivision
construction and the developed parcels have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005,
a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing
sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number— 50373 933 Highway 14 W. Owner—Becca, LLC
This parcel is part of the Radichel commercial area Platted as part of Radichel First
Subdivision and replatted thereafter. As each of the parcels has had business facilities
construction on them, the public sidewalk was also constructed as is required by city
ordinance. Three parcels have not construction the public sidewalk across the entire
frontage. On July 8, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to
complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number— 51278 4609 Birdie Lane NW Owner — Golfview Development LLC
This parcel is the last parcel in the subdivision still vacant. Golfview Estates was
platted in 1993 and adequate transition time has elapsed to allow for the construction of
sidewalks. The developer did not complete that sidewalk with the subdivision
construction and the developed parcels have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005,
a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing
sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number + 51687 2008 Baihly Heights Dr. SW Owner— Margaret Mbabazi
This parcelis the last parcel in the subdivision still vacant. Baihly Heights 7'h was
platted in 1993 and adequate transition time has elapsed to allow for the construction of
sidewalks. The developer did not complete that sidewalk with the subdivision
construction and the developed parcels have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005,
a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing
sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 53646 3610 East River Rd. Owner — Greenway Coop.
This parcel is the Greenway station and office at the corner of East River Road and 37`h
Street expanded in constructed in 2003 as SDP 03-36. One of the conditions on the
approved plan was the requirement for the construction of public sidewalk along the
frontage of the Frontage Road. The developer did not complete that sidewalk
construction. On July 1, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the
need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number— 54499 2047 Fox Valley Dr. SW Owner — Margaret Mbabazi
This parcel is the last parcel in the subdivision still vacant. Baihly Meadows 3`d was
platted in 19963 and adequate transition time has elapsed to allow for the construction
of sidewalks. The developer did not complete that sidewalk with the subdivision
construction and the developed parcels have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005,
a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing
sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number— 57543 1121 Putters Place SE Owner— Jean E. Schendel Trustee
This parcel is the last parcel in the subdivision still vacant. Eastwood Hills 2 d was
platted in 1998 and adequate transition time has elapsed to allow for the construction of
sidewalks. The developer did not complete that sidewalk with the subdivision
construction and the developed parcels have had sidewalk installed. On July 5, 2005, a
letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing
sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number— 60545 4115 26`h Street NW Owner— West Circle Drive LLC
This parcel is the Cascade Animal Hospital constructed in 2000 as SDP 00-63. One of
the requirements of that site development approval process was the construction of
public sidewalk along the frontage of 26th Street NW. The approved plans for this site
development showed the sidewalk however developer did not complete that sidewalk
construction. On July 8, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the
need to construct the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number,-,60671 4020 26th Street NW Owner — Wenner Properties LLC
Thisparcel'is the American Express Office Building constructed in 2000 as SDP 00-71.
One 9f the requirements of that site development approval process was the construction
of public sidewalk along the frontage of both 26th Street NW and of Superior Drive
NW. The approved plans for this site development showed the sidewalk however
developer did not complete that sidewalk construction. On July 8, 2005, a letter was
sent to the property owner indicating the need to construct the missing sidewalk and
they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 63318 Owner — David T. Bishop
This parcel is Outlot C of Pine Ridge Estates 3'a Subdivision. The subdivision is
primarily a separated single family development. Homes within the subdivision have
been constructed with public sidewalk and the development has been built out for some
time. The parcel, Outlot C, has not been developed but lies on Ponderosa Drive
surrounded by single family homes. On June 30, 2005, a letter was sent to the property
owner indicating the need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete
the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 63699 945 37th Avenue NW Owner — TDK Partnership
This parcel is part of the Radichel commercial area Platted as part of Radichel First
Subdivision and replatted thereafter. As each of the parcels has had business facilities
construction on them, the public sidewalk was also constructed as is required by city
ordinance. Three parcels have not construction the public sidewalk across the entire
frontage. This parcel was developed in 2003 at which time the owner entered into a
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the city that required the installation of the public
sidewalks upon notification by Public Works. On July 8, 2005, a letter was sent to the
property owner indicating the need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did not
complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 65336 2552 Superior Drive NW Owner —Hartman Farms Inc.
This parcel is Superior Ridge Townhomes and the frontage for which public sidewalk is
needed is along Superior Drive NW. The plans for the construction of the street and for
the construction of Superior Ridge Townhomes show 5-foot public sidewalk that was
not installed. On July 6, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the
need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
��
Parcel ID Number — 67946 Owner — Payne Comany
This parcel is Lot 7 Block 1 of Century Hills Commercial Park Subdivision. The
subdivision is commercial development located south of 26"h Street NE and west of East
Circle Drive. This parcel is located at the southeast comer of 26`h Street NE and Clare
Lane NE. Although the developer and property owner have the responsibility to
construct public sidewalk along both 26`h Street and Clare Lane, the most significant
need for sidewalk at this time is for the segment along 26`h Street. The boulevard where
the sidewalk is needed is currently used by pedestrians who walk on the unsurfaced
ground. Many of these pedestrians are students that use walk to Century High School
from the residential areas west of this parcel. In addition, this segment of 26`h Street NE
more heavily traveled than Clare Lane (a commercial street) and the use of 26`h Street as
construction access to the parcel will be discouraged (Clare Lane on the west side of the
parcel is a commercial access street more appropriate to construction related traffic).
On July 8, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete
the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 70372 Lot E of 6306 South Pointe Dr. SW Owner — Troy Nerland
This parcel is the last parcel in the subdivision still vacant. The parcel is a portion of
Lot 1 Block 1 South Pointe Yd Subdivision. The property owner also owns the property
adjacent to the west and seems to be occupying the land as a common home site. An
adequate transition time has elapsed to allow for the construction of sidewalks. The
'developer did not complete that sidewalk with the subdivision construction and the
developed parcels have had sidewalk installed. On June 30, 2005, a letter was sent to
the property owner indicating the need to complete the missing sidewalk and they did
not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 72327 Owner — David Boyd
This parcel is part of the Radichel commercial area Platted as part of Radichel First
Subdivision and replatted thereafter. As each of the parcels has had business facilities
construction on them, the public sidewalk was also constructed as is required by city
ordinance. Three parcels have not construction the public sidewalk across the entire
frontage. On July 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to
complete the missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 59693 703 501h Avenue NW Owner — Ahmet & Emina Begic
This parcel is one of 5 parcels in Diamond Ridge 17'h that abut on 7'h Street NW. As
part of the development of Diamond Ridge 17'h agreement was made in 2000 between
the city and the developer that the sidewalk would be constructed along 7'h Street within
4 years or at the time 7th Street was reconstructed. The street has been reconstructed
and more than 4 years have elapsed. The sidewalk has not been installed. On July 5,
2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the
missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number— 59694 4992 Gem Lane NW Owner — Abdelmoneim K. Elnimery
This parcel i's. one of 5 parcels in Diamond Ridge 17th that abut on 7ih Street NW. As
part of the development of Diamond Ridge 17th agreement was made in 2000 between
the city and the developer that the sidewalk would be constructed along 7'h Street within
4 years or at the time 7'h Street was reconstructed. The street has been reconstructed
and more than 4 years have elapsed. The sidewalk has not been installed. On July 5,
2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the
missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 59695 4980 Gem Lane NW Owner — Sarah P. Maha
This parcel is one of 5 parcels in Diamond Ridge 17" that abut on 7' Street NW. As
part of the development of Diamond Ridge 17'h agreement was made in 2000 between
the city and the developer that the sidewalk would be constructed along 7ih Street within
4 years or at the time 7th Street was reconstructed. The street has been reconstructed
and more than 4 years have elapsed. The sidewalk has not been installed. On July 5,
2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the
missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 59696 4976 Gem Lane NW Owner — Kelly Anderson
This parcel is one of 5 parcels in Diamond Ridge 17th that abut on 7th Street NW. As
part of the development of Diamond Ridge 17"' agreement was made in 2000 between
the city and the developer that the sidewalk would be constructed along 7th Street within
4 years or at the time 7th Street was reconstructed. The street has been reconstructed
and more than 4 years have elapsed. The sidewalk has not been installed. On July 5,
2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the
missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
Parcel ID Number — 59697 4968 Gem Lane NW Owner — Shukri T. Mohamed
This parcel is one of 5 parcels in Diamond Ridge 17ih that abut on 71h Street NW. As
part of the development of Diamond Ridge 17th agreement was made in 2000 between
the city and the developer that the sidewalk would be constructed along 7th Street within
4 years or at the time 7th Street was reconstructed. The street has been reconstructed
and more than 4 years have elapsed. The sidewalk has not been installed. On July 5,
2005, a letter was sent to the property owner indicating the need to complete the
missing sidewalk and they did not complete the construction.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/06106
err-GNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D _-r�`
ITEM DESCRIPTION: DNR Local Trail Connections Grant Funds Solicitation
PREPARED BY:
J. Wellner
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is seeking candidate Local Trail Connection projects.
These trail connection projects are typically multi -use -path projects. This request is for projects to be
completed before June 30, 2007.
The application deadline is February 28, 2006. Local agencies submitting a project must also commit to
funding a minimum of,50% of the project costs. The maximum grant amount is $100,000. DNR
normally receives applications for more projects than can be funded. Applications are reviewed and
ranked by the Department of Natural Resources. Agencies that have successful project applications will
be notified in July 2006.
Public Works staff -has determined that two projects may compete well for the DNR funding, and we
recommend the application be submitted for the following two projects.
Project 1: Bituminous Path Parallel to East Circle Drive between CSAH-2 (near Century High School)
and TH 63 IN. Broadway & East Circle Drive).
Total Project Cost $264,264
DNR Grant $100,000
City Funds $164,264
. o, Project 2: The Path connection between the westerly end of the Cascade Creek trail (near 16's Avenue
NW connecting to the path constructed as part of the Highway 52 reconstruction and located on the west
side of the East Frontage Road at 4° Street NW.
Total Project Cost $160,000
DNR Grant $ 80,000
City Funds $ 80,000
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution acknowledging the City's support and sponsorship of the path projects, authorizing
the Public Works Director to act on the City's behalf in filing and administering these applications
including a commitment to secure and guarantee the local share of the project costs including the
construction costs, all the design and inspection costs, and all the ROW costs.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
S
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Public Works
p_ a 0;i,
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement —Century Hills South Development First
RE
PPARED BY:
Supplemental Amendment
M. Nigbur
,.
Payne Company is developing land that it owns in parts of SE'/, NW Y, and SW /, NE Y., all in 32-107-13.
This property is subject to the terms of the Century Hills South Development Agreement. The Owner
has requested that the existing Development Agreement be amended to allow a greater timeline for
development of the approximate 300 acres of property remaining for development. This timeframe is
reasonable for the amount of property involved in the development agreement. Owner and the City
Staff have held discussions relating to amending the existing Development Agreement to extend the
timeline for development and to revise some of the terms and conditions of developing the remaining
property to reflect the bxtension of time allowed. The agreement includes the following amendments:
• Owner agrees to do the following within the next 20 years twenty years of execution of this
agreement:
• Plat and complete the construction of the entire project as shown on the approved General
Development Plans or amended Final Plat.
• Extend public infrastructure to the adjoining property as reflected on the General
Development Plan or escrow sufficient funds to extend public utilities with the City.
• Dedicate needed right of way for public infrastructure extension to adjacent property
• Payment of any outstanding or unpaid development charges by January 5, 2026 if not
developed.
• Payment of City -Owner contract within 30 days after invoicing by the City.
Staff recommends the Council approve the First Supplemental Amendment to the original Development
Agreement. The Owner has executed the agreement.
t
i
U 1,
_ �'n 1
t i
Proposed Storm Facility
Existing Storrn Facility
;r
Silver Creek Road _-
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Century Hills South First Supplemental Amendment
with Payne Company.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Property Acquisition Authorization for the E
Fullerton Sanitary Sewer Relief Line (J2175)
ITEM NO.
YL)-a
PREPARED BY:
")M. Nigburav,
The construction of a relief trunk sewer from 371h Street NE to and through Cascade Creek Crossing at
13 1/2 Street NW is a project that has been anticipated by the City for construction in 2006. The
Council has previously approved the project in the CIP and design has begun. Staff has mailed offers
to the affected property owners to obtain the needed land rights. Staff requests the authorization to
negotiate and settle with the land owners for the needed land rights. Settlement amounts above
acquisition standards (established by MnDot) will be approved by the City Administrator. If negotiations
do not progress Staff mould also request authorization, at the direction of the City Administrator, to
begin the 90 Day Quick Take eminent domain process. This process may be needed to maintain the
project schedule: Staff will continue to negotiate towards a settlement during the condemnation
process.
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the staff to negotiatelacquire the needed real estate and authorize
the use of the 90 day "Quick Take" for land acquisition associated with the above noted project/.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
(P
02/06/06
Ar-'FtiDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works t) ,;
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7743) PREPARED BY:
7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529
R. Kelm
�t- YI
This is a Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for the following local improvement project
Project:
City No.6207-4-05 (J7743) SAP 159-104-14
Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529.
Project Background:
7 St NW was originally spheduled to be reconstructed from 11th Ave NW to North Broadway (TH 63) in 2005. As
the scope of the project expanded to include storm sewer work from 13th Ave NW the project was divided into two
phases. The City C9uncil approved the first phase reconstruction from Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 to North
Broadway (TH 63) on May 15, 2005. The currently proposed project is the second phase of the original
reconstruction project for 7th Street NW.
Estimated Project Costs:
February 6. 2006
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Construction:
300 - Street
175 600.00
560 � Pedestrian Facilities
R$44,700.00
40b -Storm Sewer
851 500.00
100 - Watennain
189 500.00
200 - Sanitary
$65 100.00
600 - TrafFc Si nals
$10 000.00
$2,336,5D0.00
Project Cost Distribution:
February 6. 2006
Funding Distribution:
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Municipal State Aid Funds (MSA)
$1 752 167.15
RPU - Watennain Funds
$189 600.00
Rochester Local Funds - Sanitary Sewer
$65 100.00
Special Assessments - Frontage
$299 632.85
S ecial Assessments- Water Service Connection
Moo
TOTAL
$2,336,500.00
1)1stribu8on Percentages:
Citv State Aid Share
76.29%
City RPU Share
0.11%
City Sanitary Shan:
2.79%
Special Assessments Share
12.82%
TOTAL
100.0%
Recommendation:
We report the project is feasible and recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with
the Capital Improvements Program (CIP 2006-2011), Major Streets Category, line 9.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a Project Hearing and an Assessment Hearing for March 6, 2006.
Attachments: Feasibility Report
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
J9 REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
RECONSTRUCTION OF 7TH ST NW
FROM 13TH AVE NW TO CASCADE CREEK BRIDGE #
55529
May 16, 2005
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing t} a following project:
Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529.
Feasibility Renort
We report the project is feasible and recommend its reconstruction. The Project to reconstruct
7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 was included in the City's
2006 — 2011 Capital Improvement Program, with a recommended 2006 construction. The costs
of this project should be paid from Municipal State Aid funds, Rochester Public Utility funds,
City local funds and assessment charges to abutting property owners
Background:
7'h St NW was originally scheduled to be reconstructed from I I'h Ave NW to North Broadway
.(TH 63) in 2005. As the scope of the project expanded to include storm sewer work from 13`h
Ave NW the project was divided into two phases. The City Council approved the first phase
reconstruction from Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 to North Broadway (TH 63) on May 15,
2005. The currently proposed project is the second phase of the original reconstruction project
for 7 h Street NW.
This segment of 7th Street NW is an urban design with a width of 44 ft from face-to-face of curb.
A 5 ft — 4 inch wide, concrete walk exists on both sides of the street. The existing right of way
varies from 66 R to 75 ft and is owned by the City of Rochester. The geometry currently provides
for four traffic lanes west of I Ia' Ave NW and a single lane of traffic in each direction with
parallel parking allowed in various areas, east of IPh Ave NW. The typical section consists of
approximately 3 inches of sub -base sand class 4 and 8 inches of concrete pavement, with curb
and gutter on each side. The pavement section was originally constructed in 1958. Many of the
concrete panels are cracked and displaced. The cement surface is so worn that in places the
pavement aggregate is protruding. The curbs are settled in many locations.
All three city utilities (storm sewer, watermain, and sanitary sewer) exist in this developed part
of town.
The traffic signal located at 116h Ave NW was installed in 1983.
7th Street NW currently has a load rating of a 9-ton per axle truck route. The Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) was last counted to be 9,500 in 2002 and is projected to be 10,290 in 2006. The
twenty-year ADT is projected to be 14,100 in the year 2026. The posted speed limit on 7th Street
NW is 30 mph.
— 2 — FEBRUARY 6. 2006
The Project:
The project will reconstruct this 4 — 2 lane urban roadway, including parking lanes, sidewalks,
curb & gutter, and minor modifications to the traffic signal at 1 Ith Ave NW.
The proposed improvement consists of removing the structurally deficient 9-ton concrete
pavement section, correcting the subgrade and aggregate base, and replacing the concrete
pavement with a new I0-ton design thickness.
West of I Ith Ave NW, the typical section for the road surface width of 48 feet from face-to-face
of curb includes a widening of approximately 2 feet on the either side, with concrete curb &
gutter and pavement. It will generally consist of four 11 ft driving lanes, one 1211 parking lane for
a short stretch, and I Ift left turn lanes at the I I1h Ave NW intersection.
East of I I'h Ave NW, the typical section for the road surface width of 46 feet from face-to-face of
curb includes a widening of approximately 1 foot on the north side, with the curb face installed
integrant to the concrete pavement. It will generally consist of two I Ift driving lanes, two 12ft
parking lanes, and I Ift left turn lanes at the 11"' Ave NW intersection.
Utility replacement includes storm sewer, watermain pipe and services, sanitary sewer structures,
and minor modifications to the traffic signal at 11 th Ave NW.
',Boulevards will be narrowed approximately 2 feet on either side of the roadway to accommodate
the widened roadway surface. The utility work will result in the removal of approximately 42
trees and relocating utility poles within the required 1.5 foot clear zone. A tree planting layout
designed by the City Forester includes 51 new trees as part of the project. Concrete sidewalks
�• adjacent to the curb section will be replaced as needed and concrete pedestrian ramps will be
installed at street intersections.
Recommendations: We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance
with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP 2006-2011), Major Streets Category, line 9.
The engineer estimate is included with detailed information as shown in the table below:
February 6, 2006
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Construction:
300 - Street
$1 175,600.00
500 - Pedestrian Facilities
$44 700.00
400 -Storm Sewer
$851,500.00
100 - Watermain
$189 600.00
200 - Sanitary
$65 100.00
600 -Traffic Shoals
$10,000.00
$2,336,500.00
11-'..PRUJGC'I'S`J-!'RAM 1774"N)csiLiM)ims\Pc"ibiIUN Report .17743. UDC
— 3 — FL6RUAR1' 6, 2006
Special Assessments Frontage:
The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is $39.22 per assessable foot of
the abutting residential properties and $62.75 per assessable foot of the abutting Commercial
properties as shown in the table below:
Street Reconstruction I?ates
Rate yr
2006
$Ift
frontage
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$39.22
1,292.59
$50,695.40
Commercial Zones
$62.75
3,967.13
$248,937.45
Industrial Zones
$78.44
$0.00
Subtotal
$299,632.85
Special Assessments Service Replacement:
It is expected that water line services may be replaced as part of the project. Replacement of
watermain is funded 100% by the Water Utility. However, the City of Rochester's Watermain and
Sewer main Policy adopted by the City Council on October 20, 1997, requires than any lead or
galvanized water services must be replaced with copper as part of watermain replacement. Cost
�.of service replacement charges for water and/or sewer will be billed directly to the property
owner. If the service replacement charge is unpaid the City may levy the unpaid charge against
the property as a special assessment. Payment of this assessment is required over a period not to
exceed 5 years. Interest is charged at 5.75% annually from the date the service replacement is
billed to the property owner
Watermain
Service Replacement Charges
Rate yr
2006
each
frontage
feet
Total
Cost
5f8" - 1"
$1,119.12
$0.00
1-1/2" - 3"
$1,400.20
$0.00
4" - 6"
$1,644.68
$0.00
Subtotal
$0.00
Sewermain
Service Replacement Charges
Rate yr
2006
each
frontage
feet
Total
Cost
4"-6"
$1,119.12
$0.00
8" - 12"
$1,644.68
$0.00
Subtotal
$0.00
P ' I (IIIcC SJ I I l7.IV7'i4 I) U,,u0 aiibih1N. Report J77,11 WI ,
13 "
FEBRUARY 6, 2006
Fundine Distribution:
The costs of this project should be paid from Municipal State Aid funds, Rochester Public Utility
funds, City local funds and assessment charges to abutting property owners as follows:
February 6,2006
Funding Distribution:
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Municipal State Aid Funds (MSA
1 782 167.15
RPU - Watermain Funds �
$189 6D0.00
Rochester Local Funds- Sanitary Sewer
$65,100.00
Special Assessments - Frontage
$299 632.85
Sial Assessments - Water Service Connection
0.00
NTAL
$2,336,SOD.00
Distribution Percentages:
City State Aid Share
76.28%
City RPU Share
8.11%
City Sanitary Share
2.79%
Special Assessments Share
12.82%
Submitted for your consideration:
&4M 1
Russ Kelm,
Project Manager
Approved:
Richard W. Freese, PE
City Engineer
I'-.4PRO.IFCTSU-PRO.I'J'?4T.Design`bi�cs',Pcasihilin Rcport 17741DOU
— 5 — FEBRUARY 6, 2006
Reconstruction of 7th Street NW
from 13'h Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529.
BEGIN PHASE 2 END PHASE 2 {ZOOS) )
PROJECT I PROJECT (2005)
-SAP 159-104•14 SAP 159104.14
(2006) '_ r (2006)
P:IPROJECTSV-PRO.N7743iDesign\Does+Feasibility' Report 17743.130C
— 6 — F[BRU.4RY 6, 2006
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Pro'ect No:
6207-4-05 Oriiq Date: February 6 2006
State Pro'ect
159-104-14
J No:
7743
Description:
Reconstraction of 7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529
February 6. 2006
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
300 - Street
$1 175 600.00
500 - Pedestrian Facilities
$44 700.00
400 - Storm Sewer
$B51 500.00
100 - Watermain
$189 600.00
200 - Sanitary
$65 100.00
600 - TraffiSL. Si nals
$10,000.00
$2,336,500.00
February 8, 2008
Funding Distribution:
Engineer Estimate
Cost
Municipal State Aid Funds (MSA)
$1 782 167.15
RPU - Watermain Funds
$189 600.00
Rochester Local Funds - Sanitary Sewer
$65 100.00
Special Assessments - Frontage
$299 632.85
Special Assessments - Water Service Connection
$0.00
TOTAL
1 $2,336,500.00
Distribution Percentages:
City State Aid Share
76.28%
City RPU Share
8.11%
City Sanitary Share
2.79%
Special Assessments Share
12.82%
)coign?I?nas`.Fcscibilitykcrort117dd,D()(-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
02/6/06
A^�NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
b . ;�5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J6526)
PREPARED BY:
Storm Sewer Along 2"d Street S.W. along Grandville frontage
D. Nelson
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project:
Proiect:
City Project No: (J6526)
Storm Sewer Along 2nd Street S.W. along Grandville frontage
Project Background
The purpose of this project is to provide improvement to the existing storm sewer system south of 2"d
Street S.W. and direct existing flows east toward storm sewer regional ponding facilities north of
Shorewood Senior Housing complex. The current storm sewer system is inadequate to serve this area
and frequent flooding of storm water with direct flows into the future Cascade Lake require we intercept
the flows and pipe it to a more appropriate treatment facility.
This project is included in the 2006 CIP on Page 68 Item 12 funded by Storm Water Utility fund and
Storm water management charges.
-rr
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening
on March 8, 2006 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk:
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning February 10, 2006.
Attachments: Notice of Bids
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 02/6/06
"11NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works I t, ,2 L p
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Overland Pointe—J5186 PREPARED BY:
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Big DE Development, Inc. (Owner) & Blitz Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner
Contract J5186 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Overland Pointe'.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5186,
'Public Improvements to Serve Overland Pointe'.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
P1 r
02/6/06
enFNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p _ a.:�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Kingsbury Hills PREPARED BY:
Eighth —J5201
( M. Baker �n
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a
City -Owner Contract J5201 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Kingsbury Hills Eighth".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City I Owner Contract for J5201,
"Public Improvements to Serve Kingsbury Hills Eighth".
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
M
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
2/6/06
" 'NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
'Zs
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate - Settlement for Right of Way Acquisition for20th Street SE
PRPARED BY:
Sewer Project (J-9869)
•' M. Nigbur 7r
The City will be constructing sanitary sewer main to serve portions of southeast Rochester south of
Eastwood Road SE. Based on the designs that have been developed, City staff pursued acquisition of a
permanent utility easement on property owned by Brian & Konnie Smith. Based on the continued
negotiations between the City and Brian & Konnie Smith, a preliminary settlement has been reached. The
City agrees to pay to the owners $10,000.00 as total compensation for the acquisition of the permanent
utility easement and temporary construction easement.
CORD 144 SE
Smith Property
ppelman Property
j , Ili
LA. LO
Gunderson Property l t J
.... � Wal dof Property S I
17 i
I
I
t "fii m'gA �l �.
�0 ST!8E CO RD 143 BE I;
I-
r
if W j`
Ma ¢ .
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends approval of payment in the amount of $10,000.00 to Brian & Konnie Smith for the needed
permanent utility easement and temporary construction easement on their property. The owners will
execute the necessary conveyance documents.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
/"IDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
`�)- z
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit for existing buildings on drainage and utility
PR PARED BY:
easements in The Gardens
k M. Nigbur
Maine Street Investors of Rochester LLP owns property located at Lot 1, Block 1, The
Gardens Subdivision and Lot 1, Block 1, The Gardens Second Subdivision. The Gardens
LLC, lessee of the property, has established a manufactured home park on the subject
property. Currently there are four various improvements located on the property that
encroach into existing drainage or utility easements. The owner and lessee have requested
a revocable perm tlo allow the existing encroachments so that the improvements may remain
in their current looations.
I# 4 Jam; l iia
(� M I Garage 4 14' into
Willty + tes
easement
R6"n�rlew&, Z
Ganpa 4.3G'Into Garage 4.1T Into
{ Wlllty easement Welty easement
2
-✓r
-ter
i
rG ° Garage 7.88' Into
--nag. easament
fie.•
3
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit.
The owner and lessee have executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language
for revocation and liability protection for the City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit to allow for the existing
improvements to remain in the drainage and utility easements in The Gardens manufactured home
ark.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
02/06/06
AroNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
t� . '�Aci
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J2588)
PREPARED BY:
Demolition of Buildings located at 300 1" Street NE
( F Kelm
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project:
Protect:
City Project No: J2588
Demolition of Buildings located at 300 18' Street NE
Project Background I .
The City has purchased Lot 65; Less the South 132 feet; City Lands Section 36, otherwise known as 30015' Street
NE. The Civic Center North parking lot will be expanded this summer under a separate contract, as such; the 3
buildings located at 300 is' Street NE are scheduled for demolition.
McGhie & Betts, Inc completed an Asbestos and Hazardous Material report for the site. An asbestos removal
contractor will complete their work prior to the start of this demolition contract.
The demolition project estimated at $50,000 is to be funded from J2588, since the lot will be turned into a parking
lot.
t,
300 1" St
fig=
A
Civic Center
North Parking Lot,
l
Civic
t
" Center
t5
Will
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on March
1, 2006 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk:
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning February 10, 2006.
Attachments: Notice of Bids
. wJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2/6/2006
orFNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Public Works D_3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement— Hunter Pointe Development PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The Owner, Haverhill Properties, LLC, desires to develop their property located in Haverhill
Township as a single-family residential development to be known as Hunter Pointe. The subject
property is subject to an orderly annexation agreement under which the City has extended its land
use controls. Owner and the City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts on the public
infrastructure resulting from the development of the Property. Based on the discussions, the
content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The
major items covered im the agreement include the following:
Annexation 4
• Storm Water -Management
• Grading and drainage
• Dedication of ROW
• Dedication of Parkland requirements
• Pedestrian Facilities
• Owner's payment of the development related charges including Storm Water Management,
Sanitary Sewer Availability, Water Availability and Substandard Street & Transportation
Improvement District Charges.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have
executed the Development Agreement.
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Hunter Pointe Development Agreement with
Haverhill Properties, LLC.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
R
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING - t I
DATE: 2/6/2006
^"JDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Public Works
)D
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement -Morris Hills Development
PR PARED BY:
P M. Nigbu
The Owners, Morris Hills Land Development Company LLC, of the Morris Hills Development and
the City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts on the public infrastructure resulting from
the development of the Property. Based on the discussions, the content for a development
agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the
agreement include the following:
• Storm Water Management
• Dedication of ROW
• Dedication of Parkland requirements
• Pedestrian Facilities
• Owner's payment of the development related charges including Storm Water Management,
Sanitary Sewer Availability, Water Availability and Substandard Street & Transportation
Improvement District Charges.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have
executed the Development Agreement.
3 A P
i
IVY i
�,R k
+i
M rris Hills Deg lopment
t
z Wiz,._ s'
NOR N LPAIPEI HWAY I1N- NE
pC
BAIRD LN NE jI
BTfJ l i _w
)? C�fLANP N NE z 36'`ST NE3°; Si�NE,a ;
_
. _. —I
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Morris Hills Development Agreement with Morris
Hills Land Development, LLC.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
q /
2/6/2006
•- •-• • as •-- -. .. . -. .• - .-
�'IXYA 4Sn
h,
VIM
a �h
�
X l' v
< .e a A ,I
AL i.., § UYr t
ti J ,., r y er r"
`1 '.fyr 4• !j l Ji- .✓ r
f a� ! 4 f ' IRA y N
4,r7
/laE.^ ♦t"
tin
B
t
Z
! Y 1
t s el�a'.kY
�\ 1
a 6 �•� � ,J4,y Sa Ii� t re e rt ��.. -.
qS
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 2/06/06
3ENDA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM N0. A,
Rochester Public Utilities
Consent Agenda
_ -J�,4
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
Kathy Wilson
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on January 31, 2006 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to approve a two-year contract agreement with Asplundh
Tree Expert Co. �and that the Common Council Authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute the Agreement for Hourly Line Clearance Tree Trimming for 2006
and 2007, with the 2007 expenditure subject to Common Council approval of the
2007 electric utility budget. The amount of the contract agreement not to exceed
$190,892.00 in 2006 and $200,960 in 2007.
- to approve a resolution to approve revised Schedules A through J of the RPU
Cogeneration and Small Power Production (SPP) Rate Tariff which are updated
annually after each calendar year by RPU. This is required by Section III, paragraph
A of the Rules Covering Cogeneration and Small Power Production Facilities
(Minnesota Statutes Section 216B.164, Subdivision 9) which were previously
approved by the Board/Council in June 2005
.V.
GENERAL MANAGER:
(�
:OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # 6.a. Meeting Date: 1/31/2006
SUBJECT: Consideration of Bids: Contract I ree 1 nmmmg
PREPARED BY: Mark Kotschevar
Manager of Maintenance and Construction
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
The 2006 Electric budget includes $300,000.00 for contract tree trimming services. This is an annual item
in the budget for the routine line clearance tree trimming on RPU's system. The request for bids included
two separate services. One Is,for lump sum work which is made up of five specific feeder maps that are
trimmed to a minimum clearance from the conductor specification for a specific price. The second service
is for a two year hourly contract that includes personnel and equipment on an hourly basis. The hourly crew
work is directed by RPU and is designed to have tree trimming service available year round with the
addition of a second crew during the busy summer months. We have used this approach for the past 5 years
and have found it to be the best method to date to ensure we have resources available for customer
requested and safety related tree trimming.
Bids were received and opened on January 20, 2006 from three vendors. All the bids were deemed
responsive and are summarized on the attached bid tabulation. The low bid for all of the requested work
was submitted by Asplundh Tree Expert Co. Asplundh was our contractor for the hourly work during 2004
& 2005 and are proposing to use the same crew for this next two year contract.
The approach we use is to subtract the hourly contact amount from the total trimming budget and use the
Yemaining dollars to complete as much of the lump sum work as possible. With the low bid hourly amount
for 2006 being $190,892.00, this leaves $109,108.00 available for lump sum work. We currently have a
$15,000 purchase order agreement with Asplundh to continue hourly trimming services from January 1,
2006 until a new contract is in place. This leaves $94,108.00 available for 2006 lump sum work to meet
budget. We would propose to award Drawing 402B, 901K, and 902B for a total of $93,874.00. The
remaining lump sum projects will be completed with the hourly crews. Next year we will bid only the lump
sum work and recommend projects up to the approved budget dollars.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
It is requested the Board recommend Council approval of a two year contract agreement with Asplundh
Tree Expert Co. for: Hourly Line Clearance Tree Trimming (2006 and 2007) not to exceed $190,892.00 in
2006 and $200,960.00 for 2007, with the 2007 expenditure subject to Common Council approval of the
2007 electric utility budget.
It is also requested the Board approve a contract agreement with Asplundh Tree Expert Co. for: Lump Sum
Line Clearance Tree Trimming for 2006 not to exceed $93,874.00
A�m
neral Manager Date
UTILITIES
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AIEETING
DATE : 02/06/2006
ENDA SECTION:
sent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Water Reclamation Plant
ITEM NO:
D ' 3S
I EM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Expansion (J4390)
PREPARED BY: /
Change Order No. 5
Lyle
J. Zimmerman 1`
Sheehy Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Expansion Project
and there have been
several changes required. The largest item includes modifications to the aeration
blower piping so that
the blower size can be increased in the future without modifying all of the piping.
The other changes
included minor piping and electrical changes required to avoid conflicts or improve the overall quality of
the work. The following is a list of the changes included in Change Order No. 5.
1. Modify aeration blowet piping
$ 62,640.00
2. Modify wetwell instrumentation to allow calibration outside the wetwell
$ 2,954.00
3. Add ground fault -breakers and add instrumentation wiring not shown
$ 3,605.00
4. Change PLC output cards since specified cards are no longer made
$ 0.00
5. Relocate sump pump from elevator shaft to meet code requirements
$ 5,693.00
6. Provide piping wall sleeves in Tunnel IX not shown on drawings
$ 6,344.00
7. Change chemical injector material to titanium
$ 7,690.00
8. Modify Gallery G hot water piping to avoid conflict with structural beams
$ 3,710.00
9. Add roof drain piping in Gallery G not shown on drawings
$ 4,673.00
10. Modify miscellaneous piping in Gallery G to avoid conflicts
$ 3,791.00
11. Reroute roof drain piping in Tunnel X
$ 2,710.00
Total for Change Order No. 5
$103,810.00
Original Contract Amount
$23,647,578.00
-change Order No. 1
$ 195,204.00
Vhange Order No. 2
$ 103,113.00
Change Order No. 3
$ 86,369.00
Change Order No. 4
$ 373,000.00
Change Order No. 5
$ 103,810.00
Revised Contract Amount
$24,509,074.00
No extension of time will be included with Change Order No. 5
Original Substantial Completion Date
October 6, 2006
Original Final Completion Date
January 4, 2007
Revised Substantial Completion Date
December 1, 2006
Revised Substantial completion date
March 1, 2007
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that Change Order No. 5 for the 2004 Plant Expansion Project be
approved to increase
the contract amount by $103,810.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1
DATE: 02/06/2006
Ar_ENDA SECTION:
asent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Water Reclamation Plant
ITEM NO:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Upgrade(J4390)
PREPARED BY:
Change Order No. 2
Lyle J. Zimmerman
Bor-Son Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Upgrade Project and there have been
several changes required with the work. The major modification include in this change order includes
changes to the new boiler to allow the use of digester gas in addition to natural gas. The intent of the
original design was to use all of the digester gas in the engine generators. Large price increases in
natural gas makes it more economical to use the digester gas in the boilers during certain times of the
year. This change will give (he plant more flexibility in energy management. The following list gives a
brief description of items included in Change Order No. 2.
1. Modifications -to sump pump and sample piping to meet local codes $ 19,339.00
2. Revise grit washer controls as recommended by the manufacturer $ 0.00
3. Modify duct bank routing at Sludge Loadout Bldg. $ 5,708.00
4. Modify sludge piping to allow flexibility in operation of storage tanks $ 10,632.00
5. Provide external pipe wall caps to protect pipe for future connections $ 3,066.00
6. Boiler No. 7 modifications required to allow use of both natural and
digester gas $131,476.00
7. Change PLC output cards since specified cards are no longer made $ 0.00
8. Provide power to network field panels that is not shown on the drawings $ 3,739.00
9. Revise Storage Tank No. 2 hatch plates from 114 inch to 5/8 inch $ 9,915.00
10. Revise piping in Sludge Loadout Bldg. to avoid conflicts $ 5,292.00
11. Provide isolation valve on non -potable water pipe to new headworks $ 1,170.00
'• Total for Change Order No. 2 $190,337.00
No time extension for contract completion was requested with these changes.
Original Contract Amount $32,000,000.00
Change Order No. 1 $ 177,927.00
Change Order No. 2 $ 190,337.00
Revised Contract Amount $32,368,264.00
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that Change Order No. 2 for the 2004 Plant Upgrade Project be approved to increase the
contract amount by $190,337.00.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
l
nk /
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2/06/2006
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Hearings
Finance Department
E-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: A Public Hearing to Consider Granting Preliminary Approval to Issue
PREPARED BY:
Revenue Bonds for the Studio Academy Project
Dale Martinson
The City is being asked to consider issuing revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the purchase and equipping of a
building located at 415 160' Street S.W. in Rochester, formerly occupied by First Baptist Church. The facility would be
purchased by a non-profit corporation established for the purpose of owning the building and leasing it to Studio
Academy, a nonprofit corporation and public (charter) school. Studio Academy would sublease a portion of the facility
to Adam Abulle Academy, also a nonprofit corporation and public (charter) school. The facility would be used for
educational purposes by the students of the schools.
Council may recall a Committee of the Whole presentation by representatives of these two charter schools back in 2005
in which they laid out their preliminary plans and sought a waiver from a section of the City's IDB policy. That section
requires sales of unrated bonds be sold in minimum denominations of $100,000 to "sophisticated investors". The council
did, by consent, agree to reduce that minimum increment to $25,000 so as to make the marketing of the bonds easier to
complete. The proposed resolution reflects that amended minimum.
Northland Securities, the underwriters of these bonds, has issued a letter stating that they have reviewed the financing
plan and believe there are sufficient lease revenues to repay the bonds over their proposed 30 year tern. Other details of
the financing can be found in the application packet available at the Clerk's office. It should be noted that the City is
making no representations as to feasibility of the bonds and is not pledging any of its monies or taxing authority to the
repayment of the bonds. An excerpt of language from the resolution that would be included in both the offering
statement and the actual bonds states:
"Nothing in this Resolution or the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any
municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the
+• Issuer solely for this purpose. The Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable,
+• upon any property or funds of the Issuer except the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof
under a revenue agreement, nor shall the Issuer be subject to any liability thereon. The holders and owners of
the Bonds shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer to pay the
outstanding principal on the Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of
the Issuer. The Bonds shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including the interest thereon, are payable solely
from the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the
Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness."
In essence, the City would be lending its tax-exempt borrowing authority to the project and stating that there is a
valid public purpose in doing so.
If the council authorized preliminary approval following the hearing, the project would be brought back to the
council for final approval once all the paperwork for the issuance was complete. Representatives of Northland
Securities (underwriter), Studio Academy, and Adam Abdulle Academy will be available at the hearing for
questions. Note: Significant Legal and Financial consultant expenses will
be incurred by the applicants between preliminary and final
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: approval. If there are any issues or concerns on the proposal,
this hearing is the best time for raising those.
Following the hearing, approve the resolution granting preliminary approval to this financing.
6 IJ
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Studio Academy ILA School
Public Chru{'er School for the Y its
415 161j, St SW S,& U — Rochester. MY 55902
phone: 507-529-1662 — (eu 507-529-1643
January 4, 2006
Mt. Dale Martinson; ,
Finance Director
City of Rochester
2014th Street SE
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Dear Mr. Martinson:
The purpose of this letter is to request that the City of Rochester issue its tax-ex-
empt $5,000,000 Lease Revenue Bonds (Studio Academy Project) Series 2006 and its
$350,000 Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Studio Academy Project) Series 2006 for the
benefit of Studio Academy Properties. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to put -
'chase the existing First Baptist Church Building located at 415 16th Street S.W., in Roch-
ester for use by Studio Academy and Adam Abdulle Academy as public charter schools,
to fund a debt service reserve fund, pay off existing lease obligations and pay the costs of
issuance of the bonds.
Enclosed are the City of RochesterApplication for Industrial/Housing Development
Bond Financing, a letter from Northland Securities, Inc., concerning the financial feasi-
bility of the project, and a check in the amount of $13,375, .25% of the proposal amount
of the bonds. Also enclosed are a Distribution List showing the names and related infor-
mation of all the patties that will be involved in the bond issues and a letterfrom the IRS
acknowledging receipt of our 501(c)(3) application. If you need any further information,
please call me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Studio Academy Properties
Eric Holsen
Secretary
— weh+wh 46dlon J ul m — 1
1
i
S5,000,000
Cim of Rochester, Minnesota
Tax - Exempt Lease Revenue Bonds I Series 2006
Sources & Uses
Dated 0370 IMM I Delivered 03x1112006
Tobi Seuroes
Coraingellof _ _ _ - —
Cosfa of Issuance _
RoundingAmount
S5,244,750.0o
Total Us" ._ $5,244,750.00
MW ACADEMY FALL with 1 SNOIE PURPOSE I T2/291200S 111:40 AM
Northland Securities
Public Finance
Page 1
NORTHLAND 0
SECURMES
November 3, 2W5
Mr. Dale Martinson
Finance Director
City of Rochester
City Hall
201 Fourth Street SE
Rochester, IMN 559D4
Re: City of Rochester,/ Minnesota — Approximate $5,030,0DD Lease Revenue Bonds
(Studio Academy Project) Series 2006
Dear Mr. Martinson:
At the request of Studio Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower"),
we have conducted a study of the economic feasibility of the proposal that the City of
Rochester, Minnesota (the "City") issue revenue bonds under the provisions of the Minnesota
Municipal Industrial Development Act to provide funds to be loaned to the Borrower or
another Minnesota nonprofit corporation formed by the Borrower to own a charter school
located in the City of Rochester (the "Project").
Our study has led us to the canclusfan that on the basis of currant financial conditions,
the Project is feasible from a financial standpoint and the revenue bonds can be successfully
issued and sold.
x' We understand a copy of this letter will be forwarded by the City to the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development to serve as the letter of feasibility
required by the Commissioner.
Sincerely,
Northland Securities, Inc
By 041.nt,,!
Its /LO�i pm,�c
Na*I=d SatmtiC%1W. 4S Swth Y S"M Sulk 2500, Mf VftPds, W 55402 Tw rm 800-01-2920 a 612-851-5906 sa 611.851.5987
wa+rsuethlaad®ec�ritus.wm
ww+M YIti9Uarp 9iFC
Extract of Minutes of a Meeting of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the Government Center in
Rochester on Monday, the 6th day of February, 2006, at 7:00 o'clock p.m.
The following members were present:
f�
and the following were absent:
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A
THE ACQUISITION AND EQUIPPING OF A PUBLIC
(CHARTER) SCHOOL PROJECT, GIVING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT,
AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION
' OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
(STUDIO ACADEMY SCHOOL PROJECT)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A
THE ACQUISITION AND EQUIPPING OF A PUBLIC (CHARTER) SCHOOL PROJECT,
GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
(STUDIO ACADEMY SCHOOL PROJECT)
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended
(the "Act"), grants municipalities and redevelopment agencies the power to issue revenue bonds to
finance a project for, among others, any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection
with a revenue producing enterprise, whether or not operated for profit; and
WHEREAS; the City of Rochester, Minnesota, (the "Issuer" or the "City"), is a home
rule charter city udder section 469.153, subd. 3 of the Act, authorized to issue revenue bonds to
finance projects under section 469.156 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer has received from Studio Academy Properties (the
'Developer"), a proposal that it undertake to finance the Project hereinafter described, through the
issuance of revenue bonds or other obligations (which may be issued in one or more series) (the
"Bonds") pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to promote, attract, encourage and develop
economically sound industry and commerce and to prevent the occurrence of conditions requiring
redevelopment, and the Project will assist the Issuer in achieving these objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has advised the Issuer that $5,000,000 of the Bonds will
be qualified 501(c)(3) bonds under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code")
and $350,000 of the Bonds will be taxable; and
WHEREAS, the Developer is a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, formed for the purpose of acquiring an existing building to be used for public (charter)
school and functionally related facilities, located at 415 16'b Street S.W. in the City of Rochester (the
"Project") and leasing the Project to Studio Academy, a nonprofit corporation and public (charter)
school under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Studio Academy will sublease a portion of the
Project to Adam Abdulle Academy, a nonprofit corporation and public (charter) school under the laws of
the State of Minnesota. The Project will be used for educational purposes by the students of the schools; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer has been advised by representatives of the Developer that
conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital costs of the Project is available only on a
limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the
Project would be significantly reduced, but the Developer has also advised the Issuer that with the
aid of municipal financing, and resulting low borrowing costs, the Project is economically more
feasible; and
WHEREAS, as required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code, the City has, on
this date, February 6, 2006, held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds to finance the
Project, after notice was published as required by Section 469.154, Subdivision 4, of the Act, on
January . 2006, at which public hearing all parties who appeared at the hearing were given an
opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the Project.
2
P,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota, as follows:
1. PreliminaryApproval. The Issuer hereby gives preliminary approval to the
proposal of the Developer that the Issuer undertake the financing of the Project pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended. The Project will be undertaken
pursuant to a revenue agreement between the Issuer and Developer on such terms and conditions,
with provisions for revision from time to time as necessary, as will produce income and revenues
sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of, premium if any, and interest on all series of Bonds
issued to provide net proceeds in a total principal amount of not more than $5,350,000. The Bonds
are to be issued in one or more series, in minimum denominations of $25,000, pursuant to the Act to
finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project. The revenue agreement may also
provide for the entire interest of the Developer therein to be mortgaged to the purchasers of the
Bonds, or to a trustee or trustees for the purchasers of the Bonds or to a financial institution or
government agency which provides credit enhancement for or purchases the Bonds. The Issuer
hereby preliminarily authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in one or more series in accordance with
such terms and conditions.
2. Findings. On the basis of information available to the Issuer and information
provided by the Developer, it appears, and the Issuer hereby finds, that: (1) the Project constitutes
properties, real and personal, used or useful in connection with one or more revenue producing
enterprises engaged in any business within the meaning of Subdivision 2(b) of Section 469.153 of
the Act; (2) that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152 of
the Act; (3) the availability of financing under the Act and the willingness of the Issuer to furnish
such financing will be substantial inducement to the Developer to undertake the Project; and (4) the
effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to promote, attract, encourage and develop economically
sound industry and commerce within the City, to help the City provide the range of education,
service and employment opportunities required by the population, to help prevent the movement of
talented and educated persons out of the state and to areas within the state where their services may
be as effectively used.
3. Subiect to Final Approval. The Project, and the financing of the Project by
the issuance of revenue bonds, is hereby given preliminary approval by the Issuer. The adoption of
this Resolution does not constitute a guaranty or a firm commitment that the City will issue the
Bonds as requested by the Developer. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw
from participation and accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less
than the amount referred to herein, should the City, at any time prior to the issuance thereof,
determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an
amount less than the amount referred to in paragraph 1 hereof, or should the City, the Developer
and the original purchaser of the Bonds be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions
of any of the documents required for issuance of the Bonds.
4. Costs Paid by Developer; Fees. The Developer has agreed, and it is hereby
determined, that any and all costs incurred by the Issuer in connection with the financing for the
Project, including reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or not the Project is carried to completion and
whether or not the Bonds are issued, will be paid by the Developer.
5. Bond Counsel. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., is hereby authorized to act as
bond counsel for the Bonds, and such firm, acting as bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the
3
preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project, to consult with Briggs &
Morgan, P.A., as the City's bond counsel, Developer and the original purchaser of the Bonds (or
trustee for the purchasers of the Bonds) as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms and
provisions of the Bonds and as to the covenants and other provisions of the necessary documents,
and to submit such documents to the Issuer for final approval.
6. Revenue Bonds. Nothing in this Resolution or the documents prepared
pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the
revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the Issuer solely for this purpose. The
Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or
funds of the Issuer except the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof under a
revenue agreement, nor Ihall the Issuer be subject to any liability thereon. The holders and owners
of the Bonds shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer to
pay the outstanding principal on the Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof
against any property of the Issuer. The Bonds shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including the
interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof.
The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation of indebtedness.
7. Proiect Costs and Reimbursements. In anticipation of final approval of the
issuance of the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the Project, the Developer may make such
expenditures and advances toward payment of that portion of the costs of the Project to be financed
from the proceeds of the Bonds as the Developer considers necessary, including the use of interim,
short-term financing, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the Bonds, if any, when
delivered, but otherwise without any liability on the part of the Issuer.
8. MnDEED Approval. In accordance with Section 469.154, Subdivision 3 of
the Act, the Mayor and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized and directed to cause the
Application to be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development for approval of the Project. The Mayor and the Director of Finance and other
officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide the
Department with any information needed for this purpose.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER
THIS 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2006.
City Clerk
Approved this 7`" day of February, 2006.
(Seal of the City of Rochester)
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
n
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
M
At-="l7A SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Public Hearings
City Administrator
ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing on Graffiti complaint upon property located at 1756 10
PREPARED BY:
Avenue SE
T. Spaeth
In late November, 2005 the City staff was made aware of the placement of graffiti upon a utility shed located on the
property at 1756 101" Avenue SE, owned by Daniel Sund. A letter dated November 30, 2005 was sent to the owner
requesting that the graffiti be removed from the building within 7 days of that date.
A follow up inspection was conducted on December 12, 2005, at which time it was observed that the graffiti had been
removed from 3 sides of the building, but that one side of the shed still contained graffiti. A second notice letter dated
December 15, 2005 sent via certified mail was sent to the owner requesting removal of the remaining graffiti within 7
days of the letter as per RCOParagraph 85B.06, Subd.l.
Under Section A subsequent inspection on January 3, 2006 indicated that the graffiti still remained. As per RCO
Paragraph 85B.06 Subd. 2, a letter dated January 4, 2006 was sent to the owner indicating that this matter would be
scheduled for a public hearing before the Council on February 6, 2006, and that the Council may order the removal of
the graffiti by either the property owner or the City's Department of Public Works, and if the graffiti has to be removed
by the City, the costs will be assessed against the property.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council action to request Police Department provide notice to owner under the provisions of RCO Paragraph 85B.08.
L>^
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
\O
CHAPTER 85B. ABATEMENT Cr- GRAFFITI_
85B.05. Unlawful Conduct• Owner's Responsibility. It shall be
unlawful for the owner of any property to allow graffiti to be placed on
any external surface on the owner's property. The owner of any such
property shall remove therefrom graffiti which has been placed there.
85B.06. City Police to Identify.
Subd. 1. Basgd' upon information received from the public or upon
police observation) I the city police shall investigate and identify
graffiti. After the police department has verified the existence of
graffiti, the city administrator shall send a letter to the property
owner by certified mail informing the property owner about the graffiti
and requesting the property owner to remove the graffiti within a
reasonable period of time, based upon consideration of weather
conditions and other relevant factors. A copy of the city
administrator's letter shall be sent to the council member for the ward
in which the graffiti is located. The police department shall verify
whether the graffiti has in fact been removed.
Subd. 2. If the police department finds that the graffiti has not
been removed within the time allotted, the department shall contact the
city 'clerk, who shall schedule a public hearing. The city clerk shall
notify the affected property owner of the hearing date, the preliminary
findings that graffiti exists on the owner's property and that the
'Council may after the hearing order the removal of the graffiti by
"-dither the property owner or the city's department of public works, and
if said department has to remove the graffiti, the costs will be
assessed against the owner's property.
85B.07. Hearing.
Subd. 1. At a hearing before the Council, the Council shall
receive evidence from the police department and from any other persons
with knowledge as to the existence of graffiti. The property owner
shall be entitled to be heard on all matters relating to graffiti and
the process of removal. The existence of graffiti must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Subd. 2. If the council finds that graffiti exists, the Council
shall notify the department of public works and direct its removal in
accordance with Section 85B.08. The department of public wozlr-'s WAY
authorize private contractors to handle graffiti removal.
85B.08. Notice to owner. In the event the Council finel: '•ica. t
graffiti exists, the police department shall mail a written order "a
owner of the subject real property, addressed to the owner's land:,;_
address. The written order shall contain the following:
247-10
July 29, 1994 - Update
�L I
ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES
Ll
(1) A description of the real estate sufficient for identification.
(2) Inform the owner that the Council has found graffiti exists on
the owner's property.
(3) A request that the owner remove or obliterate the graffiti
within a reasonable time as determined by the Council.
(4) Inform the'owner that unless corrective action is taken within
the time allotted, the department of public works may remove
the graffiti and charge all costs incurred therein against the
real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same
manner as taxes against real estate.
855.09. Costs to be Assessed.
Subd. 1. In the event the City removes and/or abates the graffiti,
an accurate record of the costs incurred therein shall be kept by the
department of public works and reported to the department of finance.
The total costs of this abatement, including the administrative costs
incurred by the department of finance in processing the abatement and
costs'.vncurred by the police department in investigating the graffiti,
shall be considered a tax on real property. This may be assessed .
against the affected property and collected as provided in Chapter 10 of
.,the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes 429.101.
Subd. 2. In the event the person or persons responsible for the
graffiti are convicted and the court orders the offender(s) to pay
restitution for the cost of the clean up, and either the City or a
private property owner have expended funds to clean up the graffiti, the
restitution shall be directed to either the City or the private property
owner as reimbursement for the cost of the clean up.
85B.10. Graffiti Abatement Civil in Nature. A violation of
Sections 85B.05 through 85B.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
relating to the abatement of graffiti, shall not be treated as
misdemeanors nor shall they be criminal in nature.
85B.11. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is
declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal and ^01
conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining provimions �i%�'I
their application to other persons and circumstances shall not
affected.
(2932, 4/5/94)
247-11
July 29, 1994 - Update
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NOABY:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Development District # 33 and Tax Increment
PREPAFinancing
District # 33-1 for the Residences of Old Town Hall Project
T.SPAE
The City staff has been working with Jeff Allman (developer) on a proposal to re -use the former Town Hall Estates Senior
Congregate Housing facility, and convert the building into 66 single room occupancy market rate rental apartments. The
developer has requested tax increment financing assistance from the City to provide gap funding to facilitate the
acquisition and repairs to the building. In this instance, the developer is proposing market rate rental housing geared
toward the downtown workforce.
As such, in order to qualify fbr TIT assistance, the project must be done as a "Redevelopment' Tax Increment Financing
District. In order to gdalify for a "Redevelopment' TIF District, the buildings must meet the "structurally substandard"
test of the Statutes. TSP Architects have documented those conditions, and the building does qualify for a
"Redevelopment" district. In such a district, 90% of the available tax increments must go to correct the conditions that
allowed the designation of a "Redevelopment' district.
The City is proposing to provide $240,000 plus interest as a "pay as you go" TIF district for repairs and renovation to
facilitate correction of the "substandard" condition. The maximum duration of a Redevelopment TIF District is 2S years
under the Statute. Based upon current information, our estimate is that the TIF District will run for approximately 15
years before the TIF obligation to the developer is satisfied, at which time the TIF District will be decertified.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution approving the Development District # 33 and Tax Increment Financing District Plan # 33-1
"** Please note that TIF Plan has not been included due to its length. A copy is available in the City
Administration office for any interested parties.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
C:9
a,
G
LL
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
�-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: The Gardens Manufactured Home Park —Notice of Closing
PREPARE BY:
Mitzi A. Baker,
Senior Planner
February 2, 2006
Planning Staff Review
See attached planning staff report.
Staff recommends accepting the "Notice of Closure/Conversion" for The Gardens Manufactured
Home Park subject to the
following requirements:
1. The Park shall not be closed or converted prior to May 9, 2006
Council Action Requested:
The Council shall hold a public hearing. Following the hearing, the Council should direct the City
Attorney to prepare a Resolution supporting the Councils decision.
� � E V 41. ft
L
�
.✓� / L �
. 114YL
Attachments
Ii 1. Copy of staff report %- w
f`
( vti dv
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney cti`
3. Planning Department
( File
r
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
V�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNTY of www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
DATE: February 2, 2006
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
RE: The Gardens Manufactured Home Community Park
Closure/Conversion Statement
Notice of Closing:
fU(RE,
�A11� 'tit
The Gardens Manufactured Home Community LLC, submitted a complete "Closure/Conversion
Statement' to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department on August 9, 2005. As stated in
Chapter 120, Section 120.03 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, the "Closure Statement' shall
be submitted nine (9) months prior to the closure of a Manufactured Home Park. Therefore, the
park owners will not be allowed to close or convert the park any earlier than May 9, 2006.
The closure or conversion of a manufactured home park is regulated by Chapter 327 Minnesota
Statues and Chapter 120 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances.
Notice of Public Hearing and Public Neighborhood Meeting:
The Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department sent notice to the owner of each manufactured
home located in The Gardens Manufactured Home Community on September 23, 2005 stating
the hearing date, time, place and purpose- A public hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2005,
but at the request of the applicant, was continued to October 17, 2005 and later tabled to
February 6, 2006. A new notice of public hearing was sent to the owners of each manufactured
home in The Gardens on January 27, 2006.
Purpose of Public Hearing:
RCO 120.05. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for
the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating the impact, if any, the park closing
may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Before any change of use or cessation
of operation, and as a condition of such change in use or cessation of operation, the City Council
may require the park owner to compensate the displaced residents for their reasonable relocation
costs or, if a manufactured home cannot be relocated, make a payment in lieu thereof.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
,..w..o,n. PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 5071266-8345
FAR 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Subd. 3. "Displaced Resident" means a resident of an owner -occupied manufactured home
who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household,
as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission.
Following the hearing the Council shall determine the amount of compensation to be paid,
if any, to the displaced residents.
According to Chapter 120, Section 120.06, Subd. 2, of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
payment of relocation costs are as follows:
A. The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced resident's manufactured home
and personal property, including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving and
reassempling any attached appurtenances, such as porches, decks, skirting and
awning which were not acquired after notice of closure or conversion of the park, and
utiUty "hook-up" charges.
B. The cost of insurance for replacement value of the property being moved.
C. The total cost, not to exceed 15% of the County Assessor's estimated market value
of the structure, of minor repairs or modifications that are required in order to move
the manufactured home.
D. Required deposits at the relocation site in excess of any amount returned to the
manufactured home owner, up to a maximum of $250.00.
Background Information:
The "Closure/Conversion Statement", provided by the Park owners, included a statement that "It
is anticipated that there will be no relocation costs payable to any Home Owner since no Home
Owner will be required to vacate his/her lot due to the conversion". The Park owners propose to
offer lots for sale, but will continue to rent lots to the existing residents who do not purchase their
lot. The Park owners recently provided a comparison of rent versus ownership for the lots in The
Gardens, and associated costs to residents. The finance summary suggests there would be no
cost increase to existing residents with the conversion of the park to those who continue to rent
lots, outside of lot rents increased annually by the Consumer Price Index.
Planning Staff met with the Park owners and their representatives along with representatives from
the Olmsted County Health Department, City Administration and City Attorney's office in October
2005 to discuss some of the anticipated outcomes of this closure/conversion as they relate to the
transition and application of regulations.
The Park owners have made a commitment that they will not rent any of the vacant lots for the
purpose of placement of a manufactured home. The vacant lots will only be available for sale.
Furthermore, the Park owners have said that they will continue to rent lots to existing residents
only. Through attrition, the Park would transition to a single family subdivision. The time over
which this transition would occur is unknown.
The State Health Department regulates Manufactured Home Parks, and locally this is
administered through the Olmsted County Public Health. The County Public Health Department
will continue to license those parts of The Gardens that will be operated as a Manufactured home
Park, as addressed by Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules.
The City Council will also need to determine whether the information submitted by the Park
owners is sufficient to make a decision on potential financial impacts related to the Park
closure/conversion. The Council will need to determine whether there are potential financial
impacts to "displaced residents", and whether compensation will be required from the Park
owners to the "displaced residents".
Planning Staff Recommendation:
It appears that existing residents will not be forced to leave with this Park Closure/Conversion.
The Park owners have stated that they will continue to lease lots to residents who wish to
continue to lease, and will offer lots for sale to those who wish to purchase their lot. Considering
these unique circumstances, it does not appear that the City should require compensation to
"displaced residents", in this case.
Staff recommends accepting the "Notice of Closure/Conversion" for The Gardens Manufactured
Home Park subject to the following requirements:
1. The Park shall not be closed or converted prior to May 9, 2006.
Attachments:
1) Closure Statement submitted by The Gardens Manufactured Home Community.
2) Copy of Chapter 120 Rochester Code of Ordinances.
3) Financial information provided by The Gardens
4) Letter from Olmsted County Public Health
`�
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS
120.01. Purpose. In view of the unique nature and problems presented
by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that
the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by:
1. requiring compensation to displaced residents of such parks;
2. providing for proper disposal of potentially obsolete and dilapidated
manufactured homes; and
3. establishing the requirements for the closure of manufactured home parks
in the City of Rochester pursuant to Section 327C.095 of the Minnesota
Statutes.
120.02. Definitions. The following words and terms used in this chapter shall
have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Subdivision 1. "Closure Statement" means a statement prepared by the
park owner clearly stating that the park is closing, addressing the availability, location
and potential cost of adequate replacement housing within a 25-mile radius of the park
that is closing, and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in
the park.
Subd. 2. "Department" means the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department.
Subd. 3. "Displaced Resident" means a resident of an owner -
occupied manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park,
including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner
submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission.
Subd. 4. "Lot" means an area within a manufactured home park designed or
used for the accommodation of a manufactured home.
Subd. 5. "Manufactured Home" means a structure, not fixed to or part of real
estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight body
feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is 320
or more square feet and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used
as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required
utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical system
contained in it.
Subd. 6. "Manufactured Home Park" means any site, lot, field or tract of land
upon which two or more occupied manufactured homes are located, either free of
charge or for compensation, and includes any building, structure, tent, vehicle or
enclosure used or intended for use as part of the equipment of the manufactured home
park. This definition does not include facilities which are open only during three or
fewer seasons of the year.
Subd. 7. "Park Owner" means the owner of a manufactured home park and
any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a park.
Subd. 8. "Person" means any individual, corporation, firm, partnership,
incorporated and unincorporated association, or any other legal or commercial entity.
120.03. Notice of Closing. If a manufactured home park is to be closed or
converted in whole or in part to another use, or terminated as a use of the property, the
park owner shall, at least nine months prior to the closure or conversion to another use
or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure statement to a resident of each
manufactured home located in the manufactured home park and to the Department.
The Department shall charge a fee, in an amount determined by Council resolution, for
the cost incurred in processing the closure statements.
120,04. Notice of Public Hearing. The Department shall submit the closure
statement to the City Council at a public hearing. At least ten days prior to the public
hearing, the Department shall mail a notice to the owner of each manufactured home in
the park and to any resident paying rent to the park owner. The notice shall state the
hearing's time, place and purpose. The park owner shall provide the Department with a
list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in
the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the Department.
120.05. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held before the City
Council for the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating the impact, if
any, the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Before
any change of use or cessation of operation, and as a condition of such change in use
or cessation of operation, the City Council may require the park owner to compensate
the displaced residents for their reasonable relocation costs or, if a manufactured home
cannot be relocated, make a payment in lieu thereof.
120.06. Payment of Relocation Costs. Subdivision 1. Following the
submission of the closure statement and the public hearing, the park owner shall pay to
each displaced resident the amount determined by the Council pursuant to Section
120.05 to be reasonable relocation costs.
Subd. 2. Reasonable relocation costs may include:
A. The actual expense incurred in moving the displaced resident's
manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost
of disassembling, moving and reassembling any attached appurtenances,
such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings which were not acquired
after notice of closure or conversion of the park, and utility "hook-up"
charges.
B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being
moved.
C. The total cost, not to exceed 15% of the County Assessor's estimated
market value of the structure, of minor repairs or modifications that are
required in order to move the manufactured home.
D. Required deposits at the relocation site in excess of any amount returned
to the manufactured home owner, up to a maximum of $250.00.
120.07. Payment In lieu Of Relocation Cost. Subdivision 1. If a resident
cannot relocate the manufactured home with a 25-mile radius of the park that is being
closed, the Council may require the owner to make a payment to the resident in lieu of
relocation costs in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing.
The payment in lieu shall be an amount equal to the estimated market value of the
19'
manufactured home as determined by the County Assessor or the average relocation
cost awarded to other park residents, whichever is greater.
Subd. 2. If it is not possible to fairly compute an average relocation cost, the
payment shall be based upon an estimate prepared by a qualified manufactured home
mover.
120.08. Verification of Cost and Distribution of Payments. The displaced
resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for relocating the
manufactured home to the park owner for approval as a condition to the park owner's
liability to pay relocation expenses. If the park owner refuses to pay the contract or
other verified cost estimate, the park owner shall arrange for relocating the
manufactured home and pay the relocation costs identified in Section 120.06.
Relocation payments must be made no later than the date upon which the
manufactured home is removed from the park. In the case of manufactured homes that
cannot be removed, the in lieu payment shall be made at the time of, and shall be
contingent upon, the tendering of the manufactured home's title to the park owner. In
the event that the owner is unable to locate the title to the manufactured home, the
owner shall sign an affidavit setting forth: (1) the inability to locate the title; (2) the
home owner's desire to transfer ownership of the home to the park owner for disposal
purposes; and (3) the home owner's agreement to transfer ownership and releasing the
park owner from any liability for the home's eventual disposal.
120.09. Disposition of Manufactured Homes Not Capable of Being
Relocated. As a condition of the change in use or cessation of operation of the
manufactured home park, the City Council may require that any manufactured home not
capable of being relocated due to non-compliance with Rochester's Building Code shall
be demolished and disposed in accordance with any and all applicable laws and
regulations. The park owner is responsible for the costs of demolition and disposal.
'• 120.10. Penalty. Subdivision 1. A violation of any provision of this chapter
shall be a misdemeanor. In addition, the City Attorney may enforce any provision of this
chapter by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy.
Subd. 2. The City shall not issue a building permit or zoning certificate in
conjunction with reuse of manufactured home park property unless the park owner has
paid reasonable relocation costs or the in lieu payment as required by this chapter.
(3493, 6/17102; 3496, 7/1/02)
CHAPTER 125
[Repealed by Ordinance No. 2546, 5/4/87; See Chapter 125A]
I am not sure whether or not I will be able to make it to the meeting tonight, so please
accept this letter as my formal objection to the conversion of The Gardens Manufactured
Home Community from a manufactured home park to a common interest community.
I own the home located at 4216 Daffodil Avenue S.E, Rochester, MN 55904.
I do not have the means to purchase the lot where my home is located. I would not have
the desire to purchase the lot even if I had the means to do so.
I have numerous copcerns regarding the conversion which have not yet been addressed,
including: lack of maintenance of common areas, inability to sell my home, possibility
that my home could be next to more commercial development, etc.
Please accept this document as my formal objection to the conversion proposed by The
Gardens Manufactured Home Community.
Jchultz tip n.LS�tLg.x t
4216 Daffodil Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55901
VS
THE GARDENS MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITY
PARK CLOSUREICONVERSION STATEMENT
TO: The City of Rochester and the Residents of The Gardens Manufactured Home Community
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that The Gardens Manufactured Home Community
LLC, (the "Park Owner;'), which owns and operates The Gardens Manufactured Home
Community, ("The Gardens"), plans to cease operation of The Gardens as a manufactured home
park effective no sooner than 9 months from the date you receive this notice. The purpose of the
cessation of The Gardens as a manufactured home park is to convert The Gardens from a
manufactured home park (in which all of the lots are under common ownership and each lot is
leased to the owner(s) of the home located on that lot) to a common interest community (in
which a lot may be owned by the owner(s) of the home located on that lot). The conversion is
being done at the urging of residents of The Gardens.
Presently, the Park Owner owns all of the lots on which the homes in The Gardens are
located and the owners of the homes ("Home Owners") pay monthly lot rent to the Park Owner.
The conversion will create a "common interest community" in which each of the lots will be
platted as a separate lot that can be sold by the Park Owner to the Home Owner. The common
areas of The Gardens (such as the streets (if they remain private streets), the club house and the
other non-public amenities) will be owned and operated by a homeowners' association consisting
of the owners of all lots in The Gardens. Home Owners who purchase their lots will no longer
have to pay lot rent. It is felt that this will make it easier to obtain financing for homes located in
The Gardens. Home Owners who choose not to purchase their lots may continue to rent that lot
on terms that are mutually agreeable to the Park Owner and the Home Owner. All existing lot
leases with Home Owners will be honored.
1 Under Minnesota law, the Home Owners have the following rights:
A Home Owner may not be required to vacate the lot that he/she presently occupies
until 60 days after the City holds a public hearing to determine what relocation costs, if any, may
be payable by the Park Owner to the Home Owner. [It is anticipated that there will be no
relocation costs payable to any Home Owner since no Home Owner will be required to vacate
his/her lot due to the conversion.]
2. If a lot is available in another section of The Gardens that will continue to be
operated as a manufactured home park, the Home Owner shall be allowed to relocate the home
to that lot. [It is anticipated that all of The Gardens will be converted to the common interest
community.]
3. The terms of your present tenancy may not be altered during the notice period,
except that you may vacate and terminate your present occupancy upon one month's written
notice to the Park Owner.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, you may be required to vacate your lot prior to the end
of the notice period by reason of non-payment of rent, utilities or other monetary obligations,
violations of law, waste, or conduct that disturbs other occupants' peaceful enjoyment of The
Gardens.
Nothing shall prevent the Park Owner and any Home Owner from agreeing to a right
of occupancy on a month -to -month basis beyond the notice period, or to an earlier termination of
the right of occupancy.
6. Not less than 120 days before the end of 9 months from the date you receive this
notice, the Park Owner will provide you with a form of purchase agreement setting forth the
terms of the sale of your lot. For 60 days after the mailing of that notice to you, you will have
1�1
the option to purchase your lot on the terms contained in the purchase agreement. If you elect
not to exercise your option to purchase your lot within such 60 days, the Park Owner may not
offer to sell your lot during the following 180 days at a price or on terms more favorable than the
price or terms contained in the purchase agreement.
You may contact the Park Owner at 286-1177 if you have any questions about this
Statement.
Dated: b5'
THE GARDENS MANUFACTURED
HOME COMMUNITY LLC
VVV i �.t aat
A Hausrng i.p ,'F'4lllty'
9325 GardEn Coors SE Rochester, MN 55904 - (507) 286-9000 fax; (507) 292-%57
DXFE
TO�11lllf �!
rmV-Nh (SU7)-286-9000 FAX (507)-292-9057
1� 1,J � s
1t
RECEIVED
RCCF.�-TER - C�_':'.'S.TED
RI `%. "G .-,E= `RTYc ,T
12 January 2006
PROPOSED CONVERSION OF THE GARDENS "land lease park" TO
THE GARDENS COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY
All existing residents have the opportunity to purchase the lot that they currently rent,
convert their existing home from "chattel" to "real estate", and qualify ,for additional
income tax deductions of. mortgage interest and taxes paid.
Residents who choose to continue renting rather then, purchasing their home site may do
so, and will remain subject to the existing Home Lot Lease Agreement, Rules and
Regulations, and C0cnauts and Guidelines of The Gardens Community,
All residents of The Gardens Common Interest Community, whether they rent their lot or
own their lot, wall be subject to the new Common Interest Commturity Declaration,
Restrictions, and Architectural Standards for the Community.
Anticipated C.I.C. Association fee is $50/month, based on actual costs during 2004/2005.
2006 PROPOSED BUDGET:
Streets and grounds maintenance, snowing, and snow removal;
Street lights maintenance and electric:
$1800/1210.
Clubhouse cleaning, electric, water, gas, and cable:
450/sno.
450/mo.
Office phone, supplies, and misc. expenses:
Accounting, management, and insurance:
200/
Misc. and reserve:
1500/mo,
TOTAL MONTHLY BUDGET
200/mo.
$4600/mo.
M, VON, I
Monthly fee from occupied lots: $50/lot x 82 lots = $4100/mo.
Monthly fee from unsold lots: $12.50/lot x 47 lots = 587/mo.
Monthly office rental and outside clubhouse use: 1500/rno.
TOTAL MONTHLY INCOME: $6187/mo.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND: ($100/ sold lot x 82 lots) $8200
LOT PURCHASE COST COMPARED TO CURRENT LOT RENTAL COST
Average lot price: $35,500 @ 6.5% APR, 30 year An" ..................$224/mo.*
Property tax and C.I.C. fee: ..................... -- ................$80/mo.
.....................
Total monthly cost to own your lot: ........................ ....................... S304/mo.
Current average lot rent* ................. ...................................... —$3111mo.**
* Financing terms are based on proposals from Homegtead Mortgage Corporation,
*'*Lot rents will increase annually by the Consumer Price Index
0
RECEIVED
Zj�.41 t 7 2vos
c^ r�;1;71cD
JAFI-01-1900 00:04
P.02i02
The proposed conversion of The Gardens Manufactured Home Community (a
land lease "park"), to a Common Interest Community where residents may
purchase their lot rather than rent their lot, provides a unique opportunity to
all Gardens Community residents. For monthly payments of less than their
current lot rent and no down payment, existing residents can purchase their
lot and convert their home from "chattel' to "real estate", qualify for better
mortgage rates on their home, and qualify for additional income tax
deductions.
Any resident who chooses to continue renting rather than purchasing their lot
may do so. No existing resident will be required to purchase their lot or to
move from the community as a result of the conversion.
The existing Lot Lease Agreements will stay in full force and affect for all
residents who choose to continue renting. Lot rents will not increase as a
result of the proposed conversion to a Common. Interest Community. It is
anticipated that Rules & Regulations, and Covenants substantially similar to
those presently in affect will be adopted by the C. I. C. Association.
The owner of each lot will be assessed a Common Interest Community
Association fee. However, any resident who continues to rent their lot will
not be assessed an Association fee in addition to their rent.
_rI
TOTAL P.U_
ls\
January 31, 2006
Mitzi -
We continue to find The Gardens MH Park to be reasonably well designed and managed. The most
notable inconsistency, are several garages that were constructed in a way that are not fully compliant with
set back distances established in MN Manufactured Home Park Law. Interestingly, those setbacks may
be acceptable for local building and/or zoning codes applicable to MH Subdivisions.
The following observations are intended to clarify issues associated with the park owner's proposal to
convert the current MH Park into a MH subdivision where owners own and occupy properly recorded and
individually taxed "lots of record".
According to my rotes from a meeting held at Planning Department a few months ago, every occupied
and un-occupied lot, will ultimately be sold. Existing occupants of the MH Park will be encouraged to
assume ownership of the lots they are now renting.
Public Health plans to continue to license those parts of The Gardens that will be operated as a
Manufactured Home Park, as addressed by MN Statutes Chapter 327, and MN Rules Chapter 4630.
The following factors are related to the licensing issue:
1. The Park currently has about 45 vacant lots. If these vacant lots are not occupied until they are
sold and occupied by individual lot owners, they do not need to be licensed as part of a MH Park;
2. Of the existing 82 occupied rental lots, the MH Park owners project that about %2 will be sold to
I the current lot renters. When those lots are sold to the owners they will not be licensed;
3. However, the non -occupying owner of about 40 occupied lots will need to maintain MH Park
licensure. These may be scattered through out the current Park and intermingled with lots
becoming the proposed MH Subdivision.
4. In some cases, a party might purchase several lots and then proceed to rent each of the lots out
to people seeking a place to park their MH. In this scenario, the lot owner(s) will need to be
licensed as MH Park and the current "Gardens" will become the location of several licensed MH
Parks all located within the confines of the current "Gardens" MH Park.
It appears that parts of The Gardens will continue to be a licensed MH Park as it gradually converts to
becoming a MH Subdivision.
There were unresolved issues about ownership and maintenance of the sewage collection system
located in the streets and individual lots. All of the sewage collection system (located within the
perimeters of The Gardens) is reportedly owned and maintained by The Gardens MH Park. Reportedly,
Rochester City only owns and provides maintenance of sanitary sewer lines up to the perimeter of the
current park. At the time of our meeting, it was not yet clear how ownership and responsibility for the
sewage utility within the Park (but outside of the individual lots) will be addressed. Whatever
arrangements are made for the sanitary sewer will need to be workable and satisfactory to the owners
and to the City.
If you have further questions, please contact Steve Lackore or me.
Thanks
Rich Peter, Director of Environmental Health
Olmsted County Public Health
2100 Campus Drive SE
Rochester MN, 55904
507.285-8335, FAX 287-1492
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
E S
i t ctvt DESCRIPTION: Land Use Amendment #05-06 by The Gardens LLC. The
PREPARED BY:
applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Mitzi A. Baker,
Plan designation on approximately 2930 39.58 acres of land from "Industrial"
Senior Planner
to "Low Density Residential" and on 12.4812_31 acres from "Industrial" to
"Medium Density Residential". The property is part of the Gardens
Manufactured Home Park and is located east of St. Bridget Road, north of 45th
Street SE and south of the future 401h Street SE.
February 2, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WERE CORRECTED, WHICH MODIFIES THE SUM TOTAL ACRES
SLIGHTLY. PUBLIC HEARI9G NOTICES DID IDENTIFIES THESE ACREAGES AS "APPROXIMATE".
The applicant previously requested tabling all items related to'The Gardens" until February 6, 2006.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this item at the September 14, 2005, 2005 meeting.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Land Use Amendment #05-06 by The Gardens LLC based on staff's
findings and recommendations. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
Council Action Needed.
1. 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:
l
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 February 6, 2007 in the Council / Board Chamber at
the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
COUNCIL ACTION:
Iv By: Seconded By: Action:
�3S
I am not sure whether or not I will be able to make it to the meeting tonight, so please
accept this letter as my formal objection to the conversion of The Gardens Manufactured
Home Community from a manufactured home park to a common interest community.
I own the home located at 4216 Daffodil Avenue S.E, Rochester, MN 55904.
I do not have the means to purchase the lot where my home is located. I would not have
the desire to purchase the lot even if I had the means to do so.
I have numerous concerns regarding the conversion which have not yet been addressed,
including: lack of maintenance of common areas, inability to sell my home, possibility
that my home could be next to more commercial development, etc.
Please accept this document as my formal objection to the conversion proposed by The
Gardens Manufactured Home Community.
5Schultz
4216 Daffodil Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55901
ROC- ASTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPA,__MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNT, OF www.clmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: September 8, 2005; corrected September 26, 2005
RE: Land Use Amendment #05-06 by The Gardens LLC. The applicant
is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan designation on approximately 39.30 acres of land from
"Industrial" to "Low Density Residential' and on 12.48 acres from
"Industrial" to "Medium Density Residential". The property is part
of the Gardens Manufactured Home Park and is located east of St.
Bridget Road, north of 45th Street SE and south of the future 40th
Street SE.
Planninq Department Review. -
Petitioner: The Gardens LLC
4325 Garden Court SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE,
along the east side of St. Bridget Road SE and along the
north side of 451h Street SE.
Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan designation on approximately
39.30 acres of land from "Industrial' to "Low Density
Residential" and on 12.48 acres from 'Industrial' to "Medium
Density Residential".
Existing Land Use: The area labeled as "Area 1" on the GDP is currently a
developed manufactured home park community with private
roads and manufactured homes.
Proposed Land Use: Multiple applications are being considered concurrent with this
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page
June 16, 2005
GDP. The applicant is proposing to close the manufactured
home park and convert the developed portion to a single
family subdivision.
Adjacent Land Use and The areas surrounding this property to the west, north and
Zoning: east are designated for "industrial' uses on the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The land lying south of
451h Street is shown for "low density residential' uses on the
Land Use Plan.
Transportation Access: Major transportation improvements have been, or are in the
process of being,constructed in the area. New interchanges
at TH 63 and 40'1 Street, and 481h Street, along with
associated arterial and collector roads.
The accompanying General Development Plan (#261),
proposes two access to 451h St. SE, two to St Bridget Road
(two exist, one would be modified), and one access to the
future 401h Street SE.
Wetlands: A wetland related application has been approved by the City.
This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan.
Referral Comments: 1. See comments attached to GDP #261, The Gardens.
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. See report and additional maps attached to GDP #261.
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Criteria
Low Density Residential uses are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Having terrain with variety, but outside flood prone or poorly drained areas, and areas with
slopes over Fifteen percent.
This site has level to fairly rolling terrain and is outside flood prone areas.
b. Bounded but not penetrated by major streets.
This site is bounded, but not penetrated by, major roadways.
c. Buffered from the adverse influences of industrial, commercial, and high activity/high density
residential areas.
This site will largely be separated by adjacent uses to the north, south and west by existing and
proposed perimeter roadways. The land to the east is currently designated for "industrial" uses on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan; however, it appears that land may be more suitable for
"residential" or residential mixed use development in the future. Separate action will be requested of
the Commission or Council to initiate an amendment to the Land Use Plan in this area.
Q� Page 3
June 16, 2005
The General Development Plan for The Gardens, being considered concurrent with this application,
proposes to leave a remnant area (Area 4) in the northwest quadrant of the development designated for
"industrial" uses and zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Staff will recommend that the
Council initiate an amendment to this part of the development, to designate it for "commercial" use on
the Land Use Plan, and to re -zone "Area 4" to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) District.
d. Served by park, school, and other public facility systems, especially bikeway and pedestrian
systems.
This development includes a public park and perimeter pedestrian trail.
Medium -density resfdentiai uses are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Hating level to fairly rolling terrain, outside flood prone or poorly drained areas, or
areas with steep slopes.
This site has level to fairly rolling terrain and is outside flood prone areas and areas with steep
slopes.
b. Inclose proximity to commercial areas, employment centers, recreation areas, or
other facilities that serve smaller households.
Commercial development in this area had been limited to the TH 63 corridor from 40' Street
and to the north. With the completion of the 480 Street/TH 63 interchange and construction
of the 40' Street/TH 63 interchange and upgraded roadways in association with the TH 63
project (484 Street, St. Bridget Road, and 4e Street), additional commercial development is
expected in the immediate area, primarily along the TH 63 corridor between and around the
interchanges. This area is dynamic and is anticipated to develop with uses that serve
households, that provide community shopping and services and also provide opportunities for
employment.
c. Having good access by means of collector, arterial, and expressway streets and
transit systems to employment centers, commercial areas, and community facilities.
New roadways and interchange construction in this immediate area, requirements for access
spacing along perimeter roads, integration of pedestrian facilities into development, and
inclusion of a public park in the development will result in this site having good access to
employment centers, commercial areas and community facilities.
d. Buffered from the adverse influences of commercial, industrial, and other
incompatible activities.
This site will largely be separated by adjacent uses to the north, south and west by existing
perimeter roadways. The land to the east is currently designated for "industrial" uses on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, however, it appears that land may be more
suitable for "residential" or residential mixed use development in the future. Action will be
requested of the Commission or Council to initiate an amendment to the Land Use Plan in
this area.
The General Development Plan for The Gardens, being considered concurrent with this
proposal, proposes to leave a remnant area (Area 4) in the northwest quadrant of the
Page 4
June 16, 2005
development designated for "industrial" uses and zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial).
Staff will recommend that the Commission or Council initiate an amendment to this part of
the development, to designate it for "commercial" use on the land Use Plan, and to re -zone
Area 4 to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) District.
Staff Recommendation:
Findings can be made to support amends to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to
designate approximately 39.30 acres of land for "low density residential" land uses, and
approximately 12.48 acres for "medium density residential' uses.
Page 14
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 14, 2005
Detailed grading and drainage
platted or developed.
I At the time of platting, controlled ad
frontage of TH 52, and an access eas
Lot 4.
4. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewe
of 251h Street SW concurrent with the
could execute a pedestrian facilities i
will also b.p required when the property is
be dedicated along the entire
st be recorded providing access to
be required along the entire frontage
pment of the property or the applicant
int with City.
5. The public parkland dedication retirement fo�this development shall be in the
form of cash in lieu of land. `\
The Commission took a five minute break.
AND
AND
Amendment to Restricted Development Final Plan #99-21 and #00-20 known as The
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff reports, dated September 7, 2005 and September 8,
2005, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
Department.
A revised general development plan, dated September 14, 2005, was given to the
Commission prior to the meeting.
Page 15
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 14, 2005
Ms. Baker indicated that the third and fourth bullet, under staff -recommended condition number
1, could be stricken.
Mr. Burke asked if staff was requesting that the Commission initiate a zone change to B-1.
Ms. Baker explained that staff is asking the Commission to initiate the process.
Ms. Wiesner questioned what would happen if it created nonconformities.
Ms. Baker explained that the applicant's consultant met with the building official within the last
24 hours regarding the possible as -built conflicts. At this time, there are some alternatives. She
discussed the different alternatives the applicant has (ex. shifting of lot lines).
Mr. Burke questioned if the general development plan would need to be amended if the lot lines
where shifted.
Ms. Baker responded no. The lot lines would need to be shifted prior to it going to the City
Council.
Ms. Baker explained that the City Council would be holding a public hearing on the park closure.
Mr. Burke asked if the roadways would be private.
Ms. Baker responded that they would be owned by an association.
Mr. Burke asked if there would be changes in the parking regulations through the proposal.
Ms. Baker responded that, after looking at spillover requirements, it appears that they will meet
standards (with parking on one side).
Ms. Rivas asked if the lots were owned privately.
Ms. Baker explained that the homes were owned privately but not the land. She explained that
the owner is willing to allow the current renters to continue to rent the land, even after
development, if they do not wish to purchase the lot.
The applicant's representative, Wade DuMond from Yaggy Colby Associates (717 Third Avenue
SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that, one of the owners, Mr.
Lloyd Johnson, was present to answer any questions.
Mr. DuMond stated that it was his understanding that the purpose was to divide up the land into
lots for those who wanted to purchase the land.
Ms. Baker explained that the purpose for the third bullet of condition number 1 was in the event
the City Council did not approve R-3 zoning.
Mr. DuMond stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on September 13, 2005. At this
meeting, there were many discussions regarding this condition. The owner has agreed that the
easiest method is to move 3 feet away rather than zero lot lines.
( k1
I
Page 16
\ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 14, 2005
Mr. DuMond stated that, with regard to condition number 6, they propose to make the
connection into area 4.
Ms. Baker stated that she would review the request.
Mr. DuMond stated that he was in agreement with the other general development plan
recommended conditions.
Mr. DuMond stated that he would update the general development plan and restricted
development plans to meet the intent of the 3 foot offsets.
Mr. Burke questioned how they could move the lot lines when there are adjacent buildings.
Mr. DuMond explained that there was only one situation where there is less than 6 feet. He
indicated that he has been reviewing this with Mr. Ron Boose.
Ms. Baker explained that the consultant would need to submit revised plans regarding the shift
of lot lines by Friday in order to keep it on schedule.
Ms. Wiesner questioned how the double garage was permitted to be built.
Mr. DuMond assumed that building permits had been obtained.
One of the property owners, Mr. Lloyd Johnson, addressed the Commission. He indicated that
the original approval of the restricted development allowed garages to touch each other or be
immediately adjacent to each other.
+- Ms. Baker stated that the zoning plan may have shown that, but Building Code would
supersede.
Mr. Johnson stated that it is his belief there are permits on all the structures. He clarified that,
when the original park was developed as a restricted development in 1999/2000, they dedicated
parkland required for residential development and additional cash in lieu of dedication.
Therefore, he believed the requirement had already been met.
Mr. Johnson explained that the market changed in 2001. He explained the difficulty of getting
funding for manufactured homes. The proposed plan would allow individuals to receive real
estate loans and build equity.
Mr. Burke asked if budgeting for the association had been discussed at the neighborhood
meeting.
Mr. Johnson stated that he handed out comparison charts. In summary, the overall savings to
homeowners would be $100.00 per month, even with the addition of the homeowner's
association fee due to loan rates. He stated that they have literature from banks for the
residents.
Attorney Charlie Bird addressed the Commission. He stated that he was present to represent a
number of individuals living in The Gardens Manufactured Home Community. He explained that
there was currently a Class Action Complaint against The Gardens Manufactured Home
Community. Those that issued the suit are those opposed to the revisions being proposed.
i Page 17 jk3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 14, 2005
Mr. Bird stated that, when the community was originally developed, it was in the M-1 zoning
district. The entire area was planned to be a manufactured home community and was marketed
as such. He expressed concern that the owner could change the overall plan of the area from
what was sold to the individuals currently living there. He also expressed concern that the
owner did not develop the property as described when individuals purchased the property (trails,
lake, etc.)
Mr. Bird stated that his clients do not agree that the manufactured home community should be
converted. He argued that there is no need for that type of housing. Individuals living there
have low incomes and cannot be expected to purchase the land to keep their homes located
there. He discussed the fair market value of their homes and what it would cost to move their
homes from the park.
Mr. Bird discussed his concerns about the difference in The Gardens Home Community and a
CIC.
Ms. Wiesner stated that she understood there was a lawsuit pending. However, the
Commission could not address that issue. She explained that the Commission could only act
on the requests before them as it applies to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual.
Mr. Bird stated that the setback requirements should not be allowed to change. He stated that
he did not agree with staff that the manufactured home community was intended to be closed
within 4 or 5 years. He also questioned how the applicant could request the proposed changes
when Main Street Investors owned the property.
Mr. Bird also expressed concern with the individuals living there, who are low income, paying for
association and maintenance costs of the CIC.
Ms. Baker corrected Mr. Bird that that staff did not suggest that when the manufactured home
community was proposed it would go away 4 to 5 years. She explained that it is an interim use
and that a timeframe was not given.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wiesner stated that she assumed the owners of the parcel of land had the right to submit
the applications.
Ms. Alfredson responded yes.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan (GDP) #261, by
The Gardens LLC to be known as The Gardens with the staff -recommended findings and
conditions as revised by staff. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
CONDITIONS:
The Plan shall be modified to:
Identify a minimum of one roadway connection between Area 1 and Area 2, and
a minimum of one roadway connection between The Gardens development and
Page 18
\ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 14, 2005
the property to the east.
• Identify the future zones consistent with Council action on Land Use Plan
Amendment #05-06 and Zone Change #05-12.
2. As the property, is developed, the water system must be designed to meet the
requirements of RPU — Water, as outlined in the attached memorandum from RPU
dated September 1, 2005.
3. Roadway names must be modified to meet the requirements of the Rochester -
Olmsted Planning Department GISIAddressing staff, as noted in the September 1,
2005 memorandum.
4. Prior to filing applications to subdivide "Area 1 ", the partially developed portion of
the property„ the applicant shall verify that all building code requirements will be
met and that subdivision of the property will not create non -conformities with
regard to the Building Code.
5. Parkland dedication shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land,
per the August 22, 2005 comments from Rochester Park and Recreation.
6. As Area 3 is developed, a minimum of one roadway connection shall be provided
from Area 1 to Area 3.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Land Use Amendment #05-06 by The
Gardens LLC based on staff's findings and recommendations. Mr. Burke seconded the
motion. The motion carried 8-0.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Zone Change Petition #05-12 by The
Gardens LLC based on staff's findings and recommendations. Mr. Burke seconded the
motion. The motion carried 8-0.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Amendment to Restricted Development
Final Plan #99-21 and #00-20 known as The Gardens by The Gardens LLC with the staff -
recommended findings and conditions as revised by Ms. Baker. Mr. Burke seconded the
motion. The motion carried 8.0.
CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to filing applications to subdivide, the applicant shall verify that all building
code requirements will be met and that subdivision of the property will not create
non -conformities with regard to the Building Code.
2. All roadways less than 28 feet wide must be posted "No Parking —Fire Lane" on both
sides of the street with signs located in accordance with Public Works Department
Page 19
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 14, 2005
3. Clarify that within the developed portion of this site, the minimum percent of
landscape area that must be retained per lot shall be 45%, consistent with the
standards for single family detached dwellings in the R-2 (Low Density Residential)
district.
4. Approval is contingent upon approval of GDP #261, Land Use Plan Amendment #05-
06, Zoning District Amendment #05-12, and Conversion of the Park to a Single
Family Common Interest Community Subdivision.
S. Except for setback variations and building orientation as specified in this
application, all standards of the R-2 district shall be met for future home
placementfdevelopment.
6. Requirements for water system modifications must be compiled with, as outlined in
the September 1, 2005 memorandum from RPU-Water.
7. Roadway names must be modified as specified in the September 1, 2005
memorandum from the Planning Department GIS/Addressing staff.
Ms. Wiesner moved to initiate a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
designate Area 4 of The Gardens for commercial use and to the B-1 (Restricted
Commercial) zoning district as described by staff. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The
motion carried 8-0.
Ms. Wiesner moved to initiate an amendment to the Land Use Plan to identify all the area
east of St. Bridget Road, and south of the future easterly extension of 401h Street to CR 1
as "residential' or "mixed used residential'. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The
motion carried 8-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As maybe brought up with members
No discussion items were brought forward.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Ms. Wiesner to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Quinn. Mr.
Haeussinger, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
jlg
Mr. Bob Haeussinger, Chair
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 2-6-06
Ap /
SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
6 —
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Petition #05-12 by The Gardens LLC. The
PREPARED BY:
applicant is proposing to change the zoning for approximately 39.30 39.58 acres
Mitzi A. Baker,
from M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) to R-2 (Low Density Residential) and
Senior Planner
42 4✓3 12.31 acres from M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential). The property is part of the Gardens Manufactured Home
Park and is located east of St. Bridget Road, north of 45`h Street SE and south of
the future 40`h Street SE.
Nbn
February 2, 2006 / 0
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE L, GALDESCRIPTIONSWERE CORRECTED, WHICH MODIFIES THE SUM TOTAL ACRES
SLIGHTLY. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES DID IDENTIFIES THESE ACREAGES AS "APPROXIMATE".
The applicant previously requested tabling all items related to "The Gardens" until February 6, 2006.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this item at the September 14, 2005, 2005 meeting.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Zone Change Petition #05-12 by The Gardens LLC
hnged on staff's findings and recommendations. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion
ried 8-0. -,
CokLn, cil 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.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator �' I
2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 6, 2007 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
NCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
Nny�
oo�
1�� /''�
y W "
ROCHESTER-OLD'fSTED PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT cF,KgcxesTee.,illtYF
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
4.
CC U".. OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
'FPG...................:''y.0
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: September 7, 2005
RE: Zone ChAnge Petition #05-12 by The Gardens LLC. The applicant is
proposing to change the zoning for approximately 39.30 acres from M-1
(Mixed Commercial -Industrial) to R-2 (Low Density Residential) and
12.48 acres from M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential). The property is part of the Gardens Manufactured
Home Park and is located east of St. Bridget Road, north of 45`h Street
SE and south of the future 40`h Street SE.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: The Gardens LLC
' 4325 Garden Court SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE,
along the east side of St. Bridget Road SE and along the north
side of 451h Street SE.
Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to change the zoning for approximately
39.30 acres from M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) to R-2 (Low
Density Residential) and 12.48 acres from M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
Existing Land Use: The area labeled as "Area 1" on the accompanying General
Development Plan #261 is currently a developed manufactured
home park community with private roads and manufactured
homes.
Proposed Land Use: Multiple applications are being considered concurrent with this
application. The applicant is proposing to close the manufactured
home park and convert the developed portion to a single family
subdivision.
Adjacent Land Use and The areas surrounding this property to the west, north and east
are designated for "industrial" uses on the Rochester Urban
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
e wnPLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
i"'CCCT777 AN EQUAL OFPORTUNI7Y/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
11
` Page 2
\` September 7, 2005
Zoning: Service Area Land Use Plan. The land lying south of 45'" Street is
shown for `low density residential' uses on the Land Use Plan.
Transportation Access: The accompanying General Development Plan (#261), proposes
two access to 451" St. SE, two to St Bridget Road (two exist, one
would be modified), and one access to the future 401" Street SE.
Wetlands: A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This
plan incorporates the approved wetland plan.
Neighborhood Meeting: None required.
Referral Comments:' 1. See comments attached to GDP 261 for The Gardens.
I
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 R-2:
A Land Use Plan amendment (#05-06) is being considered concurrent with this application. If
this amendment is approved, the proposal to re -zone 39.30 acres of this property to the R-2 district
would be consistent with the Land Use Plan designation for the property.
Proposed R-3:
If Land Use Plan Amendment #05-06 is approved, re -zoning 12.48 acres to the R-3 district would
be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The area is changing to such a degree that it is in the
public interest to re -zone so as to encourage development of the area.
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:
Page 3
September 7, 2005
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 R-2:
The area to the east is currently designated for "industrial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan, however, it appears that land may be more suitable for "residential' or
residential mixed use development in the future. Separate action will be requested of the
Commission or Council to initiate an amendment to the land Use Plan in this area.
Permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject
property, if land, Use Plan Amendment #05-06 is approved. Compatibility with future land uses
in the area would be improved if an amendment to the land Use Plan and Zoning Map are
initiated by the Commission or Council to change "Area 4" as labeled on the accompanying GDP
#261 and proposed by the applicant to remain zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial, to
identify this Major commercial uses in the B-1 district.
Proposed R-3:
The area to the east is currently designated for "industrial' uses on the Rochester Urban Service
Area land Use Plan, however, it appears that land may be more suitable for "residential' or
residential mixed use development in the future. Separate action will be requested of the
Commission or Council to initiate an amendment to the Land Use Plan in this area.
Permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject
property, if land Use Plan Amendment #05-06 is approved. Compatibility with future land uses
in the area would be improved if an amendment to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map are
�. initiated by the Commission or Council to change "Area 4" as labeled on the accompanying GDP
!. #261 and proposed by the applicant to remain zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial, to
identify this area for commercial uses in the B-1 district.
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 R-2:
If Land Use Plan Amendment #05-04 is approved, the proposed amendment will not involve spot
zoning.
Proposed R-3:
If Land Use Plan Amendment #05-04 is approved, the proposed amendment will not involve spot
zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
Based upon the findings, and if the City Council approves Land Use Plan Amendment #05-06
staff would recommend approval of this zone change as petitioned.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM WO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
rF
DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan (GDP) #261, by The Gardens LLC
PREPARED BY:
to be known as The Gardens. The property is located along the south side of
Mitzi A. Balser,
401h Street SE, along the east side of St. Bridget Road SE and along the north
Senior Planner
side of 451h Street SE.
�0 C iYN� L�Pfi
February 1, 2006
The applicant previously requested tabling all items related to "The Gardens" until the February 6, 2006 City Council meeting.
Please note that a REVISED GDR was filed on September 28, 2006. Staff recommends further modifications to the
conditions recommended by the Planriing Commission, in response to the September 281M1 revision and further review of the
proposal. These revisions we shown with double strikethrough text for text to be deleted, and underlined text for text to be
added.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on September 14, 2005. Please see the attached minutes
for additional detail, discussion and input from the neighborhood.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan (GDP) #261, by The Gardens
LLC to be known as The Gardens with the staff -recommended findings and conditions as revised by
staff. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
)ITIONS: '
..
Identify a Mad rORneation between AFBa 3 & 4, though the final be
publir alignment may not
knmyn Rt this time.
identify a Fninimum of two connections to the traIl frMM;Aj9thIn the
pedestrian peirlmeter
Gardens development One shall be located near the hn„ da f "Area !" +�-- ;ewer
nerthem
c,v. c,vpu,c„a. -„va,?vr,-.r ,
she" hP In ntpd near the no,.tha n be nil.. of "Ar n 1"
2. As the property is developed, the water system must be designed to meet the requirements of RPU
— Water, as outlined in the attached memorandum from RPU dated September 1, 2005 and
September 23, 2005.
3. Roadway names must be modified to meet the requirements of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
Department GIS/Addressing staff, as noted in the September 1, 2005 memorandum.
4. Prior to filing applications to subdivide "Area 1", the partially developed portion of the property,
the applicant shall verify that all building code requirements will be met and that subdivision of the
property will not create non -conformities with regard to the Building Code.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Pag
RCRCA
0k
February 1, 2006
i'
�w L
5.
4 7.
Parkland dedication shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land, per the Auyust
22, 2005 comments from Rochester Park and Recreation.
As Area 3 is developed, a minimum of one roadway connection shall be provided from Area 1 to
Area 3.
The property shall be platted/re-platted. At the time of platting, the applicant shall provide the Citv
with a copy of an ownership and maintenance agreement, or association documents, providing for
long term care and maintenance of all common lands and private infrastructure including private
roadways and utilities (i.e. sanitary sewer). Said document shall be recorded concurrent with the
Final Plat documents.
8. Roadway access to 40� Street is contingent upon permitting/approval from the road controlling
Council Action Needed
f. 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.ityAdministrator
2. -Llty Attorney:
3. Planning Department File
4. This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday January 6, 2006 in the Council / Board Chamber at the
Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
RECEIS'ED
FEB 0 12003
January 31, 2006
SUBJECT: THRU STREETS AT THE GARDENS COMMUNITY:
,
It has been brought to my attention that talk has been about creating thm traffic streets
within The Gardens Community.
I see no purpose of this idea_ There are many various roads to get where people need to
go, without thru streets. You have County 101 or 45a` Street SE, 48a' Street interchange,
and the new 40" Street interchanges.
Now with the possibility of a new mall coming out on St. Bridget's Road and Fleet Farm,
h j the traffic will be incredible. Also, the roads in the community do not appear to be wide
enough for that amount of traffic. It would not doubt take away what little parking we
have on some of these streets.
I have lived here for approximately two (2) years, am finding out its very expensive
compared to living in Rochester. I'm afraid with these new roads it will become more
F" costly with taxes, assessments etc. Therefore, becoming more of a burden for a lot of
people in the community.
I hope this will help change the minds of you the council. PIease DO NOT put in
thru streets in the community and help keep this more affordable living.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely
Nancy S. Nelson
4315 Daffodil Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
(507) 289-3487
PEI
January 31, 2006
M itzi-
We continue to find The Gardens MH Park to be reasonably well designed and managed. The most
notable inconsistency, are several garages that were constructed in a way that are not fully compliant with
set back distances established in MN Manufactured Home Park Law. Interestingly, those setbacks may
be acceptable for local building and/or zoning codes applicable to MH Subdivisions.
The following observations are intended to clarify issues associated with the park owner's proposal to
convert the current MH ParK into a MH subdivision where owners own and occupy properly recorded and
individually taxed "lots of tegord".
According to my notes from a meeting held at Planning Department a few months ago, every occupied
and un-occupied lor," will ultimately be sold. Existing occupants of the MH Park will be encouraged to
assume ownership of the lots they are now renting.
Public Health plans to continue to license those parts of The Gardens that will be operated as a
Manufactured Home Park, as addressed by MN Statutes Chapter 327, and MN Rules Chapter 4630.
The following factors are related to the licensing issue:
1. The Park currently has about 45 vacant lots. If these vacant lots are not occupied until they are
sold and occupied by individual lot owners, they do not need to be licensed as part of a MH Park;
2. Of the existing 82 occupied rental lots, the MH Park owners project that about Yz will be sold to
the current lot renters. When those lots are sold to the owners they will not be licensed;
-3� However, the non -occupying owner of about 40 occupied lots will need to maintain MH Park
licensure. These may be scattered through out the current Park and intermingled with lots
becoming the proposed MH Subdivision.
.,, 4. In some cases, a party might purchase several lots and then proceed to rent each of the lots out
to people seeking a place to park their MH. In this scenario, the lot owner(s) will need to be
licensed as MH Park and the current "Gardens" will become the location of several licensed MH
Parks ail located within the confines of the current "Gardens" MH Park.
It appears that parts of The Gardens will continue to be a licensed MH Park as it gradually converts to
becoming a MH Subdivision.
There were unresolved issues about ownership and maintenance of the sewage collection system
located in the streets and individual lots. All of the sewage collection system (located within the
perimeters of The Gardens) is reportedly owned and maintained by The Gardens MH Park, Reportedly,
Rochester City only owns and provides maintenance of sanitary sewer lines up to the perimeter of the
current park. At the time of our meeting, it was not yet clear how ownership and responsibility for the
sewage utility within the Park (but outside of the individual lots) will be addressed. Whatever
arrangements are made for the sanitary sewer will need to be workable and satisfactory to the owners
and to the City.
If you have further questions, please contact Steve Lackore or me.
Thanks
Rich Peter, Director of Environmental Health
Olmsted County Public Health
2100 Campus Drive SE
Rochester MN, 55904
507-285-8335, FAX 287-1492
ks
rIy
January 17, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
It has come to our attention that there has been discussion about creating tbru traffic
streets within The Gardens community.
In 2000 we moved into The Gardens (2100 Garden Court) and lived thru heavy traffic
and two years of construction equipment and road closures while there was
construction on St. Bridget's' Road and 40`s Street SW. As part of all this
engineering, our lake was even moved! Then we were told that our home was in the
path of the new road and we needed to move. It took 11 months and 3 '/s weeks after
that announcement before that move took place — we actually had to move 1 week
before Christmas! During that 2 year time we were living within feet of heavy road
construction, dirt, dust and a general disruption of our lives.
Now we are at 4318 Daisy Avenue and we DO NOT want thru traffic on this street or
any other street within this community. If I can offer any other informa�yon o�
argument to deter you
make sucha please contact me.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
FAN9 b
ROCnESTER-QLVS E0
NVId 1N3WdOl3A3a lVS3N3J
V1O53NNIW'N31S3H00%
SN3GNYD 3H1
• ; E s
61
I am not sure whether or not I will be able to make it to the meeting tonight, so please
accept this letter as my formal objection to the conversion of The Gardens Manufactured
Home Community from a manufactured home park to a common interest community.
I own the home located at 4216 Daffodil Avenue S.E, Rochester, MN 55904.
I do not have the means to purchase the lot where my home is located. I would not have
the desire to purchase the lot even if I had the means to do so.
I have numerous concerns regarding the conversion which have not yet been addressed,
including: lack of njaintenance of common areas, inability to sell my home, possibility
that my home could b6 next to more commercial development, etc.
Please accept this document as my formal objection to the conversion proposed by The
Gardens Manufactured Home Community.
C� o e tea, �
7u '' Schultz
4216 Daffodil Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55901
\Vu ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT of R�ctiiesrea..,rr� s
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 " Rochester, MN 55904-4744
J�
COIIHTY OF g
www.olmstedcounty .com!p lanninz
."••
kPp' ... ...•.s �:9
Rq 7'fD•A UG UST"
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: September 8, 2005
RE: General Development Plan (GDP) #261, by The Gardens LLC to be
known as The Gardens. The GDP includes the land in the
approved preliminary plan for The Gardens. The GDP is divided
into 4 areas. Area 1 consists of the existing homes on the
property. Area 2 is located to the south of the existing homes,
which is shown as being developed with single family lots with a
zoning of R-2. Area 3 is shown as being developed with uses
permitted in the R-3 zoning district. Area 4 is shown as being
developed with uses permitted in the M-1 zoning district. The
property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE, along
the east side of St. Bridget Road SE and along the north side of
45 h Street SE.
Planning Department Review.,
Applicant/Owner: The Gardens LLC
4325 Garden Court SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultants:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location:
The property is located along the south side of 40t° Street SE, alon
the east side of St. Bridget Road SE and along the north side of 45
Street SE.
Existing Land Use:
The area labeled as "Area 1" on the GDP is currently a developed
manufactured home park community with private roads and
manufactured homes.
Proposed Use:
Multiple applications are being considered concurrent with this GDP.
The applicant is proposing to close the manufactured home park and
convert the developed portion to a single family subdivision.
BUILDING CODE 507/265-8345 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
.�e.a«.. PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan
September 8, 2005
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates most
of this property as suitable for "industrial' uses. The far northwest
corner is shown for "low density residential' uses on the Plan.
Zoning: The property is in the City of Rochester, and is zoned M-1 (Mixed
Commercial- Industrial).
Streets: St. Bridget Road is adjacent to the west side of the GDP, 45'h Street
is adjacent to the south side of the GDP, and the future extension of
401h St. SW is adjacent to the north side of this GDP.
Sidewalks:
Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways.
Pedestrian facilities are in -place along the perimeter of the
"
development.
Drainage:
This property generally drains to the north, to an existing pond
northwest of the GDP. A small pond is located in the southwest
corner of the property.
Wetlands:
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This
plan incorporates the approved wetland plan.
Public Utilities:
A portion of this property is developed and served with utilities.
Extension of utilities will be necessary to serve the full development.
Watermain construction and looping will need to be completed as
required by RPU-Water.
Parkland Dedication:
Parkland dedication shall be in the form of a combination of land and
cash in lieu of land.
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Park & Recreation
2. Rochester Public Works
3. RPU Water Division
4. Rochester Building Safety
5. Rochester Fire Department
6. Planning Department GIS/Addressing
Report Attachments:
1. Proposed General Development Plan & Project Narrative
2. Referral Comments
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
zoning map. If the general development plan is being processed
concurrently with a rezoning request, the general development plan and
the rezoning request must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4
p Page 3
General Development Plan
September 8, 2005
If the general development plan is being processed concurrently with
an amendment to the land use plan map and a rezoning request, the
land use plan map amendment, rezoning request and general
development plan must be consistent with the policies of the
comprehensive plan. If there is inconsistency between these
documents, the means for reconciling the differences must be
addressed.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies this property
for "industrial" uses. Residential development is inconsistent with the
current land use designation, however a Land Use Plan Amendment (#05-
06) is being considered concurrent with this application to designate the
property for "low density residential' and "medium density residential"
land uses, where future R-2 and R-3 zoning is shown on the GDP.
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.
Multiple applications are being processed with this application. They
include a Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning District Amendment, and an
Amendment to the manufactured home park Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit. The amendment to the Restricted Development
Permit proposes to convert the manufactured home park to a single family
subdivision, but to retain the setbacks and building orientation previously
approved for the manufactured home park for the developed portion of the
park with occupied dwellings_
The street pattern should be modified to include a roadway connection
'• from `Area 1" to "Area 2". When 'Area 3" is developed, roadway
connectivity should be provided with "Area 2".
This site will largely be separated by adjacent uses to the north, south and
west by existing perimeter roadways. The land to the east is currently
designated for "industrial' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan; however, it appears that land may be more suitable for
"residential" or residential mixed use development in the future. Action will
be requested of the Commission or Council to initiate an amendment to the
Land Use Plan in this area.
The General Development Plan proposes to leave a remnant area (Area 4) in
the northwest quadrant of the development designated for "industrial' uses
and zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial). Staff will recommend that
the Commission or Council initiate an amendment to this part of the
development, to designate it for "commercial' use on the Land Use Plan,
and to re -zone Area 4 to the 8-1 (Restricted Commercial) District.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
When the manufactured home park was originally approved, it did help to
diversify the housing options in the community. The GDP proposal would
provide additional diversification in the housing market with additional
Page 4
General Development Plan
September 8, 2005
single family detached or attached housing as well as the potential for
multifamily dwellings.
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.
The Plan does identify future right-of-way needs for 4e Street SE, 451h St.
SE and the existing St. Bridget Road. A 10' wide bike path is also identified
along the east side of St. Bridget Road.
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.
1. 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
Proposed land uses and intensity Is expected to be less intense
than the Industrial uses planned for this property. The proposed
roadway system in the immediate area and including the 40rh And
4e Street interchanges at TH 63.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
A portion of this property is developed and served with utilities
RPU Water provided the following information related to water
service:
1. Areas 3 and 4 of this property are within the Main Level Water System
Area, which is available in multiple locations extending from Area 1. All
the existing stub -outs need to be connected into to eliminate dead -ends
that exist along the north side of Area 1.
Page 5
General Development Plan
September 8, 2005
2. Area 2 can be served by either the Main Level or the intermediate Level
Systems. All the existing Main Level System stub -outs need to be
connected into or looped together to eliminate the dead -ends that exist
along the south side of Area 1.
3. The anticipated static water pressures in Areas 3 and 4 will range from
the upper 40's to the lower 50's PSI.
4. The anticipated static water pressures from the Main Level System in
Area 2 would range from the mid 30's to the tower 40's PSI. Homes with
main finished floors above the elevation of 1080 (approx. 40 PSi) would
need 1 W copper water services installed from the water main to the
buildings to reduce the pressure foss from the pipe at higher flow rates.
Also this low pressure should be taken into account with the design of
the interior plumbing systems for each home as required by the
Minnesota Plumbing Code.
5. The anticipated static wafer pressures from the Intermediate Level
System in Area 2 would range from the lower 80's to the upper 80's PSI
6. The water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per our
requirements.
A Development Agreement has been executed for this GDP,
addressing other on and off site Improvements necessary to
support the development.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways
and pedestrian facilities will be required along the perimeter roads.
Parkland dedication for this development will need to be met via a
combination of cash in lieu of land and 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.
The high spot on the property is along the southeast side of the site, it
drops primarily to the north and west. Detailed grading and drainage plans
will be required when the property is platted or developed.
A pond is located in the southwest corner of the project to pick up some of
the stormwater. A larger, City Regional Pond is located at the northwest
corner of the development. Storm water management is addressed in the
Development Agreement executed for this property.
Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality
and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect
discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking
place.
Page 6
General Development Plan
September 8, 2005
N/A
Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
The land to the east is currently designated for "industrial" uses an the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan; however, it appears that land
may be more suitable for "residential" or residential mixed use
development in the future. Action will be requested of the Commission or
Council to initiate an amendment to the Land Use Plan in this area.
The General Development Plan proposes to leave a remnant area (Area 4) in
She northwest quadrant of the development designated for "industrial" uses
and zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial). Staff will recommend that
the Commission or Council initiate an amendment to this part of the
development, to designate it for "commercial" use on the Land Use Plan,
and to re -zone Area 4 to the S-1 (Restricted Commercial) District.
The Plan does identify future right-of-way needs for planned public roads
adjacent to the site. Additional internal roadway and pedestrian
connections need to be identified on the Plan to provide neighborhood
connectivity.
Recommendation:
�,• Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions and/or modifications:
1. The Plan shall be modified to:
• identify a minimum of one roadway connection between Areal and Area 2, and
a minimum of one roadway connection between The Gardens development and
the property to the east.
• identify the future zones consistent with Council action on Land Use Plan
Amendment #05-06 and Zone Change #05-12.
• Identify a public road connection between Area 3 & 4, though the final alignment
may not be known at this time.
• Identify a minimum of two pedestrian connections to the perimeter trail from
within the Gardens development. One shall be located near the northern
boundary of "Area 1", the other shall be located near the southern boundary of
"Area 1".
2. As the property is developed, the water system must be designed to meet the
requirements of RPU — Water, as outlined in the attached memorandum from RPU
dated September 1, 2005.
3. Roadway names must be modified to meet the requirements of the Rochester -
Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing staff, as noted in the September 1,
2005 memorandum.
Page 7 {
General Development Plan
September S, 2005
4. Prior to filing applications to subdivide "Area 1 ", the partially developed portion of
the property, the applicant shall verify that all building code requirements will be
met and that subdivision of the property will not create non -conformities with
regard to the Building Code.
5. Parkland dedication shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land,
per the August22, 2005 comments from Rochester Park and Recreation.
6. As Area 3 is developed, a minimum of one roadway connection shall be provided
from Area 1 to Area 3.
Additional Recommendation/Action Requested:
Remnant M-1 in The Gardens:
The Gardens General Development Plan proposes to leave a remnant area (Area 4) in the
northwest quadrant of the development designated for industrial" uses and zoned M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -industrial). Currently, the entire property is zoned M-1, but most of it has been
petitioned to be designated on the Land Use Plan for `medium density" or "low density"
residential uses and zoned R-2 or R-3. Those petitions are being considered concurrent with
this GDP. Staff recommends that the Commission or Council initiate an amendment to the
Land Use Plan and Zoning Map to designate 'Area 4" of this GDP for commercial" use and
to re -zone it to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) District.
' Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan:
The land to the east is currently designated for industrial" uses on the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan; however, it appears that land may be more suitable for
"residentiar or residential mixed use development in the future. An analysis of avallable land
designated for industrial" uses, compared to the projected need through the planning horizon
2035, revealed that the current supply exceeds the projected need through 2035.
Considering this surplus, and the changing character of the area lying east of Bridget Road
BE, it would be reasonable to amend the Land Use Plan to identify all of the area east of St.
Bridget Road, and south of the future easterly extension of 4dry Street to CR 1 as "residential"
or "mixed use residential". Staff recommends that the Commission or Council to initiate an
amendment to the Land Use Plan in this area.
1l�
APPLICATION MATERIALS
Application Addendum
The Gardens, LLC
August 17, 2005
TYPE III, PHASE II DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
REASON FOR APPLICATION
The purpose of the TYPE III, PHASE II DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION is to modify
the existing Restricted Final Developments #99-21 and #00-20 to allow for the
conversion of "The Gardens" from a Manufactured Home Park to a Common Interest
Community (CIC). This conversion is necessary to respond to changes in the local
housing market and continue to provide for affordable single-family, owner -occupied
housing.
• The Modification of the General Development Plan is requested to address
changes in existing conditions, and future improvements and connections.
• The Zoning District Amendment is requested to better match existing and
projected land use within the GDP, and to act as a transition between commercial
/ industrial uses within the area. Rezoning of "The Gardens" from M-1 to R-2 is
an important part of its conversion from a "manufactured home park" to a "CIC"
development to: 1.) facilitate the residential subdivision of lots; and, 2.) facilitate
transfer of title to homeowners as a residential use.
• The Rochester Land Use Plan Amendment is requested to reflect existing
conditions and land uses in the area.
• The Amended Restricted Development Final Plan for #99-21 and #00-20 is
requested to allow for the modification of R-2 setback standards and minimum
dwelling widths. The proposed standards will address current conditions by
defining building envelopes, and better regulate placement of future dwellings
and accessory structures.
RECEIVED
auc t l 2005
ROCF'gS -CL 45TEp
REFERRAL COMMENTS
AID
A4 ROCHESTER
,//'nry
October 12, 2005
Tom Hexum
Main Street Developrn�nt Company
4325 Garden Court S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: The Gardens Engineered Foundations
Tom,
BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus. Drive S.E., Suite 300
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507) 281-6133
FAX (507) 287-2240
w .rochestermn.gov
Enclosed is a copy of the structural notes for the engineering submitted for the concrete
slabs at the Gardens Manufactured Home Park. Note 3e clearly states that these slabs
are not to be considered foundations. You and Lloyd Johnson both appeared unaware
of'this fact at the meeting last week. This design was accepted as an alternate to the
specific design requirements of MN rule 1350.2700 for manufactured homes, however; I
don't see how we can accept it under the zoning regulations for manufactured homes
outside of state approved manufactured home parks.
( °') Mkt
Ron Boose
Building Safety Director/Building Official
C: Lloyd Johnson
Mitzi Baker
6416 West
Structural Notes for
ENGIi sG
incorporated
Road NW • Rochester, Minnesota 55901
Phone: (507j 280-7808
Slabs - The Gardens
FILE
1. Site Preparation
a.
All topsoil, organ
material, and debris shall be removed from the
construction site.
I
b.
Slabs are to bear
undisturbed soil or engineered type fill.
c.
Bacldill shall be a
ell -graded gravel or sand fill at least 6 inches deep below
slabs.
it
Slabs are assumed t bear on a soil With minimum bearing strength of 1500 psf.
L
Erosion control st p s for construction and backfiliing shall be as per the
local building ageik
y requirements.
g.
Contractor shall
repared to pump the site and perform any other
dewatering if a Id I
water table is encountered.
2. Concrete Specifications
a.
Concrete to be 30 0 psi compressive strength at 28 days for footings and
foundations.
b.
Reinforcement to
ASTM A615 Grade 40 deformed bar or equivalent.
C.
Lap lengths for rei
oreement unless otherwise specified to be 40 bar diameters.
For no. 4 bar this
gth is 20 inches minmum.
d.
All concrete to ha
5-7% air entrainment by volume. Superplasticizer will be
allowed with the ap rovdl of the design engineer.
e.
All reinforcing plk ment and concrete placement to conform to the latest
edition of the Amc1r
can Concrete Institute.
f.
.All reinforcemen ouirt be placed on chairs or other supporting unit to assure
placement is in c(
er of concrete slab.
g.
All reinforcment
drn
st extend at least 20 inches around comers or a bent bar with
20 laps in both dirt
lions may be added
h.
All utility pipes and
conduit is to be sleeved thru concrete using PVC pipe or
other approved ma tc
Hal.
i..
Aluminum conduitand
pipe is not permitted in concrete slabs or foundations.
1. General Notes
a.
Slabs must be cure I
lat least seven (7) days minimum before units are installed.
b.
Slabs may be cold] 3
nted but reinforcement must protrude thru all cold joints.
C.
Tie -downs are bo
ers and are to follow manufacturer's recommendations.
d.
Pier sizes and typei
re by others. Placement on the concrete slab will be the same as those
designated in the
nufacturer's unit manuals based on 1500 psf soil bearing strength.
e.
These slabs are noi
a be misconstrued as foundations rather they are a simple shim between
the supporting pie s
of the pre -manufactured units and (fie soil below.
f
Details for the slab{
einforcing and slab edge may be found on drawings A, B, or C dated
July, 2001 by SJS Ei
igincering, Inc.
i
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE - SUITE 200
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
www.olmstedpublicworks.com
507.285.8231
September 27, 2005
Stephanie Foster I '
Planning Department
Dear Stephanie:
The Public Works Department has reviewed General Development Plan 9261, by the
Gardens LLC and has the following comments:
•, An Olmsted County Access Permit is required for any proposed access on
CR 101.
�+ Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS/ss
C: The Gardens LLC
Yaggy Colby Associates
T:TWDATA\ENGINDOC1PIanning Zoning Lelters%PLANZONE.DOC
�1. AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
The hand to reach for...
DAVID A. KAPLER
Fire Chief
DATE: October 11, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: R. Vance Swisher,,Fire Marshal
SUBJ: General Development Plan #261 by the Gardens LLC to be known as The Gardens.
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 the commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm
at 20 psi while the fire flow the single family development area shall be no less than 1,000 gpm..
The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the
buildings being proposed.
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)
Yaggy Colby Associates (e-mail only)
r�:
nor pledge, x'r drlirrr
September 23, 2005
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED General Development Plan #261 by The Gardens, LLC to be known as The
Gardens.
Dear Mitzi:
Our review of the referenced revised general development plan is complete and our additional comment
relating to the previous item #1 is as follows in bold:
Areas 3 and 4 of this property are within the Main Level Water System Area, which is available in
multiple locations extending from Area 1. All the existing stub -outs need to be connected into to
eliminate dead -ends that exist along the north side of Area i to provide adequate networking of
the 12" water system and adequate flows for fire protection in the new areas.
The rest of the previous items remain unchanged.
Please'.contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
.�•,0d.JA M &+
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Yaggy Colby Associates
The Gardens, LLC
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
11
rpu
irr plyd?rr. ear dr/irrr
September 1, 2005
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: General Development Plan #261 by The Gardens, LLC to be known as The Gardens.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. Areas 3 and 4 of this property are within the Main Level Water System Area, which is available in multiple
locations extending from Area 1. All the existing stub -outs need to be connected into to eliminate dead -ends
that exist along the north side of Area 1.
2. Area 2 can be served by either the Main Level or the Intermediate Level Systems. All the existing Main Level
System stub -outs need to be connected into or looped together to eliminate the dead -ends that exist along the
south side of Area 1.
3. The anticipated static water pressures in Areas 3 and 4 will range from the upper 40's to the lower 50's PSI.
4. The anticipated static water pressures from the Main Level System in Area 2 would range from the mid 30's
to the lower 40's PSI. Homes with main finished floors above the elevation of 1080 (approx. 40 PSI) would
need 1 %z" copper water services installed from the water main to the buildings to reduce the pressure loss
fr6m•the pipe at higher flow rates. Also this low pressure should be taken into account with the design of the
interior plumbing systems for each home as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code.
5. The anticipated static water pressures from the Intermediate Level System in Area 2 would range from the
�` lower 80's to the upper 80's PSI
6. The water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per our requirements.
7. 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, L&
06441�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Gale Mount, Building & Safety
Yaggy Colby Associates
The Gardens, LLC
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
4-k
ROCHESTER
N4,4,�
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 9/2/05
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 105
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development Plan
#261, for the proposed The Gardens GDP development. The following are Public Works
comments on this request:
1. This Property is included in a recently executed development for the Maine Street
GDP#165, and development is subject to the terms of said Agreement.
2. A connection between Area 1 and Area 2 would be beneficial for neighborhood
circulation.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the
Development Agreement and will include but are not limited to:
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC)
Water Availability Charge (WAC)
❖ Storm Water Management
v Substandard Street / TID Contribution
Pedestrian Ramps
First Seal Coat
❖ Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer
C:\Documents and Senings%plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK61\GDP261 The Gardens Property GDP
9-05.doc
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: September 1, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC: Jeff Mundt
RE: THE GARDENS
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #261
A review of the GDP has turned up the following ROADWAY or ADDRESS related issues:
1. The private roadway north of Geranium Street SE and directly across from Basil Lane SE is
missing its designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Label this roadway as HOSTA DRIVE SE (Private).
2. Both the new LOCAL STREET north of Outlot "G" and the new private roadways gaining
access from 45 Street SE will need to be given a designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate the roadway designations with our office.
The hand to reach for...
DAVID A. KAPLER
Fire Chief
DATE: August 30, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: R. Vance Swishe(, Fire Marshal
SUBJ: General Development Plant #261, by the Gardens LLC to be known as The Gardens..
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)
The Gardens LLC
Yaggy Colby Associates (e-mail only)
Memo
To: Jennifer Games, Planning Department
From: Kenneth+ieppelmann hr�
ee: The Gardens LLC
Yaggy Colby Associates
Date: August 29, 2005
Re: General Development Plan #261, The Gardens LLC
The above referenced development appears to indicate new construction that is regulated under the
Building Code and will require building permits. Complete plans and specifications are required to be
submitted for a building permit prior to construction.
• Dwelling units constructed or set on the property, or existing dwellings if modifications are
made to property lines are required to meet the fire resistive requirements for exterior walls in
regard to their location on the lot as required by IRC Sec. R302.1.
• Openings in exterior walls shall be as permitted by IRC Sec. R302.2.
• Separate utility services (i.e. sewer, water, gas, electric, etc.) are required to be provided to
each dwelling unit. The utilities are not permitted to encroach onto or through the adjacent lots.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you
it
0tK at Kean iC"o
Rochester, MN
August 22, 2005
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: The Gardens
GDP # 261
Dedication for the development to be in form of a combination of land and cash in lieu
of land. The applicant has previously dedicated and received credits for 4.19 acres which
is being developed as a neighborhood park. Via previous agreement, the applicant will be
extended dedication credits for the 10' bikepath corridor shown on the GDP. The balance
of the required dedication to be in the form of cash in lieu of land.
0:\PARK DEDICATION12005\SE 2895\GARDENS GDP.DOC
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROOM 150
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6164
FAX 507-2B1-6165
DSTOTZ a@C I. ROCHESTER. MN. US
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: General Development Plan (GDP) #261, by The
Gardens LLC to be known as The Gardens
❑ No hydric soil`s exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
❑ Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
r
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
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2-6-06
:NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
M .�
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Restricted Development Final Plan #99 21 and
PARED BY:
#00-20 known as The Gardens by The Gardens LLC. The applicant is purposing
zi A. Baker,
to amend the approved plans to allow for the modifications to R-2 setback
nior Planner
standards and dwelling widths. The reason for this request is because of the
:PRE
desire of the owner to covert the manufactured home park to a common interest
community. If the amendment is approved it would allow for individual lots to be
sold. The property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE, along the east
side of St. BridgetRoad SE and along the north side of 451h Street SE.
/rG CPR—mr � �
February 2, 2006 0
The applicant previously requested tabling all items related to "The Gardens" to the February 6, 2006 City Council meeting.
Staff suggests editing condition #5, as identified with underlined text.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On September 14, 2005 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider Restricted Development
#05-06. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Amendment to Restricted Development Final Plan #99-21
and #00-20 known as The Gardens by The Gardens LLC with the staff -recommended findings and conditions as
revised by Ms. Baker. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0.
VDITIONS:
1. Prior to filing applications to subdivide, the applicant shall verify that all building code requirements
,will be met and that subdivision of the property will not create non -conformities with regard to the
.Ruiiding Code.
2. All roadways less than 28 feet wide must be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" on both sides of the
street with signs located in accordance with Public Works Department specifications.
3. Clarify that within the developed portion of this site, the minimum percent of landscape area that
must be retained per lot shall be 45%, consistent with the standards for single family detached
dwellings in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district.
4. Approval is contingent upon approval of GDP #261, Land Use Plan Amendment #05-06, Zoning
District Amendment #05-12, and Conversion of the Park to a Single Family Common Interest
Community Subdivision.
5. Except for setback variations and building orientation as specified in this application and
specifically as identified on the revised site Platt dated received September 28, 2005, all standards
of the R-2 district shall be met for future home placementidevelopment.
Continued on next page...
,,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Page 2 �
RCA
February 2, 2006
6. Requirements for water system modifications must be complied with, as outlined in the September
1, 2005 memorandum from RPLI-Water.
7. Roadway names must be modified as specified in the September 1, 2005 memorandum from the
Planning Department GIS/Addressing staff.
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.
b4sstribution:
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
Cent ,++ t n Monday February 6, 2006.
)v VV
January 31, 2006
Mitzi -
We continue to find The Gardens MH Park to be reasonably well designed and managed. The most
notable inconsistency, are several garages that were constructed in a way that are not fully compliant with
set back distances established in MN Manufactured Home Park Law. Interestingly, those setbacks may
be acceptable for local building and/or zoning codes applicable to MH Subdivisions.
The following observations are intended to clarify issues associated with the park owner's proposal to
convert the current MH Park into a MH subdivision where owners own and occupy properly recorded and
individually taxed "lots of record".
According to my rotes from a meeting held at Planning Department a few months ago, every occupied
and un-occupied lot, will ultimately be sold. Existing occupants of the MH Park will be encouraged to
assume ownership of the lots they are now renting.
Public Health plans to continue to license those parts of The Gardens that will be operated as a
Manufactured Home Park, as addressed by MN Statutes Chapter 327, and MN Rules Chapter 4630.
The following factors are related to the licensing issue:
1. The Park currently has about 45 vacant lots. If these vacant lots are not occupied until they are
sold and occupied by individual lot owners, they do not need to be licensed as part of a MH Park;
Q. Of the existing 82 occupied rental lots, the MH Park owners project that about 1/2 will be sold to
the current lot renters. When those lots are sold to the owners they will not be licensed;
3. However, the non -occupying owner of about 40 occupied lots will need to maintain MH Park
licensure. These may be scattered through out the current Park and intermingled with lots
becoming the proposed MH Subdivision.
4. In some cases, a party might purchase several lots and then proceed to rent each of the lots out
to people seeking a place to park their MH. In this scenario, the lot owner(s) will need to be
licensed as MH Park and the current "Gardens" will become the location of several licensed MH
Parks all located within the confines of the current "Gardens" MH Park.
It appears that parts of The Gardens will continue to be a licensed MH Park as it gradually converts to
becoming a MH Subdivision.
There were unresolved issues about ownership and maintenance of the sewage collection system
located in the streets and individual lots. All of the sewage collection system (located within the
perimeters of The Gardens) is reportedly owned and maintained by The Gardens MH Park. Reportedly,
Rochester City only owns and provides maintenance of sanitary sewer lines up to the perimeter of the
current park. At the time of our meeting, it was not yet clear how ownership and responsibility for the
sewage utility within the Park (but outside of the individual lots) will be addressed. Whatever
arrangements are made for the sanitary sewer will need to be workable and satisfactory to the owners
and to the City.
If you have further questions, please contact Steve Lackore or me.
Thanks
Rich Peter, Director of Environmental Health
Olmsted County Public Health
2100 Campus Drive SE
Rochester MN, 55904
507-285-8335, FAX 287-1492
M
��ll • I<�ul^�M
-yY 1
15
fl;�t -
ig
E
:
F
9
LR>14
<
yg
S
N X5 /
Sam
9 y9_ j.7 THE GARDENS
I
1 � ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
.. RFSTRICTFlr) I)FVFI npktFNT PI AN
ROCHESTER-OUNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT u�,wucNesrFx.`tirr�tF
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
ccuxrr OF
www.olmstedcounty.mm/planning �l• :°b
R'I TSd:AGG�yT"
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: September 6, 2005 REVISED February 2, 2006
RE: Amendment to Restricted Development Final Plan #99-21 and #00-20
known as The Gardens by The Gardens LLC. The applicant is
purposing to amend the approved plans to allow for the modifications
to R-2 setback standards and dwelling widths. The reason for this
request is because of the desire of the owner to covert the
manufactured home park to a common interest community. If the
amendment is approved it would allow for individual lots to be sold.
The property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE, along the
east side of St. Bridget Road SE and along the north side of 45`h Street
SE.
Planning Department Review
Applicant:
The Gardens LLC
4325 Garden Court SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Architect: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Background & Summary of Proposal:
A Restricted Development preliminary plan for the manufactured home park was approved by the
Council on August 16, 1999 for the entire Park. In 1999 a Final Plan was also approved for Phase I,
in the central portion of the Park. In 2000, a Final Plan was approved for Phase II, in the east central
portion of the development (see map)
The applicant filed multiple applications being considered concurrent with this one, in order to facilitate
converting a portion of the manufactured home park to a single family subdivision in the R-2 zoning
district as a common interest community.
Wi4h this petition, the applieant Is proposing te amend the approved Restricted Dov@loprpapt Perm t
prelim inasylpfmaadaM?RVrm 1wd•fielslgmlas�t aawlmin re3fs�eaee sutafiais afstl7�t e9�Il,
�..,.,. PLANNING2ONING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507285-8345
-�
FAX 507287-2275
744 ----....._. _. _ _._
Page 2
developed portion of the Park, while retaining building separation and setback standards that applied
to the Park so as not to create non -conformities in the R-2 zoning district. The petition also proposes
to eliminate plans for expanding the Park beyond the limits of what is constructed. The southern 1/3
of the property is proposed for single family development in the R-2 district, in accordance with the
standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). The northern
1/3 of the site is proposed for development in the R-3 and M-1 District, according to the General
Development Plan, Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment petitions under
consideration for this property.
The attached Plan identifies the buildable area and bufferyards that are proposed to apply to the
developed portion of the Park, once converted to a single family common interest community
subdivision. All roadways, in the developed portion are private, and would remain so. As noted on the
proposed Restricted Development Plan, the applicant is proposing the following setbacks apply (to
Area 1 of the GDP) to the developed portion of the site:
Setback standards proposed:
Front yard and Side -Street Side
Yard:
2V min.
20'
Side Yard:
9 3' min.
Side Yard for EXISTING
accessory structures
0' min.
Cumulative Side Yards between
buildings
10' min.
Rear Yard
10' min.
Setbacks for Single Family Detached
Dwellings in the R-2 District
25' ; 12.5'
6'. with 16' minimum sum of side vards
NA
NA
25'
�• The accompanying Restricted Development Plan identifies the buildable area for each lot, simplifying
�. administration of these regulations. This Plan should be revised to note that within the area included
in this petition (Area 1 of the GDP), the minimum percent of landscape area that must be retained per
lot, shall be 45% consistent with the standards for single family detached dwellings in the R-2 (Low
Density Residential) district. Minimum building widths and orientation would be as originally permitted
through the Manufacture Home Park, permitting units less than 20' in width.
Setback modifications allow the existing buildings (placement and orientation) to remain in
conformance, and allow some flexibility in placing homes on the vacant lots, versus placing them in
strict conformance with the R-2 zoning district standards.
Review procedures:
The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
(Section 62.700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given
zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of
private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standards zoning regulations". This
application requires a two step review process, consisting of a preliminary plan and a final plan. The
final plan phase follows the Type III, Phase III, procedure with a review before the Planning
Commission and a hearing before the Council.
In evaluating the final development plan phase the criteria included in Section 62.708 2) of the LDM
shall be considered (see attached).
The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings in regard to the proposed request:
Pace 3
(A) Public Facility Design: Modifications to the water system will be necessary, to meet the
requirements of RPU —Water.
(B) Geologic Hazards: Wetlands do not exist in this portion of development.
(C) Access Effect: Access already exists. As noted in the report for GDP #261(fhe Gardens,
additional pedestrian and vehicular connections will be required when the adjacent areas are
developed.
(D) Pedestrian Circulation: Roadways in the development are constructed and will remain private.
Pedestrian facilities are in place along most of the perimeter of the development and additional
facilities will be constructed in the future.
(E) Foundation and Site Planning: Foundation landscaping is not required for a single family
detached development in the City.
(F) Site Status: The entire development will be private except the public parkland within the
development. The developer or future homeowners association will be responsible for any
maintenance and ownership for the development except for the public park.
(G) Screening and Bufferyards: Though not required as part of a single family subdivision in the R-
2 district, the applicant has identified a bufferyard along the north and west property lines,
adjacent to an area proposed at this time to retain M-1 zoning.
(H) Final Building Design: This application proposes provisions to allow more flexible building
setbacks, and orientation than would be permitted for single family detached homes in the R-2
district, for the developed portion of the property.
(1) Internal Circulation Areas: Off-street parking requirements for this development are met with the
+. current design of the development. Vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent property
and adjacent portions of The Gardens development is being recommended with the
accompanying GDP #261 for The Gardens.
(J) Ordinance Requirements: This application proposes provisions to allow more flexible building
setbacks, and orientation, than would be permitted for single family detached homes in the R-2
district, for the developed portion of the property and to allow for dwelling less than 20' in width.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed this request for the Final Plan for Phase II and would recommend approval of
Phase II of the manufactured home park with the following conditions/modifications:
1. Prior to filing applications to subdivide, the applicant shall verify that all building code
requirements will be met and that subdivision of the property will not create non -
conformities with regard to the Building Code.
2. All roadways less than 28 feet wide must be posted "No Parking —Fire Lane" on both
sides of the street with signs located in accordance with Public Works Department
specifications.
3. Clarify that within the developed portion of this site, the minimum percent of landscape
area that must be retained per lot, shall be 45% consistent with the standards for single
family detached dwellings in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district.
P ie a
4. Approval is contingent upon approval of GDP #261, Land Use Plan Amendment #05-06,
Zoning District Amendment #05-12, and Conversion of the Park to a Single Family
Common Interest Community Subdivision.
5. Except for setback variations and building orientation as specified in this application,
2005, all standards of the R-2 district shall be met for future home
placemenUdevelopment.
6. Requirements for water system modifications must be compiled with, as outlined in
the September f, 2005 memorandum from RPU-Wafer.
7. Roadway namr s must be modified as specified in the September Y, 2005 memorandum
from the Planning Department GIS/Addressing staff.
Pn-e s
LAND DEVELOMENT MANAUL EXCERPTS
62.700 RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT
Certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning district on a
permitted or conditional basis can, if regulated, serve both the public interest and allow a
more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to
standard zoning regulations. The regulations of this article recognize and provide
encouragement for innovation and experimentation in the development of land that would
otherwise not be possible under the zoning district regulations established by this ordinance
62.701 Approval Procedures for Restricted Developments: All types of Restricted Development
are identified as Type I, II or III uses in Sections 62.720 through 62.760, and are processed
according to the Type I, II or III Review Procedures accordingly. For Type III Restricted
Developments, a two step review process consisting of a Preliminary Development Plan and
a Final Development Plan shall be utilized. The Preliminary Development Plan shall be
reviewed under the Type III Review Procedure, with a Phase II Hearing Process utilized.
The Final Development Plan shall be reviewed under the Type III Review Procedure, with a
Phase III Hearing Process utilized.
62.707 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall grant final approval
to a Type III Restricted Development if it finds (a) the development satisfies the Preliminary
Development Plan Standards for Approval listed in Section 62.706; (b) the development
satisfies the applicable criteria listed in Paragraph 62.71 or a modification for any unmet
criteria has been granted as provided in Section 62.712; and (c) there is an executed
development agreement which identifies, and commits the developer to complete, those
aspects of the site plan specified by the Council.
-✓6
s 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) 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 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.
f) 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) Screenirrg and Bufferyards: The final screening and buff eryard design contains earth
forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs identified in
Phase 1 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.
62.709 Status of Approved Type III Restricted Development: Following Council approval of a
final development plan, the zoning administrator may issue a zoning certificate for the
development consistent with the approved plan. Except for issues addressed by a
development agreement, the procedure for handling changes to an approved plan shall be
the same as for conditional uses, which is identified in Paragraph 61.148.
rpu
we pledge, we deliver
September 1, 2005
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
1�
REFERENCE: Amendment to Restricted Development Final Plan #99-21 and #00-20 by The
Gardens, LLC known hs, The Gardens to allow for the modifications to R-2 setback standards
and dwelling widths to convert the manufactured home park to a common interest community
and allow for individual lots to be sold.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments
follow:
1. All unused water services must be abandoned properly at the main in the street.
2. The temporary hydrants currently located at the end of the longer stub -outs must be
relocated into a permanent location near the end of the newly created dead-end streets per
our requirements.
N„ 3. The existing stub -outs extending both to the north and the south of this property must
.. either be looped together now or with the development of the future areas to prevent
permanent dead -ends.
4. We will work with the applicant's engineer on the required water system modifications.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
P^,06--1Aou 1 `�*�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Yaggy Colby Associates
The Gardens, LLC
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
D�
V
0
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN
DATE: September f, 2005
TO: Jennifer Garness
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC; Jeff Mundt
RE: RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN #99-21
AMENDED
A review of the Final Site Plan has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues.
1. The roadway designation is missing for those portions of FERN AVENUE SE that extends
north of Garden Court SE on the north side of the plan, and also missing where it extends
south of GARDEN COURT SE near the south side of the plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Label both of these roadway segments as FERN AVENUE SE.
2. Petunia Lane SE is using the wrong roadway type.
RECOMMENDATION: Change roadway type to Avenue, so designation reads PETUNIA
AVENUE SE.
3. The roadway designation is missing for that portion of roadway between Garden Court SE
and Ginger Lane SE.
RECOMMENDATION: Label this stretch of roadway as GERANIUM STREET SE.
a�
4. The segment of roadway directly north of Ginger Lane SE across Geranium Street SE is
missing its designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Label this stretch of roadway as GINGER LANE SE.
5. The segment of roadway directly north of Basil Lane SE across Geranium Street SE is
missing its designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Label this stretch of roadway as HOSTA DRIVE SE.
6. The segment of roadway directly north of Daffodil Avenue SE across Peony Street SE is
missing its gesignation.
RECOMMENDATION: Label this stretch of roadway as DAFFODIL AVENUE SE.
7. The segment of roadway directly north of Daisy Avenue SE across Peony Street SE is
missing its designation.
RECOMMENDATION: Label this stretch of roadway as DAISY AVENUE SE.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: -6-06
'--NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
£ n
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08 initiated by the Rochester
PREPARED BY:
Planning and Zoning Commission, to amend the designation of land located along the east
Brent Svenby,
side of St. Bridget Road and south of 40`h Street SE from the "industrial" classification to
Senior Planner
"commercial" on the Land Use Plan.
January 25, 2006
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
z
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2005 to consider the Land Use Plan
Amendment request for the property. The Commission also reviewed a zone change petition on the property.
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 at the intersection of a collector and future collector roadway.
B. This property has relatively level/flat terrain.
C. Upon completion of proposed improvements in the immediate area, this property will have good vehicular
and pedestrian access.
D. The projected service area population within a one mile radius is 1,500 households or more.
E. This property will have ample land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood at rate of more than 2.5
acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated December 1, 2005.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by
findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan (as included in the staff report).
2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated December 1, 2005 f+
2. Minutes of the December 14, 2005 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1 rity Clerk
ty Administrator
_ ty Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File
5. A licant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 c.m. on Monday, February 6 2004 in the Council I Board
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
I
f
N
-OOP
.00
. . . . . ... ...
of
UN Qk AN E 0
--=7
in T,4 Sighl SE
>
......
......... 45 TH STREET 9
..........
THE GARDENS
ROCHESTEP, MINNESOTA
CFNFRAI r)FVFinpkAFNTPI AN
FA
Roci{ESTER-OLINISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC ""r • OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
Vch
µff l' If F;5'1 Ekarr. _
r w S
ORH,k��h�`v
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: December 1, 2005
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08 and Zoning District Amendment
#05-14 initiated by the Rochester Planning and Zoning
Commission, to amend the designation of land located along the
east side of St. Bridget Road and south of 40th Street SE from the
"industrial" classification and from M-1 Mixed Commercial -
Industrial zoning to "commercial' on the Land Use Plan and B-1
(Restricted Commercial) on the Zoning Map.
Pianningg Department Review:
•✓6
�• Owner: The Gardens LLC
4325 Garden Court SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE,
along the east side of St. Bridget Road SE.
Requested Action: The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated an
amendment to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan, and to the Zoning Map for land located along the east
side of St. Bridget Road, south of 40th Street SE including
"Area 4" identified in The Gardens General Development Plan
#261. The amendments propose changing the Land Use
Plan classification from "industrial" to "commercial' and the
zoning from M-1 Mixed Commercial -Industrial B-1
(Restricted Commercial).
Existing Land Use: A stormwater pond is located on part of the area, the balance
is undeveloped.
Proposed Land Use: No specific uses are proposed at this time.
Adjacent Land Use and The areas surrounding this property to the west and north are
Zoning: designated for "industrial' uses on the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan. Amendments to the Land Use
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAY 507/287-2275
Page 2
June 16, 2005
Plan and Zoning are being considered for the balance of The
Gardens GDP, to designate the northeast corner for "medium
density residential' and R-3 zoning, and to designate the
balance for the site for "low density residential' and R-2
zoning (LUPA #05-06, ZC #05-12).
Transportation Access: Major transportation improvements have been, or are in the
process of being, constructed in the area. Improvements
include new interchanges at TH 63 and 401h Street, and 481h
Street, along with associated arterial and collector roads.
' The Gardens General Development Plan (4261), proposes
' two access to "Area 4"; one from St. Bridget Road via a
private roadway; the other provides connection to the future
40'h Street, also with a private roadway.
Wetlands: A wetland related application has been approved by the City.
This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan.
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Referral Comments
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Criteria & Proposed Findings,
for Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08:
Neighborhood shopping centers, defined as small centers (four to eight acres in area) including
stores catering to the daily or weekly convenience shopping needs and personal services needs
of a neighborhood, are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Located at the intersection of a collector street and/or higher -level streets.
This property Is located at the intersection of a collector and future collector
roadway.
b. Having relatively flat terrain.
This property has relatively levebftat terrain.
c. Having good vehicular and pedestrian access.
Upon completion of proposed improvements In the immediate area, this property
will have good vehicular and pedestrian access.
d. With a projected service area population of at least 1,500 households with a radius of one-
half to one mile.
The projected service area population within a one mile radius is 1,500 households
or more.
e. Having at least enough land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood at the rate of
2.5 acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households.
This property will have ample land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood
at rate of more than 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households.
Page 3
June 16, 2005
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Criteria & Proposed
Findings for Zone Change Petition #05-14:
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, ars presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensivd 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-1:
A Land Use Plan amendment (#05-08) is being considered concurrent with this
application. If the Land Use Plan is amended to designate the property for
"commercial" land uses is supported, the petition to rezone to the B-1 district
would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The area is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public Interest to rezone so as to encourage development
that will be compatible with the proposed land use amendments, zone changes and
General Development Plan for The Gardens (LUPA 05-06, ZC 05-12, GDP #261).
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-1:
Permitted uses allowed within the proposed B-f zoning district will be appropriate
on the subject property. The Gardens General Development Plan proposes to
leave a remnant area (Area 4) In the northwest quadrant of the development
designated for `Industrial' uses and zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial).
Currently, the entire property Is zoned M-1, but most of it has been petitioned to be
designated on the Land Use Plan for "medium density" or "low density" residential
uses and zoned R-2 or R-3. Rezoning this property (including "Area 4) to the B-1
District will result in use more compatible with the Residential zones proposed In
The Gardens GDP #261.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or severai 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).
20�
Page 4
iv June 16, 2005
Proposed B-1:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
Findings can be made to support amends to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to
designate approximately 13.23 acres of land for "commercial" land uses and to re -zone the same
area from the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial)
district.
rIE,,/i;;2005/T.l1E 03:30 P1' BID LAIN! FAX t1:.507 232 7736 F. ^'; �
�03
BIRD, JACOBSEN & STEVENS
Attorneys.at Law
CHAMES A. OW-t
VAN P. JACOBSEN
JFRED4Y R STEVENS
ANDREA B. NIESEN•
December 13, 2005
via facsimile onfV: 287-2275
Mitzi BakerzSenior Planner
Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
305 IRONWOOD SQUARE • 300 THIRD AVENUE S,b.
ROCHESTER, NUNNESOTA 55904
(507)292-1503
FAX (507) 262-7736
w .birdjacobs=com
RE: The Gardens Manufactured Home Community
Dear Ms. Baker.
We have received the notice regarding the City Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing on December 14, 2005, in which matters pertaining to The Gardens
Manufactured Home Community will be, considered.
It is our understanding that the issues which will be heard at the hearing will be
whether to "to amend the designation of [and located along the east side of St.
Bridget Road and south of 401` Street SE from the 'industrial' classification and from
M-1 Mixed Commerclak[ndustrial zoning to 'commercial' on the Land Use Plan and
B-1 (Restricted Commercial) on the Zoning Map."
Please be advised that our clients, who are residents of the adjacent land called The
Gardens Manufactured Home Community, object to these matters for the same
reasons stated by.Attomey Charles Bird on the record at the September 14, 2005
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. I ask that you please convey this
objection to the Commission.
I thank you for your assistance In this matter. Should you have any questions or
concerns in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Andrea B. Niesen
andrea@birdlacobsen.com
!ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACnCE IN WISCONSIN
jCER17FIED TRIAL SPECIALIST BY MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSDCIATION+CERTInEO BY NATIONAL BCARD OFTRAL ADVOCACY
J Pagz 2
dCity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
Mr. Haeussinger concurred with Mr. Wallace. He explained that he was rel ctant to deny the
request, but also ad reservations about approving it. To him, it appeare at this would be the
last and final atterrXat fixing the issues.
Mr. Burke stated that, i e applicant had not brought forth a pro al to improve the
environmental issues, he uld also be hesitant to approve t equest. However, the proposal
is trying to address odor, not etc. He explained that it eem as though it is the final
attempt to solve the problems. 't did not solve the cur problems/concerns, it could be
concluded that the business is no aced in the corr site location.
Mr. Wallace and Ms. gIfredson discus)re
In
the site are not being met and that thchange the impact the business has reason to implement new conditions t
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Fthat current solutions/conditions applied to
)f that new conditions of approval would
)oring properties. Therefore, there is no
permit.
I
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated December 1, 2005, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing.
Mr. Svenby stated that a fax was received from Bird, Jacobsen, & Stevens dated December 13,
2005. This fax is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08, initiated
by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission, with the staff -recommended
findings. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 14, 2005
Mr, Burke moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-14, initiated
by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission, with the staff -recommended
findings. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
n
Mr. Brent Svenbyxesented the staff report, dated December 8, 2005, he Commission. The
staff report is on fil\ad
chester-Olmsted P/he
artment
Mr. Svenby stated sed plan was submTh ore, the Commission could
remove staff-recomonditions 3, 6, ande mendation.
The applicant's repJosh Johnson froand Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue
SE, Rochester MNd ssed the Comapplicant is in agreement with the
staff-recommendes.With no one else be he d, Mr. Halosed the public hearing.
Mr. Snyder moved to recommend ap ov f.General Development Plan: #266 to be
+ known as Taylor Commercial, by FCevt for with1h sfaff-r c6mne ded findings -and
conditions (as revised hystaff). Mr. B' Fsetonded the motion The motion carried 6-0.
CONDITIONS:4,, ..... . .... ':
1. There are inadequate on an ff site public ties, specifically Storm Water
Management Facilities, to Commodateahe velopment of this Property. No
development will be alto d to occur until the ity..Council:has determined that all,
required public facilitie' are adequate for said elopment. Alternatively, the
developer may reque to join with the City in rn „' g theseinadequate public
facilities adequate f this development, and may e r into a' development
agreement, prior t inal Plat submittal, that outlines developer's.and City's
obligations relat , but not limited to: ownership, main ance & access to the
proposed priva road, stormwater management(includi any obligations for off -site
facilities), tra ortation improvements (including off -site i rovements necessary
to accommo to this development), pedestrian facilities, co ibutions for existing &
future pub ' infrastructure, and the extension of public utilitie o abutting properties
where ap icable.
2. Gradi & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Platsu\tDievelopment
Storm
Ovate anagement must be provided for this development. Speciations of
the wrier, regarding stormwater management, will be addressed
A eement, and the entire Property maybe subject to a Storm Watgement
ea Charge.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /
DATE: 2-6-06
=NDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #05-14 initiated by the Rochester Planning and
PREPARED BY:
Zoning Commission, to rezone the area of land located along the east side of St. Bridget Road
Brent Svenby,
and south of 40'" Street SE from the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district to the B-1
senior Planner
(Restricted Commercial) zoningdistrict.
�� �"� Gr �" �✓ L
January 25, 2006 i
U
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Coritmission held a public hearing on December 14, 2005 to consider this zone change.
The Commission reviewed t e zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report dated December 1,
2005 and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings.
Motion by Mr. Burke, seconded by Mr. Barry to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-14, with
staff -recommended findings. Motion carried 6-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated December 1, 2005
wncil Action
Needed:
The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision
orf1his 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 1, 2005 xt
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, February 6, 2006 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
UNCIL ACTION:
motion By: Seconded By: Action:
N
NI
_V10
F i 1 9 Gg z
THE GARDENS
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA ` jf `�� • ,
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN piji
d ENT
43
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
(yr)6
µ111;111STErf.ylr 1,
n
Okd rFU•h U LU51 •a••
FROM: Mitzi4 Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: 'December 1, 2005
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08 and Zoning District Amendment
#05-14 initiated by the Rochester Planning and Zoning
Commission, to amend the designation of land located along the
east side of St. Bridget Road and south of 40tt' Street SE from the
"industrial" classification and from M-1 Mixed Commercial -
Industrial zoning to "commercial" on the Land Use Plan and B-1
(Restricted Commercial) on the Zoning Map.
Planning Department Review:
Owner:
The Gardens LLC
4325 Garden Court SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located along the south side of 401h Street SE,
along the east side of St. Bridget Road SE.
The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated an
Requested Action:
amendment to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan, and to the Zoning Map for land located along the east
side of St. Bridget Road, south of 401h Street SE including
"Area 4" Identified In The Gardens General Development Plan
#261. The amendments propose changing the Land Use
Plan classification from "industrial" to "commercial" and the
zoning from M-1 Mixed Commercial -Industrial B-1
(Restricted Commercial).
Existing Land Use:
A stormwater pond is located on part of the area, the balance
is undeveloped.
Proposed Land Use:
No specific uses are proposed at this time.
Adjacent Land Use and
The areas surrounding this property to the west and north are
designated for "industrial' uses on the Rochester Urban
Zoning:
Service Area Land Use Plan. Amendments to the Land Use
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZCNING 507I285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-B345
FAX 5071287-2275
�� AN EQUAL OrPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
June 16, 2C05
Plan and Zoning are being considered for the balance of The
Gardens GDP, to designate the northeast corner for "medium
density residential" and R-3 zoning, and to designate the
balance for the site for "low density residential" and R-2
zoning (LUPA #05-06, ZC #05-12).
Transportation Access: Major transportation improvements have been, or are in the
process of being, constructed in the area. Improvements
include new interchanges at TH 63 and 40" Street, and 48'"
' Street, along with associated arterial and collector roads.
The Gardens General Development Plan (#261), proposes
two access to "Area 4"; one from St. Bridget Road via a
private roadway; the other provides connection to the future
40" Street, also with a private roadway.
Wetlands: A wetland related application has been approved by the City.
This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan.
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Referral Comments
Criteria & Staff Suqqested Findings:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Criteria & Proposed Findings,
for Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08:
Neighborhood shopping centers, defined as small centers (four to eight acres in area) including
stores catering to the daily or weekly convenience shopping needs and personal services needs
of a neighborhood, are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Located at the intersection of a collector street and/or higher -level streets.
This property is located at the intersection of a collector and future collector
roadway.
b. Having relatively flat terrain.
This property has relatively level flat terrain.
c. Having good vehicular and pedestrian access.
Upon completion of proposed improvements in the immediate area, this property
will have good vehicular and pedestrian access.
d. With a projected service area population of at least 1,500 households with a radius of one-
half to one mile.
The projected service area population within a one mile radius is 1,500 households
or more.
e. Having at least enough land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood at the rate of
2.5 acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households.
This property will have ample land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood
at rate of more than 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households.
Page 3
June 16,2005
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Criteria & Proposed
Findings for Zone Change Petition #05-14:
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 it the amendment satisfies the fallowing 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:
r
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 IQ
rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
Proposed 8-1:
A Land Use Plan amendment (#05-08) is being considered concurrent with this
application. if the Land Use Plan Is amended to designate the property for
"commercial" land uses Is supported, the petition to rezone to the B-1 district
would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The area is changing to such a
a" degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development
that will be compatible with the proposed land use amendments, zone changes and
General Development Plan for The Gardens (LUPA 05-06, ZC 05.12, GDP #261).
2) The criteria or 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-1:
Permitted uses allowed within the proposed B-1 zoning district will be appropriate
on the subject property. The Gardens General Development Plan proposes to
leave a remnant area (Area 4) in the northwest quadrant of the development
designated for "industrial" uses and zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial).
Currently, the entire property Is zoned M-1, but most of it has been petitioned to be
designated on the Land Use, Plan for "medium density" or "low density" residential
uses and zoned R-2 ar R-3. Rezoning this property (including "Area 4) to the B-1
District will result in use more compatible with the Residential zones proposed in
The Gardens GDP #261.
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).
Page 4
June 16, 2005
Proposed B-1:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
Findings can be made to support amends to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to
designate approxirpately 13.23 acres of land for "commercial" land uses and to re -zone the same
area from the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial)
district. w
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
_ `� J
MEETING /n'1�
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITj1140.PUBLIC
HEARINGS
PLANNINGITEM
DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 by Prairie Crossing,
PRED BY:
LLC to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to
Mitzi A. Baker,
identify approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 53
Senior Planner
and north of 651h Street NW for "commercial" land uses.
January 24, 2006
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this item at the January 11, 2006 meeting.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 by Prairie Crossing, LLC based on
staff's recommendation. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
Council Action Needed:
1. 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.
i
Distribution:
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 February 6, 2007 in the Council / Board Chamber at
the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
ROCIIESTER-OLtNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT t,wncp.t Tek, p)
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100"Rochester, MN 55904-4744 61,10
www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
cauxrr or
Ok.I TF, n•A Uf.0 ST•� A
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: MitzkA. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: -November 3, 2005
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 and Zoning District Amendment
#05-13 by Prairie Crossing, LLC to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan and Rochester Zoning Map to identify
approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 53 and north
of 65th Street NW for "commercial" land uses and "M-1" Mixed
Commercial -Industrial Zoning.
Planning Department Review. -
Petitioner:
Prairie Crossing, LLC
1201 SW Meadowlark Court
Rochester, MN 55902
Surveyor/Consultant:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located north of 65'" Street NW and west of T.H.
52.
Requested Action:
The applicant proposes to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan and Rochester Zoning Map to identity
approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 53 and
north of 65'" Street NW for "commercial' land uses and "M-1"
Mixed Commercial -Industrial Zoning.
Existing Land Use:
The property is currently undeveloped and has historically been
cropped agricultural land.
Proposed Land Use:
The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 75.63
acres of land located west of TH 52 and north of 65"Street NW
for "commercial" land uses and "M-1" Mixed Commercial -
Industrial Zoning.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIVADORESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSINSWIA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285.8345
FAX 5071287-2275
",,,,, AN EQUAL OCPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Adjacent Land Use and There is no formal future land use plan map for land in the 25
Zoning: year urban service area lying north of 65" Street. Since there is
no formal designation, the designated future land use is
considered to be "tow density residential" unless otherwise
approved (via.land use plan amendment petition). The east
side of the property abuts TH 52, the south side abuts 65"'
Street NW, and the north and west abut agricultural lands in the
County that are identified as being within the 25-Year Urban
Service Area for the City of Rochester on the Olmsted County
Land Use Map. Land to the north and west is deemed "low
' density residential" unless otherwise approvedfidentified on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Transportation Access
Wetlands:
Referral Comments:
+. Report Attachments:
Access to this development will initially be from 65" St/Overland
Drive. A future interchange Is planned at this intersection with
TH 52 which includes a future frontage road that will also
provide access to the property, and which would extend to 75'"
Street upon full build -out. There are uncertainties with regard to
the final roadway design and right-of-way needs and with regard
to the final approval and construction of the interchange that will
need to be addressed with the consideration of General
Development Plan #264 accompanying this application.
Wetlands exist on this property. A wetland delineation has been
carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning
Department.
1. See comments attached to GDP #264
1. Location Map
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Crtterla
Commercial Land Use Designation:
Regional shopping centers, defined as including one or more major department stores, or several
specialty stores, 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.
The future frontage road and 65" Street NW are identified as arterials on the Long Range
Transportation Plan and Trunk Highway 52 is identified as a freeway.
b. Having level terrain.
This site does not have level terrain.
c. Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access.
G
_ Page 3
rf
Upon completion: of infrastructure improvements required of the development and as idenhiilied
on the Long Range Transportation Plan, this development would have good pedestrian,
vehicular and transit access. Recent and future improvements include; future (upgraded)
frontage road connections on the west side of TH 52 from 65'h Street to 75t° Street NW
interchange at 75'h Street NW,- overpass at 65'h Street NW currently under Street
and u
future interchange at 65`h Street NW
There are uncertainties with regard to the final roadway design and right-af-way needs and
with regard io the final approval and construction of the interchange that will need to be
addressed with the consideration of General Development Phan #264 accompanying this
application.
d. Having at least 4D acres of land suitable for commercial development.
This property will have at least 40 acres of land for commercial development
The service areas of regional shopping centers In Rochester extend beyond Olmsted County to include
Southeastern Minnesota, Southwestern Wisconsin, and Northeastern Iowa. Projections of area requirements for
regional shopping centers and for other commercial uses have been made on the basis of projected employmert
growth, as explained in Appendix 3,
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Criteria & Proposed Findings
for Zone Change Petition #05-14:
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 M-li
A Land Use Plan amendment (#o5-07) is being considered concurrent with this
application. if the Land Use Plan Is amended, to designate the property for
"commercial" land uses, the petition to rezone to the M-1 district would be
consistent with the Land Use Plan. The area is changing (TH 52 improvements,
75` St. 6e Street overpass & future Interchange).
r1
Page 4
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 M-1:
Permitted uses allowed within the proposed M-1 zoning district could be
appropriate on the subject property. Recent and planned transportation
improvements planned In this area include a new frontage road connection
between Ve Street and 7e Street; an interchange at 75" Street, an overpass at
65t° Street and future construction of an interchange at 65`° StreetlTH 52 as
documented in the recently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan.
There are uncertainties with regard to the final roadway design and right-of-way
needs and with regard to the final approval and construction of the interchange
that will need to be addressed with the consideration of General Development Plan
#264 accompanying this application.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single /at 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 M-1:
This amendment would not constitute spotzoning.
Staff Recommendation:
Though this property does not have level terrain, the site does meet the other characteristic
criteria outlined in the Land Use Plan for "commercial' land use designations. Findings support
the petition as initiated by the applicant.
If the Land Use Plan Amendment is supported, findings could be made to support the Zoning
District Amendment to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district.
There are uncertainties with regard to the final roadway design and right-of-way needs and with
regard to the final approval and construction of the interchange that will need to be addressed with
the consideration of General Development Plan #264 accompanying this application.
I
I,
04
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 9, 2005
\tIme
and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to developmen/oach lot.
ime of re -subdividing, controlled access shall be dedicated ong the entire
e of Eastwood Road SE accept for the driveway openings pproved by the
orks Department.
ia acilities (10 foot wide bituminous path) will b quired along the
onta of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant sh execute a Pedestrian
s Agle ent with the City which addresses t Owner's obligation for the
construct said path in the future.
6. All driveway approach shall meet standard y approach design standards.
7. The public parkland dedica requi�eme for this development shall be in the
form of cash in lieu of land. D ication quirement is only for the increase
number of'dwelling units (3).
Mr. Svenby stated that t pond should have been included in the i ' tion to change from
'• Industrial to the Com cial zoning district. Therefore, staff requeste at the Commission
iig
include the pond site.
o continue Land Use Plan Amendment#05-0&.and Zoni District
initiated by the Rochester' Planning and Zoning Commis ' n to
. Mc Snyder seconded the motion.. The mntinn rarriad r-n
Ms.pvas moved to extend the initiation of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-08 and
Z ing District Amendment #05-14 to include the pond. Ms. Wiesner seconded the
otion. The motion carried 6-0.
LU11111U.
AND
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 9, 2005
Mr. Burke moved to continue General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie
Crossing West, Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07, and Zoning District Amendment #05-
13 by Prairie Crossing, LLC to January 11, 2006. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As may be brought up with members
No discussion itemp Were brought forward.
ADJOURN: -
Motion made by Mr. Burke to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Wiesner. Mr.
Haeussinger, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
jlg
Mr. Bob Haeussinger, Chair
qq'
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, January 11, 2006, 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. Michael
Quinn; Ms. Leslie Rivas; Mr. Jesse Wallace; Mr. Paul Ohly; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr, Vince Barry;
and Mr. Bruce Snyder
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mr. Brent Svenby and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present:
SET ORDER OF AGENDA:
Ms. Wiesner moved to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. Burke seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Ms. Rivas made a motion to approve the following consent items (Annexation Petition
#2005-15 was withdrawn as noted in the meeting packet). Mr. Snyder seconded the
motion.
December 14, 2005 minutes
The motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
y_ Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 and Zoning District Amendment #05-13 by Prairie
7� Crossing, LLC to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and Rochester
Zoning Map to identify approximately 75 63 acres of land located west of TH 52 and north
of 65th Street NW for "commercial land uses and "M-1" Mixed Commercial Industrial
Zoning.
1,TG]
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated November 3, 4 and 11', to the
Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained that the largest issue, for the general development plan, was the access
to the site (making sure there are adequate public facilities to accommodate the proposal).
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: January 11, 2006
Mr. Burke asked if there was a timeline on the 65th street study.
Mr. Svenby responded that he was not aware of one, but the City has been preparing the
information requested by MnDOT.
Discussion ensued regarding phasing.
Mr. Burke asked how the existing frontage road fit into the plan.
Mr. Svenby responded that the traffic study would need to be completed prior to any
development being approved
The applicant's representative, Josh Johnson from McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue
SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. Mr. Jerry Nelson was present to
answer any questions from the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated that there is a development agreement signed for this development, as well
as the Prairie Crossing East development.
Mr. Johnson discussed where the proposed right-of-way was located for the future interchange.
The right-of-way was designed to fit with any interchange design.
Mr. Johnson showed a picture of where the existing frontage road was located on the proposed
general development plan.
Mr. Quinn asked if the only entrance/access was on the north side of the property.
Mr. Johnson responded yes. He explained the possibility of moving one of the entrances due to
the newly adopted ROCOG 2035 Plan.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Land Use' Plan Amendrtliint #05-07 by
Prairie Crossing, LLC based on staffs recommendationi W Quinn "can etl the
motion: The motion carried 9-0.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend'' approval of Zoning Dfstrict-Amdndment05-13by vLL
Prairie Crossing, LLC based on staffs recommendation.' Mr:: Qumn seconded the "
motion. The motion carried 9-0. = "
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of General Development Flan #264 to be
known as Prairie Crossing West, by Prairie Crossing, LLC with the revised staff -
recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Quinn seconded the m6dor . The motion
carried 9-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant agrees: '
a. The development of the property shall be phased until an interchange at 65th
Street / TH 52 is constructed. Any phase preceding interchange construction
must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Report (TIR) showing that the 551"
FA
.Y4
Page 3 90
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: January 11, 2006
Street / Bandel intersection and other adjacent intersections along 55 Street
NW can handle, to the Level of Service criteria established in the LDM, the
increase in traffic from this site and Prairie Crossing East Development must
be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities.
2. Prior to Platting and development, the GDP shall be revised to Incorporate the
following:
a. Foilowing completion of additional studies related to"the 66., Street interchange
justification with MnT and the Federal Highway Administration identify right
of -way thdt will be reserved consistent with the right -of --way needs for an
Interchange at 65th Street and TH 52,
b. Driveway spacing identifie
GDPshall identlfy.drivewe
ROCOG Long Range Trap:
3. There are inadequate on and o
Storrh Water Management Faci
facilities to accommodate the I
must be
`anfrastru
-.
. w2r
;'upor
nrrim
DevelopmentPlan Nnll"need to be filed ? "" , At*
rktR
IN
Water mains' must be'networked properlyto`provide adequate flows for fire'
protection and water quality and must be extended to ad a centproperbes-perthe,
requirements of Rochester Public. Utilities r_
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2-6-06
ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #05-13 by Prairie Crossing,
Y:
LLC to amend the Rochester Zoning Map to identify approximately 75.63 acres of
er,
land located west of TH 52 and north of 65th Street NW "M-1" Mixed Commercial-er
fITE�N
Industrial Zoning.
//b Tom: �..I'Xeca¢.. .aPRi Miff
January 24, 2006
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 24, 2005, 2005, to consider this petition.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #05-13 by Prairie
Crossing, LLC based on staff's recommendation. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion
carried 9-0.
Council Action Needed:
T. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils
decision on this zone change.
.rr
'2. 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.
r4r
Distribution: tt
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 6, 2006 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
COUNCIL ACTION:
ion By: Seconded By: Action:
ROCfiESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 " Rochester, MN 55904-4744
crr""„ ", www.olmstedcounly.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A,., Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: November 3, 2005
µpClllti I F. N•.LI/,
.r'Ut• m}Ili
it 1-:'(*
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 and Zoning District Amendment
#05-13 by Prairie Crossing, LLC to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan and Rochester Zoning Map to identify
approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 53 and north
of 65th Street NW for "commercial" land uses and "M-1" Mixed
Commercial -Industrial Zoning.
Planning Department Review.
Petitioner: Prairie Crossing, LLC
1201 SW Meadowlark Court
Rochester, MN 55902
Surveyor/Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located north of 65'" Street NW and west of T.H.
52.
Requested Action: The applicant proposes to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan and Rochester Zoning Map to identify
approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 53 and
north of 65'h Street NW for "commercial' land uses and "M-l"
Mixed Commercial -Industrial Zoning.
Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped and has historically been
cropped agricultural land.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 75.63
acres of land located west of TH 52 and north of 55th Street NW
for "commercial" land uses and "M-1" Mixed Commercial -
Industrial Zoning.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/AOORESSING/MAPPING 507/285�8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
- .• •
PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • wELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAx 5071287-2275
..r
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Adjacent Land Use and There is no formal future land use plan map for land in the 25
Zoning: year urban service area lying north of 65'" Street. Since there is
no formal designation, the designated future land use is
considered to be Sow density residential" unless otherwise
approved (via land use plan amendment petition). The east
side of the property abuts TH 52, the south side abuts 65"
Street NW, and the north and west abut agricultural lands in the
County that are identified as being within the 25-Year Urban
Service Area for the City of Rochester on the Olmsted County
Land Use Map. Land to the north and west is deemed "low
' density residential" unless otherwise approvedlidentified on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Transportation Access: Access to this development will initially be from 65" St/Overland
Drive. A future interchange is planned at this intersection with
TH 52 which includes a future frontage road that will also
provide access to the property, and which would extend to 751"
Street upon full build -out. There are uncertainties with regard to
the final roadway design and right-of-way needs and with regard
to the final approval and construction of the interchange that will
need to be addressed with the consideration of General
Development Plan #264 accompanying this application.
Wetlands: Wetlands exist on this property. A wetland delineation has been
carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning
Department,
Referral Comments: 1. See comments attached to GDP #264
+. Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
Criteria & Staff Suagested Findings:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Criteria
Commercial Land Use Designation:
Regional shopping centers, defined as including one or more major department stores, or several
specialty stores, 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.
The future frontage road and 65" Street NW are identified as arterials ore the Long Range
Transportation Plan and Trunk Highway 52 is identified as a freeway.
b. Having level terrain.
This site does not have level terrain.
c. Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access.
Page 3
Upon completion of infrastructure improvements required of the development and as identified
on the Long Range Transportation Plan, this development would have good pedestrian,
vehicular and transit access. Recentandfuture improvements include: future (upgraded)
frontage road connection on the west side of TH 52 from 6Y' Street to 75'' Street NtV;
interchange at 7e Street NW; overpass at 656 Street NW currently under construction; and a
future interchange at 65eb Street NW.
There are uncertainties with regard to the final roadway design and right-of-way needs and
with regard to the final approval and construction of the interchange that will need in be
addressed With tire consideration of General Development Plan #264 accompanying this
application.
d. Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development.
This property will have at least 40 acres of land for commercial development.
The service areas of regional shopping centers In Rochester extend beyond Olmsted County to include
Southeastern Minnesota. Southwestern Wisconsin, and Northeastern Iowa. Projections of area requirements for
regional shopping centers and for other commercial uses have been made on the basis of projected employment
growth, as explained in Appendix B.
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Criteria & Proposed Findings
for Zone Change Petition #05-14:
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 M-1:
A Land Use Plan amendment (#05-07) Is being considered concurrent with this
application. If the Land Use Plan Is amended, to designate the property for
"commercial" land uses, the petition to rezone to the M-1 district would be
consistent with the Land Use Plan. The area Is changing (TN 52 improvements,
75'b St. 65t' Street overpass & future Interchange).
Page 4
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 M-7:
Permitted uses allowed within the proposed M-t zoning district could be
appropriate on the subject property. Recent and planned transportation
improvements planned In this area include a new frontage road connection
between 04' Street and 75 h Street; an interchange at 75 " Street, an overpass at
65r" Street and future construction of an interchange at 65r" Street/TH 52 as
dorymented In the recently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan.
There are uncertainties with regard to the final roadway design and right-of-way
needs and with regard to the final approval and construction of the Interchange
that will need to be addressed with the consideration of General Development Plan
#264 accompanying this application.
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 M-t:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
Though this property does not have level terrain, the site does meet the other characteristic
criteria outlined in the Land Use Plan for "commercial" land use designations. Findings support
the petition as initiated by the applicant.
If the Land Use Plan Amendment is supported, findings could be made to support the Zoning
District Amendment to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district.
There are uncertainties with regard to the final roadway design and right-of-way needs and with
regard to the final approval and construction of the interchange that will need to be addressed with
the consideration of General Development Plan #264 accompanying this application.
a�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING���
i
or I, 1IVI1C
PUBLIC HEARINGS
INATING DEPT:
PLANNING
cM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie
Crossing West, by Prairie Crossing, LLC. The application proposes
development of approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 52 and
north of 651h Street with commercial land uses. The Plan identifies a new
north/south public roadway, re -alignment of the west Frontage Road and future
interchange, as well as a new Menards retail store with associated parking.
February 2, 2006 ��
DATE: 2/6/06
" "E 6
PREPARED BY:
Mitzi A. Baker,
Senior Planner
After further discussion regarding the access spacing identified on the General Development Plan, staff suggest modifying
condition "# 2, b." Modifications ate shown with underlined text for new text to be added.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 11, 2Do6: Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend
approval of General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie Crossing West, by Prairie Crossing, LLC with the
revised staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
CONDITIONS:
The applicant agrees:
a. The development of the property shall be phased until an interchange at 65th Street / TH 52 is constructed.
Any phase preceding interchange construction must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Report (TIR)
showing that the 55 Street / Bandel intersection and other adjacent intersections along 55`h Street NW
can handle, to the Level of Service criteria established in the LOM, the increase in traffic from this site
and Prairie Crossing East. Development must be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public
facilities.
2. Prior to Platting and development, the GDP shall be revised to incorporate the following:
a. Following completion of additional studies related to the 65th Street interchange justification with MnDOT
and the Federal Highway Administration identify right-of-way that will be reserved consistent with the
right-of-way needs for an interchange at 65th Street and TH 52.
b. Driveway spacing identified on the GDP is not approved as identified,
inrougn a uesicin Moditication concurrent with a preliminary plat for the property. The GDP shall identify
driveway spacing consistent with the guidelines in the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan, unless
otherwise approved through a Design Modification.
3. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water Management
Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities, and Transportation facilities to accommodate the development of the entire
Property. The development must be phased -in in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned
infrastructure improvements, A Development Agreement has been executed for this General Development
Plan. Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities.
UNCIL ACTION: Morton by: Second by: _ __ to:
Page 2
RCA
February 2, 2006
4. A Wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and an application for a Wetland Replacement
has been filed. Approval of this GDP is contingent upon the applicant securing approval for filling and
replacing wetlands on this property. If the City Council does not approve a replacement plan, a new General
Development Plan will need to be filed.
5. Water mains must be networked properly to provide adequate flows for fire protection and water quality and
must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities.
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. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m, on Monday February 6, 2006 in the Council / Rnard
Chamber' at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6
2900 48'h Street N.W.
Rochester, MN 55901-5848
January 25, 2006
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: chriS.moates@dot.statc.mn.us
dot.state.mn.us
RECEnTD
REVISED: General Development Plan #264 to be (mown as Prairie Crossing West, by Prairie
Crossing, LLC. The application proposes development of approximately 75.63
acres of land located west ofTH 52 and north of 65'h Street with commercial land
uses. The Plan identifies a new north/south public roadway, re -alignment of the
west Frontage Road and future interchange, as well as a new Menards retail store
with associated parking.
US Highway 52, Control Section 5508
Dear Ms. Garness:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Planning Office has
reviewed the revised General Development Plan (GDP) for Prairie Crossing West
,which includes a proposed Menards retail store and a future development phase, west
of US Highway 52.
As indicated in our previous response, Mn/DOT is concerned with the frontage road
and interchange proposal that is included with this GDP. Mn/DOT requests no action
be taken on this GDP until the results of the current traffic needs study and
Operational Analysis (OA) are known. Mn/DOT further recommends as follows:
The west side frontage road as proposed does not meet the requirements of the
signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and
Mn/DOT. The west frontage road must be planned as a direct north/south
connection from 65`h Street to 75`h Street and subject to Mn/DOT review and
acceptance as stated on page 3 of the MOU.
2. Mn/DOT as the jurisdictional owner of the existing west side frontage road
will not allow the obliteration of the current frontage road or reconstruction of
the proposed until the OA is complete and Mn/DOT and the City or agent are
in agreement with the proposed changes.
3. The driveways from the Menards site to the frontage road do not meet the 400
foot minimum access spacing criteria for arterial roadways as provided by City
ordinance and committed to in the MOU for US Highway 52 frontage road
design.
4. Approval of this GDP in advance of completing the needs study and
operational analysis may eliminate preferred options for upgrading the
roadway network and may impact future decisions about whether an
interchange will be allowed at 65`' Street.
2�3
A�k
' ], J Jennifer Gayness
a January 25,2006
Page Two
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. For questions about this response you
may contact Fred Sandal Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Tracy Schnell,
Regional Planning Assistant, at (507) 280-5028.
Questions about the study needs may be directed to the project manager for Mn/DOT,
Rhonda Prestegard, at (507) 285-7368.
Sincerely,
Chris Moates
District 6 Planning Director
cc: Prairie Crossing, LLC, 1201 Meadowlark Court, Rochester MN 55902
McGhie and Betts, Inc., 1648 Third Ave SE, Rochester MN 55904
Richard Freese
Nelrae Succio
Greg Paulson
Rhonda Prestegard
Mike Schweyen
Fred Sandal
Tracy Schnell
Debbie Bement
File
oocs-wsnss
-ro
REAL Y BPOEIp'. `_—�H YY801•./ .1 ��' y ��YALB H t 1PUI1f1 P VRYA
33 pro' �—
4 = .TAN 1 12006 _ e
LUUJ
j� E C ES ER CL"TEO
I �,T�P Y JE°�aT4:ENT' 1
♦ n it A) /
®iliAR
um
PE. va .oreap carte
S T U
rt1
�
I
s n�
u i
WESTGARD
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PRAIRIE CROSSING WEST
ROCHESTER. MN
RO, :STER-OUNISTED PLANNING DEPA--. MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Co„„T, OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: January 11, 2006
/b.11180
wsall)♦n11w.r@
RE: General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie Crossing
West, by Prairie Crossing, LLC. The application proposes
development of approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of
TH 52 and north of 651h Street with commercial land uses. The
Plan identifies a new north/south public roadway, re -alignment of
the west Frontage Road and future interchange, as well as a new
Menards retail store with associated parking.
!• The applicant filed a REVISED General Development Plan today, to address two of the items
listed in staff recommended condition #2. In response to the REVISED GDP, and additional
discussion with the consultant, staff is recommending modified conditions, as identified below
(edits are not shown, in order to provide a clean copy of the recommendation — edits are limited
to condition #2):
1. The applicant agrees:
a. The development of the property shall be phased until an interchange at
65'h Street /TH 52 is constructed. Any phase preceding interchange
construction must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Report (TIR)
showing that the 55`h Street/Bandel Intersection and other adjacent
intersections along 5e Street NW can handle, to the Level of Service
criteria established in the LDM, the increase in traffic from this site and
Prairie Crossing East. Development must be phased to provide
concurrence with adequate public facilities.
2. Prior to Platting and development, the GDP shall be revised to incorporate the
following:
a. Following completion of additional studies related to the 65`h Street
interchange justification with MnDOT and the Federal Highway
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GI$/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
•tea •
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
��
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
95,
Administration identify right-of-way that will be reserved consistent
with the right-of-way needs for an interchange at 6.54 Street and TH 52.
b. Driveway spacing identified on the GDP is not approved as identified.
The GDP shall identify driveway spacing consistent with the guidelines
In the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan.
3. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary
Sewer, Storm Water Management Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities, and
Transportation facilities to accommodate the development of the entire
Property. The development must be phased -in in a manner consistent with the
City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements. A Development
Agreement has been executed for this General Development Plan.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate
public facilities.
4. A" Wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and an
application for a Wetland Replacement has been filed. Approval of this GDP is
contingent upon the applicant securing approval for filling and replacing
wetlands on this property. if the City Council does not approve a replacement
plan, a new General Development Plan will need to be filed.
5. Water mains must be networked property to provide adequate flows for fire
protection and water quality and must be extended to adjacent properties per
the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities.
0
ri
.r.
Noire _ \w7we
A
%
TAN 1 12 w
�P'1 N'Ya R4rTTMEW
r
i
fu-•
a %liif �I�l r�. A~/ iwi pw
uvi
REEF Nr ---------
,` u
STUV S = n
3rd D
h
1
i WESTGARD
GENERAL. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PRAIRIE CROSSING WEST
11CCHUTEA, MN
11
January 11, 2006
R o c h e s t e r Mitzi Baker
Minnesota Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochgster, MN 55904
Land Surveying „ RE: Revisions to General Development Plan for Prairie Crossing West
Urban - Land Planning
Dear Ms. Baker:
Consulting - Civil Engineering
Geatechnical Engineering Per our phone conversation on January 10, 2006, the attached revised General
Development Plan for Prairie Crossing West reflects changes that could be
Construction Material Testing made at this time per the staff report written for the January 1 Ith, 2006
Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The following are the
Landscape Architecture revisions made and conditions corrected:
• Conditions:
2(a): I have identified the pedestrian facilities easement along 65th Street
NW, the North/South road along the western property line, and along
the frontage road.
Per the requirements of the Development Agreement for this property,
where there is NOT a 10' wide pedestrian path, the owner is required to
install sidewalk along all public roadways. The actual sidewalk is not
shown on the plan.
2(b): I have increased the right-of-way from 80' to 120' for the North/South
road along the western property line.
The second paragraph in 2(b) is asking for changes within 10 days of
the Council action that may not be possible to make due to the timing
of the studies for the 65th Street being completed. I would like to
suggest that due to the revisions made on the General Development
Plan, the second paragraph in 2(b) can be changed to Condition # 2 and
be re -written as the following without the requirement to be completed
within 10 days of Council action:
648 Third Avenue S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904 2. Following completion of additional studies related to the 65th
Street Interchange, justification with MNDOT and the Federal
Tel. 507,289,3919
Fax. 507.289.7333
e-mail. mbi@mcghiebetls.com
Established 1946
Highway Administration, identify right-of-way that will be
reserved for an interchange at 65th Street and TH 52 prior to
lap ttmg.
I appreciate your time on this matter and if you have any questions or need
additional copies of the General Development Plan (I have enclosed six revised
copies), please feel free to contact me.
Yours very truly,
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
4t,44-0
Joshua J. Johnson, ASLA
Attachments
ROCrrESTER-OLIISTED PLANNING DEPAKI-VIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
GO0„,y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: January 4, 2006 - REVISED
RE: General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie Crossing
West, by Prairie Crossing, LLC. The application proposes
development of approximately 75.63 acres of land located west of
TH 52 and north of 65th Street with commercial land uses. The
Plan identifies a new north/south public roadway, re -alignment of
the west Frontage Road and future interchange, as well as a new
Menards retail store with associated parking.
Planning Department Review.
Petitioner: Prairie Crossing, LLC
1201 SW Meadowlark Court
Rochester, MN 55902
Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located north of 65h Street NW and
west of T.H. 52.
Proposed Use: The applicant proposes to amend the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and Rochester
Zoning Map to identify approximately 75.63 acres of
land located west of TH 52 and north of 65'h Street NW
for "commercial' land uses and "M-1" Mixed
Commercial -Industrial Zoning. The General
Development Plan proposes a commercial
development with a big box retail Menards store in the
southern 1/3 of the development, with no specific uses
identified for the balance of the site. Public roadways,
including a new frontage road, and a storm water pond
are identified on the Plan.
Land Use Plan: There is no formal future land use plan map for area
in the 25 year urban service area lying north of 65'h
Street. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071265-8232 • HOUSINi 507/285-8224
Mw.a o.... PLANNINCJZONING 507/295-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY,AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan
January4, 2006
District Amendment are being considered concurrent
with this application to designate the property for
"commercial" land uses, and M-1 (Mixed Commercial -
Industrial) zoning.
Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family). A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning
District Amendment are being considered concurrent
with this application to designate the property for
"commercial" land uses, and M-1 (Mixed Commercial -
Industrial) zoning.
Transportation Access: Access to this development will initially be from 651h St
and the TH 52 west frontage road. A future
interchange is planned at the intersection of 65'h Street
and TH 52 which includes a modified future frontage
road that will also provide access to the property, and
which would extend to 751h Street.
There are some uncertainties with regard to final right-
of-way needs in this vicinity, as well as with the timing
for a final approval and construction of an interchange
at 65th Street NW.
Sidewalks:
Pedestrian facilities will be required along all public
roadways, and will include a combination of concrete
sidewalk and bituminous pedestrian paths.
Drainage:
This site has rolling terrain with several high and
,..
several low areas. The Site generally drains from west
to east, with the northern portion also draining north.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be
required when the property is platted or developed.
Utilities:
This property is within the Northwest high Level Water
System Area, which is available at the southwest
corner of the property. The builders must install
pressure -reducing devices near the domestic water
meters as required by the MN Plumbing Code in the
higher pressure areas. Watermains must be
networked properly to provide adequate flows for fire
protection and water quality and must be extended to
adjacent properties per RPU's requirements
Sanitary sewer has been extended under TH 52 near
the east side of the proposed future regional
stormwater pond, and will need to be extended
through the site to serve the development.
Wetlands:
A Wetland delineation has been carried out for the
property and is on file with the Planning Department.
At this time impacts to wetlands, as identified on the
GDP, have not been approved. If this GDP is
Page 3
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
approved, it should be contingent upon approval to fill
and replace the wetlands.
Referral Comments: 1.
Muhammad Khan, Senior Transportation Planner
2.
Rochester Public Works
3.
John Harford, Wetlands LGU
4.
RPU Water
5.
Rochester Fire Department
6.
MnDOT
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan
2. Referral Comments
' 3. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative
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. Following are the criteria and staff suggested
findings.
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.
An amendment to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan (RUSALUP) and
Zoning District Amendment (LUPA 05-07: ZC 05-13) are being considered concurrent
with this application. The GDP includes approximately 75.63 acres of land. The
applicant is proposing to have the entire GDP area designated for "commercial" uses on
the RUSALUP, and to zone the property M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial).
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.
At this time, a lot layout has not been identifetl "Phase 11 " of the development. This
detail will need to be evaluated further at the time of platting and site development plan
proposals.
Though the right-of-way widths identified on the GDP appear consistent with that
identified on Official Street Map #14, they are not consistent with the adopted Long
Range Transportation plan, and potentially not with the final design that will be
determined through additional studies being completed in the area.
Additional studies that will be completed as required by the Federal Highway
Administration and MnDOT could result in the need far additional right-of-way along
the north side of 65r6 Street NW or the West Frontage Road to facilitate the approval and
construction of a fill access interchange at 65" Street and TH 52. It appears that
additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated consistent with the Long Range
Transportation Plan, but until these studies are completed, the final right-of-way needs
for roadways included in, and abutting, this GDP will not be known. The Long Range
Transportation Plan identifies a fiiture interchange at 65°i Street andTH 52, however the
timing offinal approval and construction for the interchange is not known at this time.
Page 4
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
It does not appear that the access and circulation and street layout proposed are
compatible with existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property as currently
proposed Driveway spacing does not meet the mininuun 375' as outlined in the
ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan.
As prepared by Senior Transportation Planner Muhammad Khan.
The proposed GDP, Land Use Amendment and Zoning Change included 75.63 acres of
land located west of TH52 and north of 65'h Street for "Commercial" land uses and "M-
1 " mixed commerciaUindustrial zoning. For the proposed land use and zone change, the
commercial and mixed commercial/industrial use may generate roughly 29, 000 daily
trips, using 24% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for both proposed uses. The total potential
commerciaUindustrial area between 65`h and 75t6 Streets on the west side ofTH 52
Streets is approximately 250 acres. If this entire area is developed as
commercialindustrial type use, it will roughly generate 90,000 daily trips out of which
20,000 trips will be pass -by trips and the rest 70,000 will be the traffic generated by the
future land use development between 65"' and 75M streets. These trips will be distributed
through west frontage road and 65"' and 75"' intersections. There will be some trips
distributed to mid -block westbound connection. Assuming 35% of those external trips
are going towards 65h Street, the intersection will be getting roughly 24,500 trips from
the north. The remaining 65% or 45,500 will go towards 75't' Street interchange. The
traffic impact of the potential commerciaUindustrial area will be significant on 65"' and
75`h intersections with west frontage road.
The other significant roadway impact of this development under the scenario of a 65ih
Street overpass is at the 55`h Street interchange. The proposed development would add
traffic to 55`h street interchange being as one of the primary access point to/from TH52
for CommerciaUlndustrial type development (Menards). ROCOG previous work on 65"
interchange justification has suggested that without interchange ramps at 65"' street
major construction of the 55h street interchange will be required in terms of ramps
modifications, turn lanes and east frontage road realignment/expansion etc.
Given the significant nature of the development at the northwest quadrant of TH52 and
65'h Street and potential future commercial land uses along the west frontage road, the
interchange at 65"' street could handle such a high potential traffic. In absence of
interchange the development on the west frontage road may be limited or needed to be
phased out until the 65i8 Street interchange issue with MNDOT is settled.
The other important issue is the Right of Way (ROW) requirements along the west
frontage road between 65"' and 75'h Streets. The Official Map 14 shows 120 feet of ROW
along the western boundary of proposed GDP that is acceptable as per Street Design
requirementfor 4 lane urban arterial. However, we may require additional ROW for
dual left tarn lanes at frontage road and 65`h St intersection to handle potentially high
traffic volume coming from the north side. The Official Map shows 30' ROW along the
northern boundary of the proposed site which is insufficient for 4U type Street Design
according to Street Design Map for Rochester Area. The ROW for entire length of west
frontage has to be 120' as per the ROCOG Transportation Platt and needs to be reflected
in the City of Rochester Official Street Map No 14. Same ROW requirements will be
applicable on the east frontage road between Overland Drive and 75'h Street NW.
The access control as per spacing guidelines included in the ROCOG Transportation
Plan will be needed along both east and west frontage roads. The guidelines require
Page 5
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
mininuon of 660' for local steet spacing and 375' for driveway spacing (35-45 MPH) on
major urban arterial (4 lane urban arterial).
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
This proposal does not include a residential component.
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
Plarl, '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.
Though the right-of-way widths identified on the GDP appear consistent with that
identified on Official Street Map #14, they are not consistent with the adopted Long
Range Transportation plan, and potentially not with the final design that will be
determined through additional studies being completed in the area.
Additional studies that will be completed as required by the Federal Highway
Administration and MnDOT could result in the need for additional right-of-way along
the north side of 65" Street NW or the West Frontage Road to facilitate the approval and
construction of a full access interchange at 65" Street and TH 52. 1t appears that
additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated consistent with the Long Range
Transportation Plan, but until these studies are completed, the final right-of-way needs
for roadways included in, and abutting, this GDP will not be known. The Long Range
Transportation Plan identifies a future interchange at 65'" Street and TH 52, however the
timing offnal approval and construction far the interchange is not known at this time.
It does not appear that the access and circulation and street layout proposed are
compatible with existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property as currently
proposed. Driveway spacing does not meet the minimum 375' as outlined in the
ROCOG Long Range Transportation Platt.
The above response to Criterion B, above, is incorporated as a response to this Criterion
as well.
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.
\� Page 6
\v}�� General Development Plan
ri January 4, 2006
On and off site improvements will be needed to accommodate fidl build out of
the proposed development.
Though the right-of-way widths identified on the GDP appear consistent with
that identified an Official Street Map #14, they are not consistent with the
adopted Long Range Transportation plan, and potentially not with the final
design that will be determined through additional studies being completed in the
area.
Additional studies that will be completed as required by the Federal Highway
Administration and MnDOT could result in the need far additional right-of-way
along the north side of 65'1' Street NW or the West Frontage Road to facilitate
the approval and construction of a full access interchange at 65"' Street and TH
52. It appears that additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated consistent
with the Long Range Transportation Plan, but until these studies are completed,
the final right-of-way needs for roadways included in, and abutting, this GDP
will not be known. The Long Range Transportation Plan identifies a future
interchange at 65'h Street and TH 52, however the timing of final approval and
construction for the interchange is not known at this time.
It does not appear that the access and circulation and street layout proposed
are compatible with existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property
as currently proposed. Driveway spacing does not meet the minimum 375' as
outlined in the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan.
As prepared by Senior Transportation Planner Muhammad Khan:
The proposed GDP, Land Use Amendment and Zoning Change included 75.63
acres of land located west of TH52 and north of 65`h Street far "Commercial "
land uses and "M-1 " mixed commerciaUindustrial zoning. For the proposed
land use and zone change, the commercial and mixed commerciaUndustrial use
may generate roughly 29,000 daily trips, using 24% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
both proposed uses. The total potential commerciaUindustrial area between
65'h and 75`h Streets on the west side of TH 52 Streets is approximately 250
acres. If this entire area is developed as commerciaUndustrial type use, it will
roughly generate 90,000 daily trips out of which 20,000 trips will be pass -by
trips and the rest 70,000 will be the traffic generated by the future land use
development between 65"' and 75'h streets. These trips will be distributed
through west frontage road and 65'h and 75"' intersections. There will be some
trips distributed to mid -block westbound connection. Assuming 35% of those
external trips are going towards 65'h Street, the intersection will be getting
roughly 24,500 trips from the north. The remaining 65%or45,500 will go
towards 75'h Street interchange. The traffic impact of the potential
commerciaUindustrial area will be significant on 65`h and 75" intersections with
west frontage road.
The other significant roadway impact of this development tinder the scenario of
a 65"' Street overpass is at the 55" Street interchange. The proposed
development would add traffic to 55`h street interchange being as one of the
primary access point to/front TH52 for Comnnercial/Industrial type development
(Menards). ROCOG previous work on 65"' interchange jttstificatiort leas
suggested that without interchange ramps at 65`' street major construction of
Page 7
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
the 55h street interchange will be required in terms of ramps modifications, turn
lanes and east frontage road realignnnentexpansion etc.
Giver the significant nature of the development at the northwest quadrant of
TH52 and 65" Street and potential frdure commercial land uses along the west
frontage road, the interchange at 65" street could handle such a high potential
traffic. lot absence of interchange the development on the west frontage road
may be limited or needed to be phased out until the 65'h Street interchange issue
with MNDOT is settled.
The other important issue is the Right of Way (ROW) requirements along the
west frontage road between 63"h and 75'4 Streets. The Official Map 14 shows
120 feet of ROW along the western boundary of proposed GDP that is
acceptable as per Street Design requirement for 4 lane urban arterial.
However, we may require additional ROWfor dual left turn lanes at frontage
road and 65"' St intersection to handle potentially high traffic volume coming
from the north side. The Official Map shows 80' ROW along the northern
boundary of the proposed site which is insufficient for 417 type Street Design
according to Street Design Map for Rochester Area. The ROW for entire length
of west frontage has to be 120' as per the ROCOG Transportation Plan and
needs to be reflected in the City of Rochester Official Street Map No 14. Satre
ROW requirements will be applicable on the east frontage road between
Overland Drive and 75" Street NW.
The access control as per spacing guidelines included in the ROCOG
Transportation Plan will be needed along both east and west frontage roads.
The guidelines require minimum of 660' for local street spacing and 375' for
driveway spacing (35-45 MPH) on major urban arterial (4 lane urban arterial).
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
This property is within the Northwest high Level Water System Area, which is
available at the southwest corner of the property. The builders must install
pressure -reducing devices near the domestic water meters as required by the
MN Plumbing Code in the higher pressure areas. Watermains muss be
networked properly to provide adequate flows for fire protection and water
quality and must be extended to adjacent properties per RPU's requirements
Sanitary sever has been extended under TH 52 near the east side of the
proposed figure regional stornnwater pond, and will need to be extended
through the site to serve the development.
Page 8
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary
Sewer, Stornn Water Management Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities, and
Transportation facilities to accommodate the development of the entire
Property. The development must be phased -in in a manner consistent with the
City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements. A Development
Agreement has been executed for this General Development Plan.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate
public facilities.
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.
The Platt should be revised to identify future pedestrian facilities along the
existing and future roads.
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.
This site has rolling terrain with several high and several low areas. The Site generally
drains from west to east, with the northern portion also draining north.
A Wetland delineation has been carried out for this property and is on file with the
Planning Department. Any approval of this GDP should be contingent upon the
applicant receiving approval for a wetland replacement for wetland impacts proposed on
the GDP.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted
or developed.
Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality
and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect
discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking
place.
N/A
Criteria H. 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.
At this time, a lot layout has not been identified "Phase 11" of the development. This
detail will need to be evaluated finrther at the time of platting and site development plan
proposals.
Though the right -of --way widths identified on the GDP appear consistent with that
identified on Official Street Map #14, they are not consistent with the adopted Long
Page 9
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
Range Transportation plan, and potentially not with the final design that will be
determined through additional studies being completed in the area.
Additional studies that will be completed as required by the Federal Highway
Administration and MnDOT could result in the need for additional right-of-way along
the north side of 65"` Street NW or the West Frontage Road to facilitate the approval and
construction of a fidl access interchange at 65`h Street and TH 52. It appears that
additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated consistent with the long Range
Transportation Plan, but until these studies are completed, the final right-of-way needs
for roadways included in, and abutting, this GDP will not be known. The Long Range
Transportation Plan identifies a fitture interchange at 65`h Street and TH 52, however the
tinihig'of final approval and construction for the interchange is not known at this time.
It does not appear that the access and circulation and street layout proposed are
compatible with existing and/or permissible faure use of adjacent property as currently
proposed. Driveway spacing does not meet the minimum 375' as outlined in the
ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan.
As prepared by Senior Transportation Planner Muhammad Khan:
The proposed GDP, Land Use Amendment and Zoning Change included 75.63 acres of
land located west of TH52 and north of 65"' Street for "Commercial" land uses and "M-
I " mixed commerciaUindustrial zoning. For the proposed land use and zone change, the
commercial and mixed commerciaUindustrial use may generate roughly 29,000 daily
trips, using 24% F1oorArea Ratio (FAR) far both proposed uses. The total potential
commercial/industrial area between 65`h and 75`h Streets on the west side of TH 52
Streets is approximately 250 acres. if this entire area is developed as
commerciaUindustrial type use, it will roughly generate 90,000 daily trips out of which
20,000 trips will be pass -by trips and the rest 70,000 will be the trafic generated by the
future land use development between 65`h and 75`h streets. These trips will be distributed
through west frontage road and 65th and 75" intersections. There will be some trips
distributed to mid -block westbound connection. Assuming 35% of those external trips
are going towards 65`h Street, the intersection will be getting roughly 24,500 trips from
the north. The remaining 65% or 45,500 will go towards 75'4 Street interchange. The
traffic impact of the potential commerciaUindustrial area will be significant on 65`6 and
751h intersections with west frontage road.
The other significant roadway impact of this development under the scenario of a 65`h
Street overpass is at the 55" Street interchange. The proposed development would add
traffic to 55"' street interchange being as one of the primary access point to/from TH52
for Commercial/Industrial type development (Menards). ROCOG previous work on 65"`
interchange justification has suggested that without interchange ramps at 65'h street
major construction of the 55'h street interchange will be required in terms of ramps
modifications, tarn lanes and east frontage road realignment/expansion etc.
Given the significant nature of the development at the northwest quadrant of TH52 rind
65" Street and potential fetture commercial land uses along the west frontage road, the
interchange at 65"' street could handle such a high potential traffic. In absence of
interchange the development on the west frontage road may be limited or needed to he
phased out until the 65 h Street interchange issue with MNDOT is settled.
The other important issue is the Right of Way (ROVV) requirements along the west
frontage road between 65"' and 75" Streets. The Official Map 14 shows 120 feet of ROW
Page 10
op General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
along the western boundary of proposed GDP that is acceptable as per Street Design
requirenient for 4 lane urban arterial. However, we may require additional ROW far
dual left turn lanes at frontage road and 65rh St intersection to handle potentially high
traffic volume coming from the north side. The Official Map shows 80' ROW along the
northern boundary of the proposed site which is insufficient for 4U type Street Design
according to Street Design Map for Rochester Area. The ROW for entire length of west
frontage has to be 120' as per the ROCOG Transportation Plan and needs to be reflected
in the City of Rochester Official Street Map No 14. Same ROW requirements will be
applicable on the east frontage road between Overland Drive and 75°i Street NW.
The access control as per spacing guidelines included in the ROCOG Transportation
Plarywill be needed along both east and west frontage roads. The guidelines require
minimum of 660' far local street spacing and 375' for driveway spacing (35-45 MPH) on
major urban arterial (4 lane urban arterial).
Summary & Recommendation:
Land Use Plan Amendment #05-07 and Zoning District Amendment #05-13 are being considered
concurrent with this GDP application. If supported, the uses proposed on the GDP would be
consistent with the Land Use and Zoning.
Though the right-of-way widths identified on the GDP appear consistent with that identified on
Official Street Map #14, they are not consistent with the adopted Long Range Transportation plan,
and potentially not with the final design that will be determined through additional studies being
completed in the area. Additionally, driveway spacing does not meet the guidelines in the
ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan (i.e. the driveway located directly west of the future
pond is too close to the nearest driveway to the west).
Additional studies that will be completed as required by the Federal Highway Administration and
Mn DOT could result in the need for additional right-of-way along the north side of 65'h Street NW
or the West Frontage Road to facilitate the approval and construction of a full access interchange
at 651h Street and TH 52. It appears that additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated
consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan, but until these studies are completed, the
final right-of-way needs for roadways included in, and abutting, this GDP will not be known. The
Long Range Transportation Plan identifies a future interchange at 65'h Street and TH 52, however
the timing of final approval and construction for the interchange is not known at this time.
Due to uncertainties related to the timing of approvals and construction of a full access
interchange at 651h Street/TH 52; that final roadway designs and right-of-way needs will not be
known until additional studies related to the 65'h Street interchange are completed, combined with
modifications needed to the General Development Plan, it is pre -mature to determine that the
right-of-way needs in this immediate area are adequately addressed with the proposed GDP, or
that development of the parcel as proposed could proceed prior to or without an interchange at
651h Street.
An additional item is Wetland replacement. At the time of preparing this report, the City Council
has not considered a replacement plan, and no approvals have been granted for impacting and
replacing wetlands on this site. Any approval of the GDP would need to be contingent upon the
applicant securing the required permits/approvals for impacting and replacing wetlands in order to
facilitate the development as proposed. If the necessary approvals are not secured, a new
General Development Plan would need to be filed.
Page 11
General Development Plan
January 4, 2006
Considering these circumstances, the following alternates for action could be considered
with respect to the proposed GDP;
A. Deny the General Development due to uncertainties related to the 651" Street interchange
approval and construction and uncertainty with respect to the final right-of-way facility design
and width needs with OR without the interchange (if the applicant pursued development
without an interchange); or
B. The applicant requests tabling, waiving MS 15.99, until after the studies required by
MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration for the 651, Street Interchange justification
are complete, the final right-of-way widths are known and the timing of construction of the
interchange is known; or
C. Approve, subjegt to conditions, 0 the applicant agrees to the recommended conditions as
outlined below:
1. The applicant agrees:
a.
2. The applicant agrees to fife a revised GDP within 10 days of the City Council
action to:
a. Identify pedestrian facilities along all existing and future roadways
including the obligation for providing a 10 foot pedestrian path along the
[� Page 12
rfl General Development Plan
iU January 4, 2006
0
Ah
frontage road and 6e St NW within a 12 foot wide pedestrian facilities
easement as specified in the Development Agreement,
Following completion of additional studies related to the 65P Street
interchange justification with MnDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration identify additional right-of-way
3. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary
Sewer, Storm Water Management Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities, and
Transportation facilities to accommodate the development of the entire
Property. The development must be phased -in in a manner consistent with the
City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements. A Development
Agreement has been executed for this General Development Plan.
Development will need to be phased to provide concurrence with adequate
public facilities.
4. A Wetland delineation Is on file with the Planning Department and an
application for a Wetland Replacement has been filed. Approval of this GDP is
contingent upon the applicant securing approval for filling and replacing
wetlands on this property. if the City Council does not approve a replacement
plan, a new General Development Plan will need to be filed.
5. Water mains must be networked property to provide adequate flows for fire
protection and water quality and must be extended to adjacent properties per
the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities.
r.
APPLICATION MATERIALS
RECEIVED
OCT 10 2005
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PRAIRIE CROSSING WEST
Location:
Prairie Crossing West is located in the Northwest quadrant of 651h Street NW and Highway 52.
The properties to the east and north are unplatted. The Pleasant Prairie Cemetery is adjacent to
the Northeast comer of the property.
Background:
In the process of planning for and the development of the Prairie Crossing development on the
east side of Trunk Highway 52 and north of Overland Drive NW, many improvements have been
planned or already constructed. Overland Drive NW has been constructed. Once the overpass
bridge is open, which is anticirated by the end of October 2005, Overland Drive NW will
provide a connection from 18` Avenue NW to 651h Street NW. The re -alignment and design of
Bandel Road NW is complete. Bandel Road is currently under construction and slated to be open
for traffic by or around November 15`h, 2005.
Official Street Map #14 was adopted July 14`h, 2005, by the Rochester City Council identifying
future roadways and connections from 651h Street NW to 75`h Street NW on both the east and
west sides of Highway 52.
Watermain and sanitary sewer to serve Prairie Crossing West have been installed. The watermain
is located in 65`h Street and was extended from Orchard Ridge Subdivision and the sanitary
sewer was extended underneath Highway 52 from Prairie Crossing.
The Development Agreement that has been executed for Prairie Crossing includes this property
and is referenced as Parcel "B". In accordance with the Development Agreement, the west
frontage road (as designated on the General Development Plan) and the storm water pond are to
be constructed with Phase I.
Wetlands have been delineated and a replacement plan has been submitted and is in the process
of review.
The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan in accordance with
Appendix B E-3.
IVIcGhie � BettS, Inc.
RECEIVED
OCT 10 2005
a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of dump " -, 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.
There are no topographic or soils conditions on this site that cannot be handled through
normal engineering practices.
b) Storm drainage problems, which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in the
increasC of normal costs.
There does not appear to be any storm drainage problems that will increase the costs of
normal construction.
c) Identification of potential off -site drainage problems.
There does not appear to be any off -site drainage problems. Apart of this General
Develop Plan includes an area reserved for a fiiture regional storm water pond, which
will be designed to the City of Rochester standards and be used for an area larger than
what is proposed for this development. This pond will be constructed as apart of Phase I
as was agreed to in the Development Agreement.
�f' d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under construction.
Utilities are in place to serve this development. There is a utility crossing tinder Highway
52 in which sanitary sewer was installed to serve Prairie Crossing West during the
construction of the Prairie Crossing Development. Watermain has been extended along
65`t' Street NWfrom the west to provide water service.
e) Identification of possible erosion problems, which may arise in the estimation of the
applicant.
No erosion control problems are anticipated with this site. However, at the time of any
construction, erosion control measures will be incorporated into the grading plan and
final design as needed and required by the City of Rochester.
f) A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on
the property under the control of the applicant.
The project will comprise of more than one phase. Phase I will only consist of the
Menard's project as shown on the General Development Plan. At this time that is the
only use being proposed on the site.
McGhie �a Betts, Inc.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
MI6
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Muhammad Khan
Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: November 23, 2005
RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRAIRIE CROSSING WEST (GDP # 264)
BACKGROUND
The proposed development area includes 75.63 acres of land located west of TH 52 and north of 65'h
Street. The development would significantly impact the local street system including the 55'h Street
interchange and the west frontage road between 65'h and 75th Streets in the next few years. At the
moment the following road projects are in various stages of project development or under
construction in the vicinity of proposed development:
• Completion and opening of 65th Street overpass in November or December of 2005.
The City of Rochester is seeking approval of access to TH 52 at 65th 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 Interchanges
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 65th St will detrimentally impact the interchanges at 55`h and 75'h 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
For the purpose of this report, the traffic projections and other analysis will be based on overpass
alternative at 65'h street.
The opening of the 751h Street Interchange closed Bandel Road at -grade access to TH52 on
the east side of TH 52. The realignment of Bandel Road is under construction and ready to
be open in near future. Similarly, construction of Overland Drive from TH52 to 18th Avenue is
expected to be complete in near future.
Official Street Map 14 was adopted to reserve right of way for future frontage roads from 65th
Street NW to 751h Street NW on both sides of Highway 52.
ROCOG adopted a Long Range Transportation Plan in July 2005 that reflects the future East
and West frontage roads between 65th and 751h streets as future urban arterials requiring
construction of 4 lane roadways. 651h Street NW is also shown as 4 lane undivided future
Review of Prairie Crossing West Development (GDP # 264)
urban arterial in ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan. Overland Drive between TH 52
and 181h Avenue is being constructed as a two lane urban arterial with center left turn lanes.
The ROCOG Bikeway Plan identifies bike trails along all the major arterial streets including
the east/west frontage roads and 65'h Street.
REVIEW OF THE KEY TRAFFIC ISSUES
The key traffic issue that will be analyzed for purposes of this report will be the impact of the
proposed Prairie Crossing development on the intersection of Bandel Road and 551h St Northwest,
which under the assumption of a 651h St overpass would need to handle a significant share of the new
traffic that would be generated by the proposed development.
To assess the traffic impact, staff has conducted a Level of Service Analysis (LOS) and completed
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheet for this intersection. Trip generation estimates are
based on the 7 edition of the Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). 2003 turning movement counts are used as the base to calculate LOS and ICU.
LOS is a quantitative measure of the quality of service provided by a roadway facility. Quality of
service refers to a user's perception of how well a transportation service or facility operates at a scale
rating satisfaction from "A" (very high quality and little or no delay) to "F" (very poor quality and very
long delays). ICU identified how much reserve capacity is available or how much the intersection is
overcapacity, and it can be used to predict how often an intersection will experience congestion.
Traffic Generation and Level of Service Analysis
Trip generation and level of service analysis were completed for three scenarios:
Development of Menards Home Improvement Center
Development of Prairie Crossing East
• Development of Prairie Crossing West
Trip Generation Impact of Menards
The proposed GDP includes a Menards store in the northwestern quadrant of 65'h Street NW and TH
52 that would generate an estimated 8,716 daily trips or 867 PM peak hour trips. For purposes of this
analysis it was assumed that 434 PM peak hour trips (50% of 867 trips) would approach or depart the
site on 651h St and the remaining peak hour trips would approach or depart the site from the north,
using either the new 75'h Street interchange or CSAH 14.
The trips using 651h St were distributed to 651h westbound (20% or 87 PM peak hour trips) and 651h
eastbound (80% or 347 PM peak hour trips). Of the 347 trips tolfrom the east, 50% were assumed to
use Bandel Road and the remaining were assumed to use Overland Drive NW. In other words,
roughly 174 PM peak hour trips is the net traffic impact on the 551h Street interchange as result of the
Menards NW development.
Prairie Crossing East Trip Generation Impact
Prairie Crossing Development on the east side of TH52 has been approved with 66 acres of B-4
commercial land use that will generate significant traffic when fully developed. A typical 24% Floor
Area Ratio for 66 acres of B-4 land use would result in 690,000 sq. ft. of developable commercial
area that would generate roughly 30,580 daily or 1870 PM peak hour trips. Using the same trip
Review of Prairie Crossing West Development (GDP # 264)
distribution assumptions (50% to/from the north, 50% to/from the south with 40% of those on Band
Road, 40% on Overland Drive and 20% on 651h St West), an estimated 390 PM peak hour trips
would arrive or depart the site via Bandel Road. This 390 PM peak hour trips would represent the net
traffic impact on the 551h Street interchange as result of the Prairie Crossing East development which
has been previously approved.
Prairie Crossing West Trip Generation Impact
If the entire Prairie Crossing West site (75 acres) developed as a mixed commercial/industrial type
land use, it would generate an estimated 35,000 daily trips, or 2100 PM peak hour trips. Again using
the same trip distribution assumptions (50% north to 75'h St, 50% south on 651h St with 40% of those
using Bandel Road), rpughly 420 PM peak hour trips would access the site via Handel Road, which
would represent the net traffic impact on the 55'h Street interchange as result of Prairie Crossing
West development. It is to be noted that this development scenario would include the Menards site
trips and not be in addition to the Menards trips generation impact.
Table 1 below summarizes the trip generation and distribution assumptions for the three scenarios
and illustrates the impact to the Level of Service at the Bandel Road / 55'h St intersection as a result.
The first row of the table indicates the current traffic approaching this intersection and the existing
(2003) level of service
Table 1: Traffic Impact of Different Development Scenarios
Name of the
Daily
PM
Net Impact
Net Impact on
55 Street and
Development
Trips
Peak
on Overland
55'h Street
Bandel Road
Hour
Drive and
Interchange
Intersection LOS &
Trips
18'h Ave
(PM peak hour
Intersection
(PM peak
trips)
Delay(seconds)
hour trips)
Existing
LOS "E"
conditions at
2800
Intersection Delay @
Bandel Rd / 55'h
63.2 seconds
St Intersection
66 Ares of B-4
LOS "F'
Development
30,580
1870
390
390
Intersection Delay @
already
110.8 seconds
approved in
Prairie Crossing
East
Menards (193,
LOS "E"
000 Sq. ft.
8,716
867
174
174
Intersection Delay @
development)
74.6 seconds
Entire Prairie
LOS "F
Crossing West
35,000
1875
420
420
Intersection Delay @
75.63 Acres
147.3 seconds
84/M 1
Review of Prairie Crossing West Development (GDP # 264)
Level of Service Analysis Results
The traffic analysis indicates significant traffic impact at the Bandel Road / 551h Street intersection due
to the proposed development under each development scenario assuming a 65'h Street Overpass.
analysis for different development scenarios.
Table 1 shows that the intersection LOS would be degraded to "F with intersection delay of 111
seconds (representing average vehicle delay) at the intersection of 551h Street and Bandel Road after
full development of 66 acres at B-4 intensity in Prairie Crossing East. If only Menards is developed in
the Prairie Crossing West, the intersection will operate at LOS "E" with 74.6 seconds delay. If the
entire Prairie Crossing West is developed at B-4 type intensity, the intersection will operate at LOS
"F" with intersection delay of 147.3 seconds.
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Table 2 shows the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. This analysis
indicates that in 2003 the intersection of Bandel Road / 55th St was approaching full utilization of its
capacity (ICU 88.4%), resulting in an ICU level of Service "E". The following paragraphs describe the
relevant level of service standards found in this analysis using the ICU method:
LOSE, (ICU 82% to 91916): The intersection is right on the verge of congested conditions. Many vehicles are not
served on the first cycle. A cycle length of 120 seconds is required to move all traffic. Minor traffic fluctuations,
accidents, and lane closures can cause significant congestion. Sub -optimal signal timings can cause significant
congestion. This intersection has less than 10% reserve capacity available.
LOS F, (iCU 91 % to 100%): The intersection is over capacity and likely experiences congestion periods of 15 to
60 consecutive minutes. Residual queues at the end of green are common. A cycle length over 120 seconds is
required to move all traffic. Minor traffic fluctuations, accidents, and lane closures can cause increased
congestion. Suboptimal signal timings can cause increased congestion.
LOS C, (ICU 100% to 109%): The intersection is up to 9% over capacity and likely experiences congestion
periods of 60 to 120 consecutive minutes. Long queues are common. A cycle length over 120 seconds is
required to move all traffic. Motorists may be choosing alternate routes, if they exist, or making fewer trips during
the peak hour. Signal timings can be used to distribute capacity to the priority movements.
Review of Prairie Crossing West Development (GDP # 264)
0%
Table 2: Intersection Capacity Utilization VS Different Development Scenarios
Name of the
Daily
PM
Net Impact on
Net Impact
551Street &
Development
Trips
Peak
Overland Drive
on 55"
Bandel
Hour
and 18`" Ave
Street
Road
Trips
(PM peak hour
Interchange
Intersection
trips)
(PM peak
ICU & LOS
hour trips)
Existing conditions
at Bandel Rd / 551"
2800
ICU @ 88.4%
St Intersection
LOS @ E
66 Ares of B-4
Development
430,580
1870
390
390
ICU @97.2%
already approved
LOS @ F
in Prairie Crossing
East
Menards (193, 000
ICU @90.2%
Sq. ft.
8,716
867
174
174
LOS @ E
development)
Entire Prairie
Crossing West
I
35,000
1875
420
420
ICU @102.9%
75.63 Acres B4/M1
LOS @ G
The ICU worksheets for different development scenarios are shown in attachment "B".
Previous ROCOG work related to the issue of whether a 651" St Interchange is justified has
suggested that without interchange ramps at 65t" Street major construction at the 55u' Street
Interchange will be required in terms of ramp modifications, additional turn lanes for east/west traffic
across the bridge, and East Frontage Road realignmentlexpansion. As shown in Table 1, the traffic
attracted/generated by Menards in the northwest quadrant of 65`" Street and TH 52 would generate
additional 174 PM peak hour trips at the intersection of Bandel Road/55`" Street intersection. The
LOS analysis and Intersection Capacity Utilization suggests that the intersection will degrade the
operation of the intersection below current conditions which are already below established targets for
operating performance. Assuming the already approved 66 acres of B-4 land in Prairie Crossing East
develops along with the proposed Menards, it will roughly generate 564 (390+174) PM peak hour
trips that would need to be handled by the Bandel Road and 551" Street intersection.
This analysis raises questions regarding the adequacy of current public facilities to handle
expected traffic.
Review of Prairie Crossing West Development (GDP # 264) 5
0
SUMMARY
Given the significant nature of the development proposed in the northwestern/northeast quadrants
of 65th Street and TH52 intersection involving potential high intensity commercial land uses, a
number of traffic issues are discussed in this report that should be addressed before allowing any
additional commercial development in the vicinity beyond the already approved 66 acres B-4 zone
in Prairie Crossing East. The key question that needs to be addressed is how additional traffic at
the intersection of Bandel Road and 551h Street intersection will be accommodated in absence of
interchange at 65'h Street. Our analysis shows that in absence of interchange at 65th Street, the
development of Prairie Crossing (east & west) may need to be limited; at least until the 65'h Street
interchange issue with MNDOT is settled.
2. The issue of Right of Way (ROW) requirements along the West Frontage Road between 65th and
751h Streets ghould also be addressed prior to approval of the development plan. Official Street
Map 14 shows 120 feet of ROW along the western boundary of proposed GDP, which is inline
with the ROW requirements in the Long Range Transportation Plan. Official Street Map #14
shows 80' ROW along the northern boundary of the proposed site The ROCOG Long Range
Transportation Plan designates the West Frontage 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 varies depends on its projected traffic level, as
follows:
Swale/Ditch
Curb & Gutter
Right of Way for 4 Lane urban
120 feet
95 Feet
arterial up to 20,000 ADT with
bike path on one side
Right of Way for 4 lane urban
130 feet
105 feet
arterial over 20,000 ADT with
bike path on one side
Issues relative to right of way requirements that need to be addressed include a determination of
whether the roadway along the north side of the site will be part of the West Frontage Road
between 651h St and 75th St or will in fact be a local access collector street, with the West
Frontage Road ultimately being located on an alignment extending straight north along the west
side of the site. The issue of land use intensity and whether a future interchange will be present at
65'h St will impact the ultimate traffic level on the West Frontage Road and determine whether 130
feet is needed instead of 120 feet.
3. The access control as per spacing guidelines included in the ROCOG Transportation Plan will be
needed along both east and west frontage/backage roads. The guidelines require minimum of
660' for local street spacing and 375' for driveway spacing (35-45 MPH) on major urban arterial (4
lane urban arterial).
Review of Prairie Crossing West Development (GDP # 264)
O „INESOT�M1 Minnesota Department of Transportation
s(�o Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 Office Tel: 507-285-7374
�1�OF 1RPp'a 2900 480' Street N.W. Fax: 507-285-7355
Rochester, MN 55901-5848 E-mail: nelrae.succio@dot.state.mn.us
February 1, 2006
Richard Freese, P.E.
Director of Public Works
2014" Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904-3708
i
Re- SP 5508-109 TH 52 - Northern Rochester Transportation Study — City
Request for an Interchange
Dear Richard:
As a follow-up to our phone discussion, I'm writing to express Mn/DOT's concern
regarding, not only the Menard's proposal under consideration by the City Council this
Monday, February 6, but also approval of other development plans in Rochester's
northwest territory in and around Trunk Highway (TH) 52 and 65' Street NW.
The existing roadway network in this area, including 550' Street NW and the interchange
ramps, the West Frontage road, and Bandel Road, are already under stress from high
traffic volumes generated by the growth and development in the area. Additional
commercial and residential developments will put more stress on these City, County and
State roadways. It appears as though additional developments are being approved with the
assumption that the appropriate roadway infrastructure will follow, without a thorough
traffic analysis of what new infrastructure will be needed to serve not just the immediate
development but to also serve the area. As each new development receives approval, we
are losing viable alternatives for identifying.and developing the most appropriate
transportation network to resolve the traffic congestion issues both visible today and
anticipated in the future.
One goal of the R0052 project was to minimize access to TH 52 by consolidation or
elimination of access points. Because of the significant investment on this corridor and
the operational and safety concerns raised by adding new ramps to this freeway type
facility, Mn/DOT and FHWA have responded to the City's request for a 651h Street
interchange by requiring the City to fully investigate improvements to the local
transportation system first, before a new interchange will be considered.
As a result, City, ROCOG, FHWA, and Mn/DOT staffs are dedicating considerable time
and effort to complete the "Northern Rochester Transportation Study". The traffic
modeling and analysis included in this study are intended to identify local and regional
transportation improvements needed in Rochester's northern territory; to address both the
existing traffic demands and needs for the new traffic generated by the long term growth
and development proposed for the area.
This study is broader in scope than previous studies in the area. It involves an inter-
agency technical group and uses the most current information to investigate alternatives U
and develop solutions. The study will include both modeling of the network and detailed
operational analysis of the alternatives that are selected for in-depth review. City, State,
FHWA, and ROCOG staff are cooperating with this study and working hard to keep it
moving forward. We anticipate recommendations from the committees by Mid -May of
2006.
It is imperative that this study be completed before new development is approved that may
impact the study results and options. As an example, the West Frontage road design
included in the Menard's proposal is not acceptable to Mn/DOT. It does not meet critical
design criteria included in the MOU; criteria that was accepted and approved by the
Rochester City Council in May of 2005. As was stated in a previous letter, Mn/DOT is
the jurisdictional owner of this west frontage road and will not allow the new frontage
road connection as is shown on this proposal. Proposals of this nature will only further
aggravate the traffic problems in the area. Should premature approval of such
development plans obstruct our ability to develop a complete transportation network, it
may also restrict our ability to allow an interchange at 65s' Street any time in the future.
It is with this information that we ask the City officers of Rochester to be informed and
considerate of the Northern Rochester Transportation Studywhen reviewing development
proposals in this area. I truly believe it is in the best interests of all parties, including the
developers and Minnesota tax payers, to develop and plan for the best solution in the
future. Please contact me if you want to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Nelrae Succio
Transportation District Engineer
cc: Dennis Hanson, Rochester City Council President
Kevin Kliethermes, FHWA
Rhonda Prestegard, MnDOT
Michael Schweyen, MnDOT
Fred Sandal, MnDOT
Greg Paulson, MnDOT
File
ROCHESTER - OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE, SUITE 100, ROCHESTER, MN, 55904-4744
PH: (507) 285-8232 FAX: (507) 287-2275
To: Rochester Mayor and Common Council
Richard Freese, Public Works Director
Steve Kvenvold, City Administrator
From: Phil Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director
Date: February 2, 2006
Re: Prairie Crossing West General Development Plan
At a meeting on the status of modeling alternatives related to the 65M Street Interchange
Study/Operational Analysis (OA), attended by Mn/DOT staff, the consultant, ROCOG staff, and
FHWA representatives, Mn/DOT staff expressed to me the following concerns:
1. that the proposed alignment of the frontage road conflicts with the MOU between the City
and Mn/DOT;
2. that Council decisions related to the Prairie Crossing West General Development Plan
would preclude from further consideration some of the options being considered for
circulation in the vicinity of the interchange;
3. that the frontage road would not be allowed, because Mn/DOT remains the road authority
for the frontage road and will not allow the necessary access;
4. that access spacing does not meet the 400 foot standard agreed to in the MOU; and
5. that the land use decisions being made appear to depend on the development of an
interchange, which they have not agreed to.
Mn/DOT staff wanted these concerns passed on to the Council, and I assured them that the
letter Chris Moates of Mn/DOT had previously submitted on January 25, 2006, which covers
these concerns, would be included in the Council packet. I offered those present the opportunity
to discuss their concerns directly with the Council either at the hearing or the Committee of the
Whole meeting, if that could be arranged. They agreed that that would be helpful. I then called
Steve Kvenvold, who agreed to put the matter on the Committee of the Whole agenda,
informed the Mn/DOT staff, and those present agreed that MniDOT would send representatives
to the Committee meeting. Later that afternoon, District Engineer Nelrae Succhio called Richard
Freese and left a voice mail message saying that the Mn/DOT staff would NOT attend the
Committee of the Whole meeting.
Our response to the five Mn/DOT concerns is as follows:
1. Public Works staff has a different perspective on the MOU than the perspective reflected in
Mr. Moates' letter. The Council should clarify the issue and hopefully resolve it prior to
acting on the GDP.
2. Planning staff agree that the GDP effectively precludes from further consideration the option
of extending the west frontage road south through the Baptist Church property and
connecting with Clearwater Drive NW. If the Council views this option as realistic, it should
delay action on the GDP until the study is further along and more is known about that
option. If the Council is of the opinion that that option is unrealistic, it should direct staff to
work with MnIDOT to resolve the difference of opinion over that option.
3. To resolve the frontage road question in terms of access, the Council could approve the
GDP contingent on the road authority granting access. Indefinite delays on the Council's
decision on the GDP are not possible under the 60 day rule that we work under.
-r.
02/02/06
4. We concur with the Public Works Director that the 400 foot spacing issue should not be an
impediment to approval, since there will not be turning movement conflicts.
5. Related to the intensity of development, our recommendation regarding phasing of
approvals addresses the fifth issue raised by Mn/DOT staff. The ROCOG Long Range
Transportation Plan includes the interchange, so the site meets the land use plan criteria for
commercial use. The Land Development Manual requires that there be adequate public
facilities, so our recommendation limits the intensity of commercial use according to the
capacity of the road infrastructure now in place or programmed. The recommendation
enables the GDP to proceed, but development is required to be phased so that the City is
not committed to an intensity of development beyond the capacity of the transportation
system.
There are clearly issues that should be resolved with Mn/DOT related to the proposed
interchange. The Prairie Crossing West GDP is unfortunately caught in the middle.
Nevertheless, acting on the GDP without a further attempt to resolve these issues would appear
counterproductive to the long term interests of all parties. For this reason, i recommend that the
Council delay action on the GDP for up to one month, in the hope that in the mean time we can
reassure Mn/DOT that the phasing of approvals does not make commitments beyond the
available infrastructure and resolve issues pertaining to the MOU, the Clearwater Drive option,
and the access spacing and frontage road alignment questions.
Page 2 of 2
i
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6
2900 48" Street N.W.
Rochester, N N 55901-5848
January 25, 2006
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: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us
REVISED: General Development Plan #264 to be known as Prairie Crossing West, by Prairie
Crossing, LLC. The application proposes development of approximately 75.63
acres of land located west of TH 52 and north of 65'" Street with commercial land
uses. The Plan identifies a new north/south public roadway, re -alignment of the
west Frontage Road and future interchange, as well as a new Menards retail store
with associated parking.
US Highway 52, Control Section 5508
Dear Ms. Gamess:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Planning Office has
reviewed the revised General Development Plan (GDP) for Prairie Crossing West
which includes a proposed Menards retail store and a future development phase, west
of US Highway 52.
As indicated in our previous response, Mn/DOT is concerned with the frontage road
and interchange proposal that is included with this GDP. Mn/DOT requests no action
be taken on this GDP until the results of the current traffic needs study and
Operational Analysis (OA) are known. Mn/DOT further recommends as follows:
1. The west side frontage road as proposed does not meet the requirements of the
signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and
Mn/DOT. The west frontage road must be planned as a direct north/south
connection from 65th Street to 751h Street and subject to Mn/DOT review and
acceptance as stated on page 3 of the MOU.
2. Mn/DOT as the jurisdictional owner of the existing west side frontage road
will not allow the obliteration of the current frontage road or reconstruction of
the proposed until the OA is complete and Mn/DOT and the City or agent are
in agreement with the proposed changes.
3. The driveways from the Menards site to the frontage road do not meet the 400
foot minimum access spacing criteria for arterial roadways as provided by City
ordinance and committed to in the MOU for US Highway 52 frontage road
design.
4. Approval of this GDP in advance of completing the needs study and
operational analysis may eliminate preferred options for upgrading the
roadway network and may impact future decisions about whether an
interchange will be allowed at 65th Street.
Jennifer Gayness
January 25, 2006
Page Two
V�
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. For questions about this response you
may contact Fred Sandal Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Tracy Schnell,
Regional Planning Assistant, at (507) 280-5028.
Questions about the study needs may be directed to the project manager for Mn/DOT,
Rhonda Prestegard, at (507) 285-7368.
Sincerely,
Chris Moates
District 6 Planning Director
cc: Prairie Crossing, LLC, 1201 Meadowlark Court, Rochester MN 55902
McGhie and Betts, Inc., 1648 Third Ave SE, Rochester MN 55904
Richard Freese
Nelrae Succio
Greg Paulson
Rhonda Prestegard
Mike Schweyen
Fred Sandal
Tracy Schnell
Debbie Bement
File
DOC94467799
A'O
rt RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City execute
a memorandum of understanding with the Minnesota Department of Transportation on the
Highway 52/65th Street Interchange Project.
The Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute this agreement on
behalf of the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS -%h DAY OF /P4c.(— .2005.
Z� 4—'W zz��I�Q
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: `� !
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS C7t* DAY OF 2005.
t.
(Seal of the City.of
Roclieste r,' M i n nes ota)
Res051 MnDoMgree.02
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
r
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
0
I, VALORI LANGSETH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER,
MINNESOTA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE COMPARED THE ATTACHED
COPY OF A RESOLUTION WITH THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION ON FILE IN MY
OFFICE AND THIN THE.FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION:
WITNESS MY HAND THIS A31-G' DAY OF20 05.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Deputy City—Cla6rk 61
City of Rochester, Minnesota
11
4
a 'PpNESpT'y0
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6
2900 40' Street N.W.
Rochester, MN 55901-5848
June 3, 2005
Richard W. Freese, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Department of Public Works
201 4" Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
Office Tel: 507-285-7368
Fax: 507-285-7355
E-mail: rhond a.prestegard@dot. state. mn.us
Re: Control Section 5508 T.H. 52
Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) for the proposed 65' Street Project
Dear Richard:
Attached is your copy of the fully executed M.O.0 for the 651b Street Project. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Prestegard
Agreements Coordinator
Attachments
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE CITY OF ROCHESTER
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester (City) is interested in a Project to locate, design, and
construct a new full access, folded -diamond interchange on TH 52 at 651h Street
NW in the City; and
WHEREAS, the work to be performed is as generally shown on the attached Exhibit A,
hereina$dr referred to as the "Project". Exhibit A is a conceptual drawing that
includes a folded -diamond interchange on TH 52 at 65"i Street NW, realignment
of Bandel Road east of TH 52 and south of 65"' Street, reconnection of the
frontage road west of TH 52 between 65`i' Street and 75`a Street, the addition of
turn lanes on the east ramps of the TH 52/55a' Street NW interchange, and future
work by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City must obtain approvals for said Project from appropriate City, County,
State, and Federal agencies prior to letting and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, as one of the approving State agencies, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) required the City to document the justification and
warrants for the Project; and the City and the Rochester Olmsted County of
Governments (ROCOG) thusly completed a 65`h Street NW Interchange
Justff cation Report (Report), dated July 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Report includes an analysis of the existing TH 52/55`k' Street NW interchange
(constructed in 1991). The Report documents that as a result of local
development and expansion of the northwest urban service area, the 55`h Street
NW interchange currently has operational and capacity problems; and that these
problems will deteriorate with the current and planned development in the area
unless either the 55th Street NW interchange is reconstructed with additional
through -lanes and tam -lanes OR a new interchange is constructed on TH 52 at
650' Street NW thereby reducing the future 55a' Street NW improvements to the
addition of turn -lanes; and
WHEREAS, the Report includes a Benefit -Cost Analysis Memorandum that documents the
benefit -cost ratio for constructing the 65a` Street NW interchange verses
reconstructing the 55`' Street NW interchange would be approximately 3.5 to 1
respectively; and
WHEREAS, in the future and pending full approval of the Project, the City and MnDOT intend
to enter into a cooperative construction and maintenance agreement to locate,
design, construct, and provide for future maintenance of the Project; and
i
WHEREAS, with the exception of the Bandel Road realignment, construction of the Project
cannot begin until the TH 52 Design -Build project is completed in this area, until
the City has received a "notice to proceed" from MnDOT, and the City has
obtained approvals from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and all
other City, County, State and Federal agencies as required through the Highway
Project Development Process; and
WHEREAS, with the exception of MnDOT cost share for the northbound TH 52/551' Street
interchange off -ramp as further defined herein, the Project financing will come
entirely, from City and private funds for the Project design, right of way
acquisition, construction, utility relocation, contract administration and all other
associated Project costs; and
WHEREAS, MnDOT and the City believe that by working together we will be able to provide
a Project that considers Federal, State and local interests for regional and local
transportation networks.
NOW THEREFORE, MnDOT and the City state the following:
1. This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is not a binding agreement. Any
binding obligations of the parties to this MOU will be made pursuant to written
and properly executed and approved agreement(s) and/or permits. Instead, this
MOU simply documents the City's and MnDOT's understandings and
expectations relative to the Project.
2. MnDOT has certain criteria that must be satisfied prior to giving their final
"notice to proceed" for said Project:
• The City must provide documentation that the Project is warranted and
consistent with federal, state, and local policies applicable to interchanges
and/or grade separations as documented in Chapter 6 of the MnDOT Road
Design Manual and Chapter 10 of AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets".
• The City must meet all Local, State, and Federal, Statutes, Rules, Policies,
Approvals, Specifications, and permitting requirements for said Project.
• The final design for the 65a' Street NW interchange must not result in a
mainline weaving distance of less than 2,000 feet for on and off ramp
movements between the proposed 65a' Street interchange and the 75
Street interchange, which could lead to the degradation of the TH 52
mainline operation. Any exception or variance from this requirement, as
well as any other design exceptions that may be proposed by the City, will
0)
be subject (at a minimum) to the review and acceptance of both NInDOT
and the Federal Highway Administration.
• The City must provide an improved local traffic circulation system that
includes a system of continuous frontage roads or backage roads. The
frontage/backage roads (identified below) must meet Municipal State Aid
Street standards in accordance with Chapter and section 8820.9936 of
Minnesota Rules. In addition, the frontage roads must meet a minimum
design speed of 40 mph, must limit access primarily to public roads and, at
an absolute minimum, must meet access spacing guidelines in accordance
with City Ordinance 64.143 for Arterial Roadways. The frontage roads
must also provide a direct route connecting 55a' Street to 65`h Street along
the east side of TH 52 and connecting 65 Street to 75`s Street along the
east and west sides of TH 52. The design of the following frontage roads
will be subject to MnDOT review and acceptance before MnDOT will
issue a "notice to proceed" for the Project.
➢ A West side frontage/backage road must be planned, officially
mapped, designed and constructed to connect between 65 h Street and
75 Street NW. This frontage/backage road must be constructed prior
to, or coincidently with, the construction of the 65th Street interchange
as part of the Project. (This frontage road reconnection must be shown
on Exhibit A as work included in the Project).
The alignment of said westerly frontage/backage road shall be
"-" established to intersect 65`s Street NW, a minimum of 1,200 feet
(centerline to centerline) west of the westerly ramp of the proposed
65`s Street NW interchange.
➢ An East side frontage/backage road must be planned, designed and
constructed to connect between 65a' Street and 75" Street NW. This
frontage/backage road must be designed, officially mapped, and
adopted by the appropriate local jurisdictions before MnDOT will
issue a "notice to proceed" for the Project. (This frontage road must be
shown on Exhibit A as "future construction by City".).
The alignment of said new easterly frontage road shall be established
to intersect 65`s Street NW a minimum of 600 feet (centerline to
centerline) east of the easterly ramp of the proposed 65"' Street
interchange.
The alignment of said new easterly frontage road shall be established
to intersect 75a' Street directly across from (south of) the easterly
backage road which lies north of 75a' Street NW. The City must
3
Y
obtain input and approval from Olmsted County for all impacts to
County roads.
At such time that 50% of the total length of said easterly frontage road
is required to serve access to developing properties, the City agrees to
construct the entire length of said frontage road from north to south,
thereby providing the full connection between 651h Street and 751h
Street on the east side of TH 52.
➢ Bandel Road realignment must be planned, designed and constructed
' to connect between 65`h Street and 55`h Street NW. The realignment of
the Bandel Road connection with 656 Street must be designed and
constructed prior to, or coincidently with, the construction of the 65`h
Street interchange Project. If the City desires to include this
realignment work as part of the TH 52 Design -build Project, the City
must work with through MaDOT District 6 for early approval and
contract coordination. (This frontage road reconnection must be
shown on Exhibit A as work included in the Project).
The realignment of Bandel Road shall be established to intersect 65a'
Street NW a minimum of 600 feet (centerline to centerline) east of the
easterly ramps of the proposed 65`h Street interchange.
• The Report evaluated the existing TH 52/55rh Street NW interchange
under the `Build Condition" (build an interchange at 65s' Street NW). The
report identified the need for turn lanes on the 55a' Street interchange
ramps, along 55d' Street NW, and along Bandel Road.
➢ The Project will include construction of a dual left turn lane on the
northbound TH 52/55`h Street interchange off -ramp. Pending formal
funding approval, MnDOT and the City will split equally the
construction cost of this dual left turn lane, including all signal and
roadway modifications required as a result of the turn lane
construction.
➢ The turn lanes on 55 h Street and along Bandel Road must be identified
on Exhibit A as "future construction by the City" and will be paid for
entirely by the City.
• With the exception of the Bandel Road realignment, the Project cannot
commence until the completion of the TH 52 Design -Build Project work
in this area, until the City has received a "notice to proceed" from
MnDOT, and the City has obtained approvals from the Federal Highway
rd
9�O
Administration and all other City, County, State and Federal agencies as
required through the Highway Project Development Process.
• Also with the exception of the construction cost split identified above for
the northbound TH 52/55"' Street interchange off -ramp, there shall be no
MnDOT cost obligations for the completion of the work identified on
Exhibit A as the Project, or for the work identified on Exhibit A as "future
construction by City", The City shall be responsible for all associated
costs. These costs include, but are not limited to: the design, right of way
acquisition, new signing and striping on TH 52 in accordance with
1ThDOT standards, appropriate traffic control on all affected roadways
during construction, utility relocation, construction and contract
administration, traffic and signing coordination with the Oronoco Design -
build project, future costs of signals at the TH 52/65a' Street interchange
ramps and frontage roads, and all other associated costs.
3. The City has certain project objectives and goals that must be accomplished by
this Project including the following:
• The Project, and future construction by the City as identified on Exhibit A
will be planned, designed and constructed consistent with the Rochester -
Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) Long Range Transportation
Plan.
• The Project will provide for the orderly and efficient growth of the City
consistent with its Land Use Plan.
• The Project will reduce future traffic volumes at the 55a' Street NW / TH
52 interchange by providing an alternate route and additional access.
• With the exception of the construction cost split identified above for the
northbound TH 52/55a' Street interchange off -ramp, the City shall be
entirely responsible for all costs associated with the Project as identified
on Exhibit A, as well as the work identified as "future construction by
City" shown on Exhibit A. The City costs shall include, but not be limited
to, the design, right of way acquisition, new signing and striping on TH 52
in accordance with MnDOT standards, appropriate traffic control on all
affected roadways during construction, utility relocation, construction and
contract administration, traffic and signing coordination with the Oronoco
Design -build project, future costs of signals at the TH 52/65`b Street
interchange ramps and frontage roads, and all other associated costs.
4. As part of the current TH 52 Design -Build project, numerous Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure components are to be placed in the
9
PI
V vicinity of 65`h Street. These components include: a 48-strand trunk fiber cable
along the east right-of-way line, a fiber optics pigtail under TH 52 connecting to a
Variable Message Sign cabinet on the west side of TH 52, a fiber optic splice
vault in the southeast quadrant of the proposed interchange, an equipment pad
east of TH 52 along the south edge of 65"' Street, and various hand holes. The
City shall take immediate steps to coordinate the installation of this infrastructure
with TH52 design -build forces to appropriately locate and place the infrastructure
with the intent to eliminate or minimize the need for relocations or disruptions to
this infrastructure during future interchange construction. The City shall be
responsible for properly protecting these installations to avoid any damage or
disruption. Any required relocations, protection, or damage repair will be the
responsibility of the City.
5. City will be the lead agency for this Project and will coordinate all of the
preliminary design engineering. In addition, the City will provide all of the
preliminary survey and mapping information, the preliminary and final Geometric
Layout, Plan, profile, and cross -sections in English units, at no cost to MnDOT.
Said preliminary design engineering is subject (at a minimum) to MnDOT and
FHWA review and acceptance.
6. City will be the lead agency for this Project and will coordinate all of the final
design engineering. The City will perform (or select a consultant to perform) the
final design, at no cost to MnDOT. Said final design engineering is subject (at a
minimum) to MnDOT and FHWA review and acceptance.
7. MnDOT will assign a Project liaison to function as the City's sole contact for all
MnDOT reviews and City inquiries relating to MnDOT's acceptance of the
preliminary and final design of the Project.
8. The letting of bids and acceptance of all bid proposals shall be done by the City.
The City will provide construction engineering, contract administration and
inspection, at no cost to MnDOT. The construction engineering, contract
administration and inspection will be in accordance with the 2000 (or most recent)
edition of the MnDOT standard specifications for construction.
9. Because this project involves work on the U.S. Highway system, MnDOT
oversight of the construction contract is required. MnDOT and the City will
develop a plan outlining the level of MnDOT oversight required for this specific
project. This plan will be submitted to FHWA requesting approval for the City to
let and administer the contract. Pending FHWA approval, MnDOT will assign a
Construction Engineer to oversee the City's administration of the contract. Time
and expenses spent by MnDOT's Construction Engineer and subordinates to
oversee the City's administration of the contract will be charged to the City
through State -Aid Partnership Contract No. 85089PB, signed by the City and
n
MnDOT in April of 2003.
10. The City will submit documents and plans to MnDOT in a time frame that allows
a thorough review and comment period. MnDOT will review the construction
plans and specifications and provide comments back to the City in a timely
manner. The City must obtain MnDOT's and FHWA's acceptance of the entire
Project before MnDOT will issue a "notice to proceed" with construction.
11. City will be responsible for acquiring the additional right-of-way necessary to
construct the Project, as well as work identified as "future construction by City"
on Exhibit A. City will perform such real estate work tasks necessary to acquire
needed property including, but not limited to, title work, field title work,
appraisal, and appraisal review / certification. City will acquire right-of-way
according to Federal rules and regulations for right-of-way acquisition and
relocations for federally funded projects.
12. City will attempt to acquire needed property for right-of-way by direct purchase
in the name of the City. The City will prosecute any eminent domain proceedings
in the name of the City. The City will document and obtain MnDOT review and
approval for Federal Compliance for right-of-way acquisition.
13. City will use appraisers that are included on MnDOT's certified list of licensed
appraisers.
14. City will pay for all aesthetic bridge enhancement elements that are included in
the Project or in future improvements to the 55u' Street NW interchange.
15 A Cooperative Construction and Maintenance Agreement will be executed
between MnDOT and the City prior to MnDOT issuing a "notice to Proceed".
The agreement will hold the City responsible for all future improvements required
to the 65u' Street interchange. Such improvements may include, but not be limited
to: widening and turn lane construction on 65`a Street, widening and tam lane
construction on the interchange ramps and frontage roads, signal installation at the
ramps and frontage roads.
16. Upon completion of Project construction, MnDOT will take in the right-of-way,
by Commissioner's orders, for the new 65a` Street interchange and will assume
control of the bridge and interchange ramps. However, the City's future
responsibilities for the 65a' Street interchange, as identified above, will remain in
effect.
17. Any agreements pursuant to this MOU, or binding obligations between the parties
to this MOU, will be made pursuant to written and properly executed and
approved permits and agreement(s). Such agreements may include maintenance
7
0
agreements, joint/cooperative agreements, joint/cooperative acquisition
agreements or such other agreements as may be made by the parties.
18. Provided the City fulfills its obligations as stated herein, MnDOT agrees to
recommend to the FHWA that the Project be approved for construction.
I concur with this Memorandum of Understanding.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
_.PCctS 5 o73/OS
NAM Succio Date
Trannation District 6 Engineer
CITY OF ROCHESTER
Ardell Brede Date
Mayor
_ L-Q7
Judy the r Date
City Clerk
I
w.7
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING eO /
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
TBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South
February 2, 2006
Planning Department Review:
ITEM NO.
MN
C._- /�
PREPARED BY:
Brent Svenby,
Senior Planner
The applicant is in the process of revising the final plat and additional time is needed to
review the revisions. Staff recommends that this item be continued to the February 22cd
meeting to allow staff adequate time to review the final plat.
Council Action Needed:
i. A motion to continue this item until the February 22, 2006 meeting.
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, February 6, 2006 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING V�
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
RIGINATING DEPT:
r
ITEM- O.
LIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
��
EM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition 406-01, Channel One Food Bank and Food
PREPARED BY:
Shelf to vacate a portion of the 15' wide utility easement located on the westerly
Brent Svenby,
side of Lot 4, Block 2 Woodlake Park to allow for a proposed addition to the
Senior Planner
building. The property is located along the north side of 35t" Street SE and west
of Wood Lake Drive SE.
February 1, 2006
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated February 1, 2006.
Staff is recommending approval of the vacation request with the following recommendations:
1. The petitioner must dedicate an additional 5 foot wide utility easement for the remaining utility
easement.
2. The applicant must not record this resolution until such time as the petitioner dedicates an additional
5 foot wide utility easement for the remaining utility easement.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to
prepare a resolution to approve a portion of the vacation petition as recommended by staff and
that the resolution shall not be recorded until the applicant has complied with all conditions as
stated
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated February 1, 2006. f'yr yV
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department File
S. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
February 6, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
7cc
UNCILACTI0N: Motion by: Second by: to:
200 ft. Notification Area of
Lot 4 Block 2 Woodlake Park
THWY s2
Vacation #06-01 of by Channel One
Food Bank and Food Shelf
Pin: 64.23.14,025581
�— Council Ward: 1 (Amy Blenker)
WOOD LAKE OR SE Neighborhood Assoc: None
o. = .�.....,w 1 1/23106
Utility Easement
75 ST SE
obnsiea County ie mi ree{anM:Y M prvnsWA ar tlla2cmW W Ixews. Il Gieap�eeaA IpwY wNn ns mi. pUx Mtly
.t.
EASEMENT VACATION
PART OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2
WOOD LAKE PARK
OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA
0 30 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
........ ... .......... .�...................i ..r....... I, ........................... ............. ......1:3
w
w
a
ra z_
v�i o
6
5.
w
z EXISTING
15' UTILITY
�o
M
0
J
WENT '—
I
I
w
EXISTING
30' UTILITY EASEMENT
I
�
w
I
4C:
a
� 2
�P7 o
EXISTING
20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
i
35TH ST. E.
n
M
n
UTILITY VACATION DESCRIPTION
ThelNorth
245.55 feet
of the West 15.00 feet of Lot 4,
2, WOOD LAKE PARK,
according to the
plat thereof
on file at the County Recorder's
.Block
office, Olmsted County, Minnesotc
'ROIECT NUMBER 6755
�e 3 oeo3G�is.arg
)ATE OF SURVEY 01/17/06
]RAFTED BY MJH
WRVEYED BY YCA
;URVEYEU FOR
CHANNEL ONE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE STATE Of MINNESOTA. n
DOUGLAS C/. PDE LICENSE EXPIRES 613W6
���(-Jp22422
DATE NUMBER
ENGINEERS- ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS• PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
717 THIRD AVE, 5.E.
ROCHESTER, MN
507-285.6464
FAX: 507-288-5058
E-MAIL; INFO®YAGGY.CC
R0H ROIED PLANNING
GD5RMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, S10 Rochester, 5044
Co U „T, OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning 2
�o
TO"IIIII►+wRochester City Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
DATE: February 1, 2006
RE: Vacation Petition #06-01, Channel One Food Bank and Food Shelf to vacate a
portion of the 15' wide utility easement located on the westerly side of Lot 4, Block
2 Woodlake Park to allow for a proposed addition to the building. The property is
located along the north side of 351" Street SE and west of Wood Lake Drive SE.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner(s): Channel One Food Bank & Food Shelf
Attn: Carla Johnson, Executive Director
131 35'" Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Reason to Vacate: The proposed addition to the building would encroach into the
existing utility easement.
Referral Comments: Public Works and RPU Water Division.
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Site Plan
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments
Staff Recommendation:
The Channel One Food Bank and Food Shelf is proposing to construct an addition onto their existing
building and the addition encroaches into the existing utility easement. The applicant has filed a site
development plan for the addition and according to the construction plans the 8" water main and fire
hydrant would be relocated to the south of the proposed addition. The utility easement was dedicated
around June 13, 1997 as Document #753438. The vacation of this utility easement should not
include the drainage easement over the northerly 20 feet of the lot which was dedicated as part of the
Wood Lake Park plat. The vacation includes only the north 245.55 feet of the utility easement, the
remainder of the easement is needed because of the relocated water main. The Public Works
Department is requesting that an additional 5 feet be dedicated to the remaining utility easement so
that the said easement is the standard 20 feet in width.
Staff recommends approving the vacation of the easements as described on the vacation petition with
the following conditions:
1. The petitioner must dedicate an additional 5 foot wide utility easement for the remaining
utility easement.
2. The applicant must not record this resolution until such time as the petitioner dedicates an
additional 5 foot wide utility easement for the remaining utility easement.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGMRA 507/2B5-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY1AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
��
ROCHESTER
M;u
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
a
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 1/27/06
011
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4'" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application requesting
Vacation #06-01 by Channel One Food Bank to vacate a portion of a Utility
Easement over Lot 4, Block 2, Wood Lake Park. The following are Public Works
comments on the proposal:
1. The easement in question for this request was not dedicated as part of
the Wood Lake Park plat, but rather was dedicated by separate
document recorded in the Olmsted County Recorder's Office, on or
about June 13, 1997 as Document #753438. If approved, it should be
noted that this vacation is only for that part of the easement described
in Document #753438, and does not include vacation of the
overlapping drainage easement dedicated over the northerly 20.00 feet
of said lot as part of the Wood Lake Park plat.
2. Dedication of an additional 5.00 feet should be required for the
remaining utility easement segment so that said easement is the
standard 20.00 foot width currently required.
C:\Documenls and Settingslplasfost local SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK1 C%VAC06-01 Wood Lake Park Util
Ease Channel One Food Bank Property.doc
M
nror P U
we p(rdye, we delivrr
January 27,2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Vacation Petition #06-01 by Channel One Food Bank and Food Shelf to vacate a
portion of the 1S' utility easement located on the westerly side of Lot 4, Block 2 Woodlake Park
to allow for an addition to the building.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and we have no objections, our comments
follow:
1. The construction plans for the relocation of the hydrant and abandonment of the existing 8"
water main that is currently within the utility easement to be vacated have been approved as a
I
art of the Site Development Plan #06-01 Review.
2. This work can be done as a simple "permit" as it is basically just afire hydrant relocation.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
0644A R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Channel One Food Bank and Food Shelf
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2313
telephone 507-250-1540 facsimile 507 280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
aa�
MEETING
DATE: 02-06-06
QrENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEII�
BLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #05-19 by Girl Scout Council of River Trails. The
PREPARED BY:
applicant is proposing to annex approximately 2.25 acres of land located south of 81h Street
Theresa Fog:uty,
SW and southwest of the Meadow Lake Estates development in part of the Northwest /4 of
Senior Planner
the Southeast /< Section 5 of Rochester Township.
January 26, 2006
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning,Cbmmission reviewed this annexation request on January 25, 2006. The Commission
found that this property is adjacent to the City limits and services are presently available with the Southwest High Level
Water System service available to this property at 81h Street. The City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of this annexation request on January 25, 2006 as a Consent Agenda Item.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve the consent items. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The
motion carried 8-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated January 19, 2006.
Minnesota .Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the
rownship. ,For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%,
70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes
due on this property are $0. Land is owned by charitable non-profit, therefore is exempt from property taxes.
Council Action Needed:
t. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN
Department of Administration — Municipal Boundary Adjustments.
Attachments r4ti,`1-
1. Staff report, dated January 19, 2006. ft
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk: Filing Fee Attached
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 6, 2006, in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Matlonby: Second by: to:
CERTIFICATE OF
SECTION 5
T. 106 N., R. 14 W.
N88"
TN LINE SET/4 N88'1350E 8(
66,00' 8TH STREET SW
N0
o ° o
0
N88*13'WE 4.0
120.00'\
o
Land Description
SURVEY
cn
0
0
0
Y /
\ 5 4
SE CORNER OF THE
NORTH 66 FEET OF THE
EAST 700 FEET OF THE
WEST 900 FEET
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5,
Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of the North 66 feet of the East 700 feet
of the West 900 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 01'00'00" East, parallel to the west
line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter 640.00 feet; thence
South 88'13'50" West parallel to the north line of said Northwest Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter 200.00 feet; thence North 01'00'00" West parallel to
the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter 390.00 feet;
thence North 88'13'50" East parallel to the north line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter 120.00 feet; thence North 01'00'00" West
parallel to the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
250.00 feet to the south line of the North 66 feet of the East 700 feet of
the West 900 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
thence North 88'13'50" East 80.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 2.25 acres and is subject to any easements, covenants, and restrictions
of record.
RECEIVED I
0 SPIKE SET JAN 0 9 2006
a IRON PIPE WITH PLASTIC CAP
STAMPED R.L.S.p21940 SET D Roc �R otMST
PL1N EPoxTME
• FOUND MONUMENT
n COMPUTED POINT
MRM Wnri NH T MI59MKL. LLAx. GATE OF SURVEY: 11-14-05
Ou W[C wA5 /,Ngm B1 NE TI UNOEA Engineering PrepweE Fr.
u. gpLLr 9gEpNAON MM M.r 41
o y[fans[... W.Wr . W Surveying
uws rc THE SLATE of w"NLmra River Trolls SW Scouts
INC. Planning 4228 a sr. sw
0-11.. L onr 1407o Hwy 52 SE Pa sm-eav-isea Rochester, MN 55902
Annexation #05-19
by Girl Scout Council of River Trails
PIN: 64.05.42.072656
Neighborhood Assoc: None
Council Ward: 2 (Marcia Marcoux)
01/03/06
Properties within and contiguous to the
proposed annexed area located in
Pt NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 5 Rochester TWP
City Limits
0
aq3
PAr
Roc HESTER-OLN'ISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C0Y XT, a. www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner
' :. '.fit•;. :. F'li.
r
k'k TFU.,I 11G USt"�
DATE: January 19, 2006
RE: AnnexationlPetition #05-19 by Girl Scout Council of River Trails. The
applicant is proposing to annex approximately 2.25 acres of land located
south of 8th Street SW and southwest of the Meadow Lake Estates
development in part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 Section 5 of
Rochester Township.
CP&ZC Meeting Date: January 25, 2006
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: Girl Scout Council of River Trails
CEO Margaret Winters
4228 SW 8th Street
Rochester, MN 55902
Architect/Engineer:
GGG Engineering
1407 Hwy 52 SE
Chatfield, MN 55923
Existing Land Use:
The existing land use is a recreation area for the non-profit
Girl Scouts of River Trails organization.
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned I (Recreation Commercial) District on
the Olmsted County zoning map.
Future Zoning:
Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map.
Land Use Plan:
The property is designated for "low density residential" uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Adjacency to the Municipal
The property is adjacent to the city limits along its northern
Limits:
boundary to the east.
Sewer & Water:
The Southwest High Level Water System service is available
to this property at 81h Street SW. Static water pressures will
be in the mid 50' to low 60' PSI at the existing buildings.
The applicant is in the process of executing a Utility
Connection Agreement with the City.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
..nwv.. PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
("`AOOO
FAx 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPOH IUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FMPI OYFR
Page 2
Annexation #05-19
Girl Scout of River Trails
January 19, 2006
Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard
members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days
prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public
hearing on this item on February 6, 2006. The City Clerk has
sent the certified 30 day notice.
Referral Comments: ' 1. Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division
Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (2 letters)
4. Comments from Rochester Townboard, dated January
13, 2006
Staff Recommendation:
This property is adjacent to the City limits and is presently available with the Southwest High Level Water
System service available to this property at 6th Street. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed
to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2 (3).
1. S
ROCHESTER
H41.
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
Date: 1 /12/06
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4'h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
Annexation #05-19 for the Girl Scout Council of River Trails property. The
following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. Execution of a Utility Connection Agreement should be required prior to
final approval of the Annexation request.
CADocumenls and Settings\plajgarrlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files10LK61\ANN%05-19 Girl Scouts Property. doc
rpu
q1
.wl pledir, wr drover
January 10, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexdtion Petition #05-19 by Girl Scout Council of River Trails to annex 2.25 acres
of land located south of 81h St. SW and SW of the Meadow Lakes Estates Development.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land
Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability
of these fees.
2. Sogthwest High Level Water System service is available to this property at 81h St. SW.
3. Static water pressures will be in the mid 50's to low 60's PSI at the existing buildings.
+. 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,
0641A PLJL
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
GGG Engineering
Margaret Winters
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
07
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Doug E ;r [dbutler@hiawathahomes.com]
Friday, January 13, 2006 10:00 AM
Garness Jennifer
Brenda Dicken (E-mail)
Girl Scout Annexation Petition.....
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Girl Scout Annexation Petition. The Rochester
Township Board discussed this matter at its regular monthly meeting last evening. We agreed we
would not oppose the petition. However, there is a storm water management problem which we feel
should be corrected prior to approval. The paved up hill driveway to the Girl Scout buildings from 8th
Street drains large amounts of surface water on to and across 8th Street. We feel the Girl Scouts
should correct this condition prior to Annexation approval. Brenda Dicken will contact your office to
further decribe the Rochester Township board's concern.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
l—
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Expand Residential Permit Parking Zone 6,
PR PARED BY:
61h Ave SW 800 block
,I D. Kramer
This is a public hearing to consider a petition from the residents of this neighborhood to establish
residential permit parking on their street. This would be an expansion of existing residential permit
parking zone 6 (Edison School Area). The purpose of the zone is to control parking of vehicles by
nonresidents of the area. This block currently does not have any parking restrictions.
RCO 138A.03 requires the petition to be signed by owners or occupants of at least 75% of the units. As
marked on the map bal6w, 16 residential parcels abut the proposed zone, including one duplex, for a
total of 17 units. One unit is vacant, and the owner was unable to be contacted, so this unit is excluded
from the calculation as indicated in the ordinance, for a net of 16 units. Signatures from 13 of the 16
units (81.2%) arts included on the petition. The frontage of Soldier's Field Park is ineligible for residential
permit parking.
The petition has been reviewed to meet the requirements of RCO 138A. Notice of this hearing was
mailed to residents on January 20, 2006.
27 625 15 r72r� 724 1 51 "' t 1 T
!
8 ST SW
.. -•. 887 804 5
508- !
805 606 516 512 510
626 G!2 616FW7E
812
815
Io. 8z/ SOLDIERS
625 w FIELD
s29 > PARK
B33 0 5*
OR,
839
G�0
aaa G�
C7
851
RIPLFX�
616 609 m ,�,
rC"
ST ,.'1idnM
�9
jISW
I
� I
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Add paragraph 21 to Section L. "Residential Permit Parking", Zone 6 (Edison School Area) of the
Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution so as to read:
21 6th Ave SW, from Sth St SW to 9th St SW, on bath sides except the Soldiers Field Park
frontage, from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
L:
'J Petition for Installation of Residential Permit Parking
We the undersigned residents or owners hereby petition the city council to create a residential permit
parking zone 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, on 61h Avenue SW between 81h St SW and 91h
St SW.
Informational note: The current cost for permits is $5.00 for the initial application, plus $5.00 per
vehicle per year. Generally only residents of property along this zone will be able to purchase permits. If
there are employees who work at property along the zone, they will also able to purchase permits.
Temporary permits (for residents' guests) are also available. Permits are issued at the City Clerk's
office.
Printed Name
Signature
Address
Include Apt. Number
Phone
vi.
2.D.
1
u�.1�-✓. t.K�
3.
6.j i!r_IC1/; f,i44/t
L(I�. QQe�/i�r.=^;lia
1�1 ' �� Q��c� �S G),
f!ri!
5.vrallL
{CJ�'Il`C.1
Y 1LL a\:.1,
�i. C_ -�� �" ��'..-�iV
z L 2'Crl
6.
7.
W
r
II
y(,'
10.
eL .
etc)
apt -O►TI
12.
Row M6, POcYe-ovi
-p5M&LSCO �9 1__
�8 7 7-70
13.
� ylvhG6
" rj{/j/I/)
OD7 f V C • '7,w
2g"Q p
14.
Le
0�ro
Av OVv
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 02-06-06
14DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N^
LIC HEARINGS PLANNING F --
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix. The applicant is PREPARED BY:
proposing to annex approximately 1.46 acres of land located south of 19th Street NW, west Thcresa } oga1 ty,
of West Circle Drive and north of the DIME Railroad tracks in part of the Northwest /4 of the Planner
Southeast'/4 of Section 29 of Cascade Township.
February 1, 2006
The applicant has requested that this application be withdrawn.
The public hearing is rescheduled for February 22, 2006.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council shalt make a motion to accept withdrawing this application.
^istri� n:
City Administrator
z. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4�• City Finance Director
5': • Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 6, 2006, in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
n i
P
t
.v 7
ev I
�N �
f �u
L�
COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/6/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATINGDEPT: ITEM_ .
Reports & Recommendations: CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Assistance Agreement with Residences of Old PREPARED BY: .
TownHall, LLC. T.SPAETH
A Development Assistance Agreement between the City of Rochester and Residences of Old Town Hall, LLC. has been
prepared for the repairs and renovation of the former Town Hall Estates Senior Housing facility in order to re -use the
building as a 66 room single room occupancy market rate rental facility. The Council has previously approved a Restricted
Development zoning permit for this use, and earlier approved establishment of a tax increment financing district upon the
property. The estimated total construction cost for the project is approximately $2.8 million.
The major points within the Development Agreement are as follows:
Responsibilities of the Developer: The developer is responsible to rehabilitate the existing building located on the
development property for use as 66 market rate work force single room occupancy rental housing units. The construction
activities are to commence on or before May 1, 2006 and be substantially completed by December 31, 2006.
Ci�'s Responsibility: The City agrees to provide a total of $240,000 in principal, along with interest at a rate of 6%, in
TIF assistance. The assistance is to be provided as "pay as you go", and by that I mean that the City will pay the
developer the available tax increments as they are received, on a semiannual basis beginning on August 1, 2008, until such
time that the City's obligation is satisfied, or a maximum of 25 years, whichever is less.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
.,,,Council authorization for the execution of a Development Assistance Agreement with Residences of Old Town Hall,
.;.,LLC. by the Mayor & City Clerk for the (# 33-1) Tax Increment Financing project.
"Please note that a copy of the Development has not been included in the packet due to its length. A copy is
available in the City administration office.
Jti t L. aA
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Reconsider action on Final Plat #05-36, Valleyhigh
PREPARED BY:
Fourth Subdivision.
Adltzi A. Baker,
Senior Planner
January 25, 2006
On September 7, 2005, the City Council approved Final Plat #05-36 to be known as Valleyhigh Fourth Subdivision.
The Plat was approved subject to four conditions. Due to unique circumstances, staff and the applicant agree that
condition " 1, b" should be reworded. The applicant has also requested that condition #4 be removed in it's
entirety. Following discussion �ith the Local Government Representative for Wetlands, staff agrees that this
condition may be removed.
Modifications to the conditions, as agreed to by the applicant and staff, are identified with underlined text for new
language, and strikethreugh text for language to be deleted.
1. Prior to recording the final plat:
a. The final plat shall be revised Indicating the floodway boundary as shown the Flood Insurance Rate Map
No. 27109C0161-E, dated February 4, 1998.
b. The execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required for the North and East sides of Lot 2. Block
Ito address the Owner's obligation for providing pedestrian facilities along th&-eagra4,Foutage that
oP rtfon of /' Street NW and to accommodate the planned pedestrian bridge and landing area.
2. A GiS impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final
plat, per the August 22, 2005 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division.
-r.
-*-a Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required during the review process for individual lot development.
Payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area charge will apply for any net increase in
impervious surface.
n 1vas completeduFrent—A now
CieiinABUGn mast be cem •
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed, the following two actions will be needed:
1. Move to rescind the previous approval of Final Plat #05-36;
2. Move to approve Final Plat #05-36 with the new conditions.
�.
., UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to
�;.%. Aquila
January 5, 2006
Ms. Theresa Fogarty
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
RE: Fjpal Plat Approval
Valley High 4th Plat
7th Street NW
Aquila Regulator Station
Dear Ms. Fogarty:
Aquila Networks
P.0. Box 5536
Rochester, MN 55903 6538
In regards to the Final Plat #05-36 by Aquila, Inc. and Kerry Bio-Functional
Ingredients, Inc., the following actions are hereby requested:
1. That the Rochester City Council rescinds the approval for the plat as
approved September 7, 2005. (Under the Reports and Recommendations
section of the Council Agenda)
2. That the Rochester City Council approves the plat with the revised
conditions, including the modified pedestrian facility condition.
3. That the original Condition 4 for a new wetland delineation be rescinded.
This request is based on observations that the site was a maintained grassy
area not exhibiting obvious wetland characteristics. A soil analysis of the
site was not completed.
It is our understanding that these actions will allow Council approval of the plat,
establish staff agreement that all conditions of approval are satisfied, and enable
final recording of the plat. Please advise if there are any other outstanding issues
that would prevent final recording of the plat. Thank you very much for your
cooperation and assistance on this matter.
S�ince�rely,
Greg Walters
cc: Stevan Kvenvold, City of Rochester
Mike Nigbur, City of Rochester
Don Miller, Yaggy Colby Associates
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 7�
DATE: 2-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
REPORTS & RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING
� _3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Clarify a Condition from Item E-2 from the July 1 B, 2005
PREPARED BY:
City Council Meeting regarding the Council Decision on Type III,
Mitzi A. Baker,
Phase I Appeal #05-03 by Todd Powers DBA Pints Pub
Planner
February 1, 2006
On July 18, 2005 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a drinking and entertainment use to be established
at 3920 HWY 63 north. The property is located north of Shopko north, east of TH 63 and south of the Al's Specialty Marine
boat and RV retail and storage lot.
The applicant is in the process securing zoning and Building Safety approvals to proceed with and complete the proposed
modifications to the building -to establish the drinking and entertainment use. During this process staff re -visited the record
from the July 18, 2005 City Council meeting in order to determine what the Council's action was with regard to the use of the
front porch of the building. The front porch of the building existed as part of the previous use. At the public hearing, the
applicant did clearly identify an intent to use the front porch as part of the drinking and entertainment use, to allow patrons to
occupy that space. There was also testimony during the public hearing, documenting objections to the use of the front porch
of the building. The Council considered outdoor use of the property as part of their decision, and in doing so included the
following condition:
"No Outdoor entertainment, erection of a new permanent or temporary building or tent, or outdoor amplified sound can be
established".
re was no gpecific discussion by the Council of the use of the front porch of the building, which faces TH 63. Staff would
reciate if the Council could clarify whether this condition allows for the front porch of the building to be used by patrons
(i.e. for seating, drinking, dining), or prohibits occupancy/use of the front porch by patrons.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a motion indicating the Council's interpretation of the condition in question, as to whether it
permits use of the front porch.
Attachments:; - C.
1. Minutes of City Council Meeting
2. Letter from Ken Moen trtw"v
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on February 6, 2006 in the Council / Board Chambers in
the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
t;UUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
i
� ,_••titer_ .
•
E
L�lr
C •��lW�O��
t o �•�S �'�
�
J ry � o
G�;
N � p 3
J
G
a�g In
®�a1gga- y��r3Gl.®:ci, ?I 11
6l S••'�Fptl��Ues� DB6 C EEi¢
b, ,•Ip
&ilv.Y
t1��� ur
pi
,R
z
0
E
U
F
z
0
U
0
0
0
N
ll i a
pppppg ,�jpjpq
,�sEfk q
202 RIVERSIDE BUILDING
400 SOUTH BROADWAY
:OCHESTER. MN 55904
January 31, 2006
Rochester City Council
201 5th St. SE
Rochester, MN 55904 , '
KENNETH R. MOEN
MOEN LA"` FIRM
Re: Clarification of CUP #05-10, Todd Powers d/b/a Pints Pub
Dear Members of the City Council:
3
Tel: 507.281.2437
Tax: 507,281,2438
f mrtil; KEN fl,M OE?L%MFIRM CO
On July 22, 2005, you adopted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order regarding CUP
#05-10 allowing the development of a drinking and entertainment establishment at the location of the
former Whitings Nursery retail store on Highway 63 North. The developer, Mr. Todd Powers,
subsequently filed a proposed site plan with the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department showing a
covered porch on the west side of the building facing Highway 63. Its proposed use is for outdoor
seating for food and beverage service with no outdoor amplified sound or any outdoor entertainment
such as a band or disk jockey. The planning department staff has questioned whether or not that use
would violate the conditions you placed on the CUP at Conclusions of Law, paragraph 4. B., which
TEads: "No outdoor entertainment, erection of a new permanent or temporary building or tent, or
outdoor amplified sound can be established." Staff has asked for your clarification.
A common sense reading of your Findings, etc., and a review of the record you had before you
when they were adopted requires that your clarification be that such a use is permitted under the permit.
The covered porch was shown on the site, grading and erosion control plan that was before you
when you considered this matter. The plan was located at p. 94 of your council materials in the Request
for Council Action for the meeting of 7-18-05. The area in question on that plan is labeled "covered
porch." In fact, the space existed in the building prior to the proposed development. The site plan
submitted to staff shows it as "existing porch." Thus, it is clearly not a "new permanent or temporary
building or tent" within the meaning of the Findings.
We have thoroughly reexamined the written materials presented to you for your review of the
CUP, and we viewed the video tape of the proceedings before you. We find absolutely no reference to
indicate you ever had concerns about seating with food and beverage service on the porch. There were
extensive discussions about outdoor entertainment, all of which appear to relate to concerns about noise
that might be generated by such outdoor entertainment as band performances, presentations by a disk
jockey, or the use of other amplified sound outside. This proposed seating use would be on the opposite
side of the building from the neighborhood to the east. The porch faces a busy highway. It is
i
Rochester City Council 2 January 31, 2006
inconceivable that its use for food and beverage service would negatively impact the neighborhood. The
clarification that such a use is permitted would be consistent with the apparent attempt of the Council
when it adopted the Findings, etx.
My understanding is that this staff request for clarification will not include a hearing. Therefore,
I have taken this opportunity to express the applicant's position. Mr. Powers and I will be present at
your meeting if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Moen
M.S.B.A. Civil Trial Specialist
cc: Mitzi Baker
Todd Powers
Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 19 —July 18, 2005
CITY COUNCIL
E2 A Hearing on Appeal #05-03 by Todd Powers DBA Pint's Pub, appealing the
Planning Commission decision to deny a Type II Conditional Use Permit #05-10 to
be located at 3820 Highway 63 North, located along the east side of TH63 North,
north of Shopko North.
Wishing to be heard was Jan Throndson, 925 Northway Lane N.E.. Mr. Throndson
lives in the neighborhood where the Pints Pub business is asking to be approved.
Mr. Throndson said that he has met with Councilmember Nowicki, the Planning and
Zoning Commission and has talked with Todd Powers. There are some drastic
concgms that the neighbors have about the business coming into the area. Pints
Pub was previously located on 11th Avenue N.W.. They featured live outdoor
entertainment and would like to continue to do so. Mr. Powers was cited twice for
noise disturbance beyond the hours of the permit. There are parking issues at the
new site. Parking numbers have ranged from 200 to 400 people. If an outdoor
venue is held, it would be held in the parking lot. Where are the cars supposed to
park? Mr. Throndson said that there is a playground in the neighborhood. There is
not one other bar in any other neighborhood in the City that has a bar next to a
playground. Traffic driving through the neighborhood is a problem and will be
compounded with a bar establishment at the edge of the neighborhood. Cars will
come up Alberta Drive and around to Circle Drive to avoid the signal lights.
Highway 63 South narrows to two lanes; where is the traffic going to go when a car
wants to turn around or leave. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the
business use and he asked the Council to also deny the use.
Wishing to be heard was Todd Powers, 355 Elton Hills Drive N.W. He showed a
floor plan of the business saying that food was going to be a big part of the future of
the business. There would be a patio area, facing toward the highway, with the
only entrance through the bar. The band area, the east portion of the building,
would be soundproofed and would face west to keep the sound minimal to the
neighborhood and be buffered by the kitchen, bathroom and food operation areas.
Mr. Powers said that there would be staff seven nights per week to make sure that
the patrons are not taking drinks with them when leaving and to maintain the
outside premises from litter. Mr. Powers said that there would be no need to have
live bands outside the building. He said that the bar could open right away with the
kitchen area in operation by November.
Councilmember Nowicki said that he had met with Mr. Powers. Mr. Powers had
told him that it was not necessary to run live entertainment outside the building but
indicated that it is a tough restriction especially when all the competition is having
outdoor venues. However, with the size of the building, the bands should be
accommodated. In a question to the City Attorney Terry Adkins, Mr. Adkins noted
that a condition restricting no live outdoor entertainment could be added.
Councilmember Nowicki asked that Condition #2, as recommended by the Planning
staff, be revised and strengthened to say "No outdoor entertainment, or erection of
a new permanent or temporary building or tent be established or applied for". Mr.
Adkins said that a permittee can always ask for an amendment to a CUP, however.
Wishing to be heard was Lloyd Johnson, 1431 2V' Street S.W., architect for the
project. There have been some specific design recommendations beyond the
Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 19 —July 18, 2005
CITY COUNCIL
general criteria for a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit has
guidelines which are given to be followed to get a permit. The zoning is appropriate
and since the conditions of the general use permit are met, there should not be
much of an issue. Sound control can be designed within the building and do things
to orient the sound in different directions. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the access
for this building isn't through a neighborhood but directly from Highway 63 North.
There is adequate parking on the site for the building proposed and buffering
beyond what is required by the zoning criteria.
Counpilmember Nowicki said that there isn't a buffering requirement, other than
some bushes and shrubbery between the B-4 and the R-1. However, at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant did offer to put up a six-
foot fence. Mr. Johnson said that the applicant has gone beyond the regulations
and offered to put up fencing wrapping around onto the adjoining commercial
property and would go even to an eight -foot fence.
Wishing to be heard was Geoff Griffin, GGG Engineering, Chatfield, the civil
engineer for the project. He said that the first concern from the neighborhood was
that transportation facilities were inadequate with the two-lane Highway 63 North
road. An April 21, 2005, letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
which reviewed the project and said "the existing turning movements at this
intersection serve this proposed change in use. The proposal is acceptable.
However, MnDot will be monitoring the impacts of the new development and if
safety becomes a concern, MnDot reserves the right to close the median". Mr.
Griffin said that the developer is in agreement with that. Mr. Griffin then introduced
Mr. Matt Hindermann, the property owner to the south. The developer is willing to
allow the City to add a condition, if the conditional use permit is approved, that an
easement will be secured immediately from Mr. Hindermann so that if the property
to the south is sold and the median is closed at some future date, there will be legal
access to the Shopko lot. Mr. Griffin then discussed the transitional buffer zone
between the R-1 park area and this commercial development. A three-foot berm
and a six-foot stock -type fence does meet the required buffer. They would,
however, put in an eight -foot fence if the City would desire it. Mr. Griffin said that
there are 134 spaces required for the parking area; the developer will be providing
152 spaces.
Wishing to be heard was Brent Larson, 3961 Polar Lane N.E. Mr. Larson asked
those neighbors in the audience concerned about the project to stand. He asked
the. Council to look at the broader picture in regard to the development and the
issue.
Wishing to be heard was Mark McNiven, 3960 Polar Lane N.E., living in the
neighborhood for the past 15 years. He said it seemed as if there were issues
being jerry-rigged by building higher walls and other things to circumvent an ethical
issue. Over 100 families would have to go to sleep and be awakened later in the
evening by motorcycles, loud disco music, intoxicated individuals and other noises.
This neighborhood is located in a quarry that funnels sound and acts to amplify
surrounding noises, even from the Rochester Public Utility facility to the west. He
said he didn't understand how the City can make a lot of people unhappy to allow a
Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 19 — July 18, 2005 ✓ i 3
CITY COUNCIL
few people to make money. The community doesn't understand why such an
establishment can't go elsewhere.
Wishing to be heard was Bob Mahon, 913 Northern Place N.E. Mr. Mahon pointed
out that there are houses right behind where the bar will be located. Parents need
to be concerned about taking children out for a walk and have to pass by a bar,
even one blocked by a berm and an eight -foot wall, there may be obnoxious
language coming from the area. The traffic is a major issue with drivers going
through the'neighborhood to get to Circle Drive. In the next few years,
appror,imately 200 homes will be added to the area. The 41" Street intersection
won't be signalized by MnDot which will be a problem. Mr. Mahon said that any
discussions with Mr. Powers and his staff, details are changed every time they
come back. Tonight it was discussed that an easement to the south will be
obtained in the event MnDot closes the median on Highway 63 South, when?
There is no detail as to when it will happen. Any right turn coming out of the bar,
and with the median closed, drivers will turn right and proceed through the
neighborhood to Circle Drive. He asked the Council to take into account the
Planning Commission denial.
Wishing to be heard was Melody Thompson, 834 Northern Place N.E. Ms.
Thompson pointed out that Councilmember Means noted that there is a large hill
where the proposed access easement across the Hinderman property would need
to go from the development into the shopping center area. Not only is it going to be
difficult to come out of the bar onto the road, it will be difficult to get in. People will
miss the turnoff to the bar and come into the neighborhood or have to turn around
- neighborhood entrance/AI's Specialty Shop. The hill will need to be cut down.
Wishing to be heard was Jan Throndson, 925 Northway Lane N.E.. Mr. Throndsor
asked if anyone had talked to the owners of Shopko North about traffic coming
through their shopping center and the pad site has been sold which will put even
more business on Shopko North making a lot more traffic coming through the area.
Mr. Throndson was told that there was a City street along the Shopko lot. Mr.
Throndson also asked about snow removal. Where will be snow be dumped;
usually it's the parking lot and then there won't be enough room for cars. Mr.
Throndson also pointed out that there doesn't have to be any food with the
business; the business is liquor. When there is talk about a kitchen, it may or may
not become reality. There are lot of "what ifs".
Wishing to be heard was Scott Wickman, 3949 Polar Lane N.E. He said that
MnDot put the clause in about closing the median and probably would only do so
after someone is fatally injured. He said it is like a drag race up Highway 63 from
the signalized intersection at Shopko. 415t Street is poorly lit and drivers won't
expect people to be coming onto the highway late in the evening. In the daytime
trying to cross the road by Al's Marine can be treacherous.
Wishing to be heard was Ken Moen, Moen Law Firm, representing the applicant.
He said that the applicant has complied with every staff recommended condition.
The use is permitted in the B-4 area. There is a separate access, and more
berming and fencing than required by the ordinance. Mr. Moen said that there were
Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 19 — July 18, 2005
CITY COUNCIL
two meetings at the Planning Commission, neither was a quorum, and rather than
wait for a quorum at a future meeting it was decided to take this matter to the
Council. There is no objection to the eight -foot fence as long as no variance is
required. Mr. Moen said that they are in agreement with the staff recommendations
and conditions. He asked for approval of the Conditional Use Permit making
Condition #1 an eight -foot fence and Condition #3 showing a frontage/backage
road. Councilmember Marcoux asked if the applicant would be agreeable to the
condition reading "shown conceptually" also that that an easement would be
obtained. qr.-Moen said that his client would be acceptable to these conditions.
Wishing to be heard was Brian Klimek, 919 Northland Place N.E. Mr. Klimek
pointed out that in front of the business there is a pedestrian walkway and bikepath.
The patio looks out over the pedestrian walkway. The people living in the
neighborhood don't want to be walking on the path and having people in the bar
watching them. Mr. Klimek asked that if the frontage road to the Shopko access is
such a good idea, why not construct it immediately.
Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing.
Councilmember Marcoux asked staff about being able to erect a temporary
structure for outside entertainment. As we are allowing these in parking lots, is
there something in place at the present time or is it something we should be looking
at. Parking that is required is being used for another use. Phil Wheeler, Planning
Department Director, said that when a temporary use is requested, such as
;,. Christmas Tree sales, the remaining parking space is considered.
Councilmember Means asked Geoff Griffin what he meant about "looking into" the
situation with poor visibility because of the hill to the south. Mr. Griffin said that
they will be working with Mr. Hindermann on the access to the south, which has
already been agreed to, but also to work with Public Works on temporary grading.
The road cannot be constructed immediately but if MnDot decides to close the
median, Mr. Griffin said that the work would be completed prior to closure. If MnDot
would close the median overnight, Mr. Griffin said, for the record, that the south
access would be done within eight weeks unless the weather would not permit it.
The Council discussed each condition and agreed upon the wording as follows:
Condition #1 — No change
Condition #2 — To read: "No outdoor entertainment, erection of a new permanent
or temporary building or tent, or outdoor amplified sound can be established."
Condition #3 - Change from second sentence to read: "An alternative
frontage/backage road, whether private or public, will be constructed within 180
days of MnDot's closure of the Trunk Highway 63 median. An easement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, must be executed prior to the submission of the
Site Development Plan. The easement must cover any needed right-of-way or
property for the construction of the road south to the Shopko North parcel."
Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 19 — July 18, 2005 ��
CITY COUNCIL
Condition #4 — Third sentence changed to read: "Owner must grade the property
and the adjoining property to the south to eliminate sightline restrictions for traffic
exiting the property onto Highway 63."
Condition #5 — No Change.
Condition #6 — No Change.
Condition #7 , No Change.
Condition #8 — "The bufferyard requirement must be increased so as to add an
eight -foot fence. The fence will be continued to join around the comer with Al's
Specialty's fence."
Councilmember Carr wanted to point out that Highway 63 North was mainly
commercial use and now you have more residential coming into the area with
eventually 500 homes along the Highway. The Council should look at the greater
use for the greater number. He felt that there would be a better commercial use for
the property than a bar and will be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Nowicki felt that he could not support the use for the neighborhood
and stood with the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Councilmembers Marcoux moved, Means seconded, to approve Appeal #05-03 by
Todd Powers DBA Pint's Pub with eight conditions as amended and directing the
City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Ayes
(4), Nays (2). Motion carried. Councilmembers Carr and Nowicki voted nay.
E-3 A Hearing on Land Use Plan Amendment #05-04 by the City of Rochester
proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate
from "recreation arealopen space" to "medium density residential" and "commercial"
property located south of TH14 east and north of Eastwood Road S.E., currently
part of the Eastwood Golf Course, and
Zoning District Amendment #05-06 by the City of Rochester, Dennis Thein and
Platinum Development Group to rezone property to B-1, R-1x and R-2 located
south of TH14 East along the north and south side of Eastwood Road S.E. and is
the land included in the proposed Rochester Towne Club GDP, and
General Development Plan #258 to be known as Rochester Towne Center by the
City of Rochester, Dennis Thein and Platinum Development Group, and including a
Substantial Land Alteration Permit, for property located south of TH14 East, along
the north and south side of Eastwood Road S.E.
All testimony given will apply to Items E-3, E-4, E-5 and D-31.
Wishing to be heard was Wade DuMond, Yaggy-Colby Associates, representing
the developer. He mentioned that many of the City staff have been very actively
involved in the development process since City land is also involved. He also
thanked the Rochester Active Sports Club, Eastwood Men's Club and Eastwood
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION j, JMEETING
3tl '
�, v I„ V ur,ic: uoruo
P GENOA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
UTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G
1 PREPARED BY:
1'1 DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TER@X/L�ADKINS
G. 1
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Establidhing The Salaries Of The Mayor, Councilmember-At-Large, And Councilmember.
b) An Ordinance Rezoning Nine Acres From The R-1 Zoning District To The B-4 Zoning District And The
M-1 Zoning District, And Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known As The Zoning Ordinance And land
Development Manual Of The City Of Rochester, Minnesota. Said property is located West of Bandel
Road NW, East of New Life Worship Center and South of 65"' Street NW/Overland Drive NW.
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by: to: