The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/22/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4TH STREET SE MEETING NO. 5 FEBRUARY 22, 2006 REGULAR ADJOURNED 7:00 P.M. VLMOE OF ALLMM E PAGE 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 3-8 1) Petition for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve 16th Avenue and 35�h Street N.E. 9-10 2) Petition for Access Drive and Upgrade of Northern Valley Place 11- D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 12 1) Approval of Minutes 13-24 2) Appointments to Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Heritage Preservation Commission 25-26 3) Request to Hire Lobbyist for Rochester Higher Education Development Committee Initiatives 27-30 4) Agreement with Olmsted County Relating to CSAH 22 / Towne Club Road Intersection 31-36 5) Request to Initiate an Amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual standards for Swimming Pool Fencing 37-38 6) Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Rochester and MHFA for the Administration of the Housing Tax Credit Program for 2007 39-40 7) Bid Award Asbestos Removal 41-42 8) Advertise for Bids for New Airport Development Area 43-44 9) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 45-48 10) Public Transportation Franchise — Continental Services 49-50 11) Approval of Accounts Payable 51-52 12) Approving Resolution Authorizing Interfund Advances for Various Approved Tax Increment Financing Projects 53-54 13) Authorize Online Merchant Services Agreement with Wells Fargo Merchant Services a Council Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Page 2 of 3 55-56 57-58 59-60 61-62 63-64 65-66 67-70 71-74 75-76 • E) 77-94 95-96 97-104 105-118 119-140 141-146 147-156 • 157-174 14) Authorize licensing, implementation and support services with NBS Government Finance Group for D-Fast Software for the tracking of Infrastructure Charges 15) Fire — Acceptance of Donation 16) Memorandum of Understanding — AFSCME and City of Rochester Regarding Article 12, Layoff and Recall 17) NightCAP Grant Program 18) Professional Services Agreement to Initiate Nondegradation Analysis 19) Supplemental Agreement #27; Project 9408 (J2247) T.H. 14/ 52 Design Build 20) Consideration of Bids: Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2, J7751 21) Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7237) Reconstruct Alley in 500 Block between gth Ave SW & 10th Ave SW 22) Supplemental Agreement (J2247 and J2269): Fiber optic traffic signal interconnect at TH 63 & 40th Street South interchange 23) Advertise for Bids: Washed Sand, Gravel, Crushed Rock, Pea Gravel, Plant Mixed Bituminous, Ready -mixed Concrete and Cutback Asphalt 24) Development Agreement — Rochester Towne Club Second Supplemental Agreement HEARINGS 1) Continued Hearing on Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South by Arcon Development, Inc. 2) Consider the Issuance of Revenue Bonds in the amount of $125,000,000 on Behalf of the Mayo Clinic 3) Amended Annexation Petition #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix to annex land located south of 19th Street N.W., west of West Circle Drive and north of the DM&E Railroad Tracks. 4) Amended Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix to zone from I to M-1 on property located along the south side of 19th Street N.W., west of West Circle Drive and north of the DM&E Railroad Tracks. 5) General Development Plan #267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix by Rochester Ready Mix 6) Vacation Petition #06-02 by LeCesse Development Corporation to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on Lot 2, Block 1 Grandeville at Cascade Lake located along the north side of Country Club Road and west of 23rtl Avenue S.W. 7) Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat 8) Text Amendment #05-07, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Chapter 65 (Nonconformities) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to comply with Mn. State Statute 462.357, subd. 1e. Council Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Page 3 of 3 175-176 9) Consider the Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Filling of Vacancies on the City Council. F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Clarify 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) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 177-178 H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS 1) Discussion of Hawthorn Hills Development/Golf Course J) ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE FEBRUARY 22, 2006 MEETING NO. 5 7:00 P.M. REGULAR ADJOURNED pLED6E Cr ALLEf IAWCE PAGE 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve 16`n Avenue and 35�n 3-8 1) Petition for Street N.E. Petition for Access Drive and Upgrade of Northern Valley Place 9-10 2) AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 11- D) CONSENT 12 1) 2) Approval of Minutes Appointments to Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of 13-24 Appeals and Heritage Preservation Commission for Rochester Higher Education Development 25-26 3) Request to Hire Lobbyist Committee Initiatives with Olmsted County Relating to CSAH 221 Towne Club Road 27-30 4) Agreement 5) Intersection Request to Initiate an Amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance 31-36 Land Development Manual standards for Swimming Pool Fencing and Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Rochester 37-38 6) and MHFA for the Administration of the Housing Tax Credit Program for 2007 39-40 7) Bid Award Asbestos Removal Bids for New Airport Development Area 41-42 8) Advertise for Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 43-44 9) 10) Licenses, Public Transportation Franchise — Continental Services 45-48 49-50 11) Approval of Accounts Payable Resolution Authorizing Interfund Advances for Various 51-52 12) Approving Approved Tax Increment Financing Projects Wells Fargo 53-54 13) Authorize Online Merchant Services Agreement with Merchant Services Council Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Page 2 of 3 55-56 14) Authorize licensing, implementation and support services with NBS Government Finance Group for D-Fast Software for the tracking of Infrastructure Charges 57-58 15) Fire — Acceptance of Donation 59-60 16) Memorandum of Understanding — AFSCME and City of Rochester Regarding Article 12, Layoff and Recall 61-62 17) NightCAP Grant Program 63-64 18) Professional Services Agreement to Initiate Nondegradation Analysis 65-66 19) Supplemental Agreement #27; Project 9408 (J2247) T.H. 14/ 52 Design Build 67-70 20) Consideration of Bids: Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2, J7751 71-74 21) Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7237) Reconstruct Alley in 500 Block between 9th Ave SW & 10"' Ave SW 75-76 22) Supplemental Agreement (J2247 and J2269): Fiber optic traffic signal interconnect at TH 63 & 40"' Street South interchange E) HEARINGS 77-94 1) Continued Hearing on Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South by Arcon Development, Inc. 95-96 2) Consider the Issuance of Revenue Bonds in the amount of $125,000,000 on Behalf of the Mayo Clinic 97-104 3) Amended Annexation Petition #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix to annex land located south of 19th Street N.W., west of West Circle Drive and north of the DM&E Railroad Tracks. 105-118 4) Amended Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix to zone from I to M-1 on property located along the south side of 19"' Street N.W., west of West Circle Drive and north of the DM&E Railroad Tracks. 119-140 5) General Development Plan #267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix by Rochester Ready Mix 141-146 6) Vacation Petition #06-02 by LeCesse Development Corporation to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on Lot 2, Block 1 Grandeville at Cascade Lake located along the north side of Country Club Road and west of 23rd Avenue S.W. 147-156 7) Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat 157-174 8) Text Amendment #05-07, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Chapter 65 (Nonconformities) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to comply with Mn. State Statute 462.357, subd. 1 e. 175-176 9) Consider the Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Filling of Vacancies on the City Council. Council Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Page 3 of 3 F) REPORTS AND �RrQMMENDAT)O S G) RESOLOTIONS AND ORDINANCES 177-178 H) TABLED ITEMS OTHER BUSINESS Tu Leo f 1 J) ADJOURNMENT cut ^W _ /ArA Lam-' Mayor/Council: If the Mayor and City Council are going to address encouraging competing proposals for the Hawthorn Hill golf project concept as proposed by Council member Carr, I would suggest that this be done as soon as possible. First, to review the background of this proposed project; The City did not solicit proposals for the proposed project; the concept was proposed for consideration by the developer, Mr. Argue. The Mayor and City Council members met with Mr. Argue to review the proposed concept and indicated to Mr. Argue at a COW meeting on October 10, 2005, that they would be interested in pursuing negotiations to implement the concept. I do not recall any discussion about the solicitation of competing proposals at the 10/10 COW meeting. It should be noted that the City Council did not indicate approval of the proposed project, they indicated that they would be interested to see if the project could be formulated for their official consideration. This project proposal has not proceeded without significant public and media exposure; it would be difficult to believe that other area developers are not familiar with the concept and the elements of the concept. The City does not have a legal requirement to advertise the project concept for competing proposals if they should chose not to do so. In order to remove competing proposals as an issue of discussion as this mater proceeds further, I would suggest the following: At the 2/22/06 City Council meeting, bring the matter up under the other Business section of the Council agenda and announce that the City of Rochester is willing to accept other development proposals for the Hawthorn Hills property with the condition that any competing proposals must contain the same project elements as proposed by Mr. Argue( a proposed project must result in an executive, 9 hole golf course, driving range, maintenance facility, golf club house and a sharing of profits derived from the development of the City property surrounding the finished golf course). Any interested developers should contact the City Administrator's Office within one week to indicate their interest. If there are interested developers other than Mr. Argue, the matter will be scheduled for a COW discussion to determine the time frame for other developers to formulate their proposal. Development proposals for the City property that does not include the development of a 9 hole golf course, driving range, maintenance facility, club house and development profit sharing would not be given any consideration by the Mayor/Council. Stevan -----original Message ----- From! PAT CARR[mailto:patcarrrebroker®msn.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:26 PM To: Kvenvold, Steve; Neumann, Gary; Hanson, Dennis; Knott, Doug; JPIETERS®POSTBULLETIN.COM; gregory.layton®usbank.com Subject: Hawthorn Hills Project r Steve: I have a serious problem with the "process" that has ocurred in the proposed conveyance/golf course project, and intend to be both effective and vocal in the event the project moves any further forward without an RFP. My hackles were originally raised when the City Administrators office was making appointments with council members to meet the developer. I asked the secretary "Do all real estate developers in town get this same access to council members; where the administrator is facilitating a transaction for the developer, and lobbying for that developer?" Secondly, this real estate transaction/conveyance is valued in excess of 4 million dollars. It is beyond belief that the city did not do a public request for proposals. I have probably sold close to 500 houses for HUD and the Veteran's Administration in the past 17 years, and I have never seen those govIt entities do anything over a few hundred dollars without competitive bidding. This is not a NIMBY issue with me. This is a good/bad government issue, and I intend to make it the mother of all bad government issues if this project moves any further forward before there is a publicly advertised RFP on this land conveyance. Regards, Pat Carr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR IT-. —ESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD MEETING DATE: Z/ ITEM NO. A PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the pu.pose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. T 4e %,vJNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: Letters and Petitions ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk ITEM�j O. / ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve 16` Avenue and PREPARED BY: 351h Street N.E. Judy Scherr A petition has been received by residents of 16`h Avenue and 351h Street N.E. requesting that the City initiate a project for "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve 16th Avenue and 35` Street N.E." COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition for "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve 16th Avenue and 351h Street N.E." to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ROCHESTER We the undersigned owners of property located along 16`" Avenue and 35`" Street HE, Cascade Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to perform a Feasibility Study for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain in the following local improvement project: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 16"` Avenue and 3St We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges, a service connection charge, and sewer and water availability charges pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Water Quality Protection Program policies. We acknowledge that preliminary analysis by the City of Rochester indicates that a sanitary sewer and watermain project to serve the neighborhood is not feasible unless 14 new lots are created that will be charged for sanitary sewer and watermain. Name (please print) Address # of New Lots Signature '04 ' n L e- 2 [1-n 11 11hw nl r /.,-A - liin nm t 1h !n N 5' PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ROCHESTER We the undersigned owners of property located along 16'h Avenue and 35" Street NE, Cascade Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to perform a Feasibility Study for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain in the following local improvement project: Sanitary sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 16°M1 Avenue and 35`" We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges, a service connection charge, and sewer and water availability charges pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Water Quality Protection Program policies. We acknowledge that preliminary analysis by the City of Rochester indicates that a sanitary sewer and watermain project to serve the neighborhood is not feasible unless 14 new lots are created that will be charged for sanitary sewer and watermain. Name (please print) Address # of New Lots Sicnature - n C I i o c T"P PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ROCHESTER We the undersigned owners of property located along 16th Avenue and 35"' Street NE, Cascade Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to perform a Feasibility Study for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain in the following local improvement project: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 161' Avenue and 351" We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges, a service connection charge, and sewer and water availability charges pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Water Quality Protection Program policies. We acknowledge that preliminary analysis by the City of Rochester indicates that a sanitary sewer and watermain project to serve the neighborhood is not feasible unless 14 new lots are created that will be charged for sanitary sewer and watermain. r?ame (Please print) Address # of New .Lot Sicnature S'J`. PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT a+`� CITY OF ROCHESTER We the undersigned owners of property located along 16"h Avenue and 35`" Street NE, Cascade Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to perform a Feasibility Study for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain in the following local improvement project: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 16"` Avenue and 35" Street NE. We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges, a service connection charge, and sewer and water availability charges pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Water Quality Protection Program policies. We acknowledge that preliminary analysis by the City of Rochester indicates that a sanitary sewer and watermain project to serve the neighborhood is not feasible unless 14 new lots are created that will be charged for sanitary sewer and watermain. Name (please print) Address # of New Lots Signature 0 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ROCHESTER We the undersigned owners of property located along 16`" Avenue and 35"' Street NE, Cascade Township, Olmsted County, Minne3ota, do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to perform a Feasibility Study for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain in the following local improvement project: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 16`h Avenue and 35" We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges, a service connection charge, and sewer and water availability charges pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Water Quality Protection Program policies. We acknowledge that preliminary analysis by the City of Rochester indicates that a sanitary sewer and watermain project to serve the neighborhood is not feasible unless 14 new lots are created that will be charged for sanitary sewer and watermain. Name (please print) Address # of New Lots Signature 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Clerk C , ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Access Drive and Upgrade of Northern Valley Place PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr Merchants Financial Group has submitted a petition requesting the City to construct an access road from the Chateau Theatre parking lot, across a portion of their parcel, to Northern Valley Place and to upgrade Northern Valley Place to the intersection of East Circle Drive. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 0 AXV Merchants Fbiancial Group February 14, 2006 Mr. Richard Freese, P.E. City Engineer Public Works Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Petition for City Project Access Drive from Chateau Theater to Northern Valley Place NE And Upgrade of Northern Valley Place Dear Mr. Freese: Merchants Financial Group herby petitions the City of Rochester to consider constructing the access road from the Chateau Theater parking lot, across a portion of our parcel, to Northern Valley Place and to upgrade Northern Valley Place to the intersection of East Circle Drive as a City project. Sincerely, MERCHANTS FINANCIAL GROUP R.L. (Dick) Mahoney President and Chief Executive Officer +-,,102.EastThird: Street; P.O: -Box 248; Mono, MN 55987: ;1 phone: (507) 457-1190'. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l ` DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-22 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 Councilmem:,ers 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) Appointments to Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Heritage Preservation Commission 3) Request to Hire Lobbyist for Rochester Higher Education Development Committee Initiatives 4) Agreement with Olmsted County Relating to CSAH 22 1 Towne Club Road Intersection 5) Request to Initiate an Amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual standards for Swimming Pool Fencing 6) Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Rochester and MHFA for the Administration of the Housing Tax Credit Program for 2007 7) Bid Award Asbestos Removal 8) Advertise for Bids for New Airport Development Area 9) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities ' 10) Public Transportation Franchise — Continental Services 11) Approval of Accounts Payable 12) Approving Resolution Authorizing Interfund Advances for Various Approved Tax Increment Financing Projects 13) Authorize Online Merchant Services Agreement with Wells Fargo Merchant Services 14) Authorize licensing, implementation and support services with NBS Government Finance Group for D-Fast Software for the tracking of Infrastructure Charges 15) Fire — Acceptance of Donation 16) Memorandum of Understanding — AFSCME and City of Rochester Regarding Article 12, Layoff and Recall 17) NightCAP Grant Program COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: \910, Page 2 February 22, 2006 18) Professional Services Agreement to Initiate Nondegradation Analysis 19) Supplemental Agreement #27; Project 9408 (J2247) T.H. 14152 Design Build 20) Consideration of Bids: Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2, J7751 21) Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7237) Reconstruct Alley in 500 Block between a Ave SW & 10"i Ave SW 22) Supplemental Agreement (J2247 and J2269): Fiber optic traffic signal interconnect at TH 63 & 40"' Street South interchange COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l� / DATE: 02/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office i) _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointments to Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of PREPARED BY: . Appeals and Heritage Preservation Commission Mayor Brede I hereby submit for your approval the following appointments to: Planning and Zoning Commission Gerald Pestka - will fill the expired term of Michael Quinn. His term will expire Dec 2008 1605 8 Yz Ave SE John McGuine — will fill the unexpired term of Bruce Snyder. His term will expire December 2006. 432 Lakewood LN Zoning Board of Appeals Patrick Halsey — will fill the expired term of Marvin Langanki. His term will expire Dec. 2008. 2102 Ponderosa Dr SW Rory Lenton — will fill the unexpired term of John McGuine. His term will expire Dec. 2008 3238 Lake St NW Heritage Preservation Commission Kevin Blondo — will fill the unexpired term of David Pennington. His term will expire Dec. 2007 2102 44 St NW i PERSONAL INFORMATION Gerald Pestka 1605 8 1/2 Ave Se Phone(H) 289-6146 tka@aol.com (g) 281-1881 Zip Code 55904 (FAX) 281-1881 How long have you been a resident of Rochester?_ 43 years Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving on any of the City's advisory boards? Yes_ No X If yes, explain: EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Name of Employer:_ G. Pestka Appraisals Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser Education: B.S. Business University of Minnesota Community Service/Activities: Zoning Board of Appeals (8 years, chairman 1 year) past president Rochester Jacees. Olmsted City Republican Party (central & executive committees) Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or organization or in your occupation: Owner/Manager of appraisal business. I appraise 1-6 family dwell =s. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: Appraisal Institute Rochester Jaycees Rochester Earlyriqprq Lions. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you feel you are qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) previously indicated. T have 98 yearg of Pxperlenre in the local 1 estate market T feel rh r thig � pe ie ld be us f 1 nn t-be Planning F 7-ming Commission What do you believe you could contribute if appointed to an advisory board? I have hands on experience in the various zoning regulations and how they affect housing costs, housing availability, and neighborhood stability. How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a Board or Commission? 1 have always had the desire to serve on civic boars, how ever my business has been too busy during the past 20 years to allow me the extra time. Now that I am slowing down (close to semi —retirement) I have more time to devote to these kinds of activities. I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following days / evenings (circle): Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes_ No X If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes _— No X If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? As required by City ordinance, if appointed to a City advisory board, you must complete a disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk. You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates. Thank you for your interest in serving on an advisory board for the City of Rochester. 08/02/2004 L Date Signatu Gerald Pestka r \_9 PERSONAL INFORMATION Ward___---- Address—��% �- k� .�y� g_ ti ,��-- --__ Zip Code Phone (H) _-' 5 _)__1yCJ--- (B) — 3 �� _-- (FAX) — -O i I k, -- E-maiI___---------------------- How long have you been a resident of Rochester? 1DTCLvL _ --_ Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving on any of the City's advisory boards? Yes!! No If yes, explain: Zo il,+ 13 ooCd D� 14Aa�w(�— EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Name of Occupati Educatio Community Service/Activities: v ue (fir e a, cia..)+ ft $, C CV rmnej Iss,wA 13c:+fcl dt- t7�rc. Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or organization or in your ocrr5rpation: �x �!\,J k 1.1 n. L..i. �a_ 2:1 )a��._: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you feel you arp qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) previously indicated. ` J �.� e9 oe{ience fc �e_p,' PjNoAIr,y tpmnt6Sooft What do you believe you could contribute if appointed to an advisory board? L,)a)\d Cmtt*,6Iic ;ml bpcsrd eXAeflencc• Gad r>ry 4'rnoJe4e hr F� DJ IU,nc� eJeJatoD N�1 S ileSC How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a Board or Commission? bYncf Cer✓�ceS --- -- --- I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following days / evenings (circle): Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to as conflict of interest? Yes__— No z If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict ,of inter st? Yes — No —V If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional inte rests? a� As required by City ordinance, if appointed to a City advisory board, you must complete a disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk. You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates. Thank you for your interest in serving on an advisory board for the City of Rochester. PERSONAL INFORMATION' I Name It IL-- Y l.AL 5 Ward Address 2 LD2 QR-, 5 U—) Zip Code S 5cf o'L Phone(H) Za8-1-03rp I(B) 2G, 2,111 (FAX) 19,g4- How long have you been a resident of Rochester? -i) l !(L S Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving on any of the City's advisory boards? Yes_ No X If yes, explain: EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Name of Employer., �VRAK Occupation: A fit- ` -v911E f Education: , Go'^� `"" !V r Community Service/Activities: _A._'_t_.__I I._'as * eau lfwvse 6a"t-- d.2.� Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or organization or in your occupation_ M a" cc"C.ra4ts- 1 a t ica .n 3 { tts k k° °-L" CixirJProfessional Organization Memberships: t A. . _._..I /I ,A �.MTI/L n{Jeisnw \_I 1��LI Il� ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you feel you a�Q qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) pre_viousI6indicated. �. _ ., J I4, hat do you believe you could contribute if appointed toanadvisory board? -Ole/ do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a Board or Commission? I.. ,C ., ..r _ .�- C.o.. , , , � .. _ Ca✓++ wW .,.. � f...rts-e'1a I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following days / evenings (circle): Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes_ No —x— If yes, please provide details an a separate sheet of oaoer. Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes _ No T If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional inte sts? fl.- uo'r' !vlSf? AM-1 CG�Ir'Y tJ�-s- As required by City ordinance, if appointed to a City advisory board, you must complete a disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk. You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates. Thank you for your interest in se daZon an advisory board for the City of Rochester. Date V PERSONAL INFORMATION Name i - %1 "� `-' i\I Ward Address 2,1. [_>t k E �W i\'Vtj zip Code �`_:J !_,I Phone (H} ��>� .5 S•�r"I (B)_ti�� 5 li l (FAX).��'S i,' I 1 E-mail f0 r 1 r' : Ck G How long have you been a resident of Rochester? . > > Yh s1 G Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving on any of the City's advisory boards? Yes_ No X If yes, explain: EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Name of Employer:%A (sL1L A Iy�----T k3 yC P \<\ Occupation: (' M i d S t= Z\11C a iM 4 N A&= dZ!- Education: B AC H t= LO K 2Vy - l L iiss M 1`1 ti r1(2 r M r: rtiT Community Service/Activities: SU NDA-� C-OL TV tjuGf%!'rl r'r! 1; C•tv 'ML PCGIII rnriT-;� zr - RAin PG'%l rc Cxxoo ALIVLLC" C°Gsf�fi�EE Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or organization or in your occupation: "C r� Piti .a"riiUW.4N''irl� A SaL-til,rti Lu- +.e�'11i4 i"P1S%r��'dyife' Vateiic-l��5/•i ,ice L-Y frL jv/>2,rTIES IEr Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: ASlif A f_ ` ML LUE- Ct-0'"ki - ECLIF57Li2 fi' EFA uGrt_DeBS- ccrlLsc�' C'u 70U2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you feel you are qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) previously indicated. I WtQUb 0%K,:!- M '(IC -COAL HAPE iNyo(-en IN -k-k�E CoM uNIT`( is � oS cTlbw t.J U u l l> G E Kt C,CC � k Ci What do you believe you could contribute if appointed to an advisory board? 1N M4 (Jra4 7-rf7AV AC-stoIT1M5 Ah 824 44,1 wc'CV- W(Vk' De7V1LUP9PS. .._i,I II ,.w1 n�JrI,1A AAf>1"t- I.R,i, Kr% or. iiSS F-r TO T C,Omml P111) How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a Board or Commission? iFlr `'ii il' - ' t""- r_ �r✓iw:. TV\Cl�L ni 4l CP-�Y4 i,` :i:. Y-u. v I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following evenings (circle): Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes_ No Y If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes _ No .. X If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? As required by City ordinance, if appointed to a City advisory board, you must complete a disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk. You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates. Thank you for your interest in serving on an advisory board for the City of Rochester. Date:'DA 0 11 2006 _ Si na re PERSONAL INFORMATION t Name_ e. — -F ow Q----------------- -- Ward ------ --- Address_:� LOB _<1�ir� _�+•--�i']c------- ---- Zip Code _559p1 --- Phone (H) _ZB!!5, (B) h2R - 99 tJQ_ (FAX) I_> E-mail 4U�lG d�ea Snm. How long have you been a resident of Rochester? — 4 ar-t- Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving on any of the City's advisory boards? Yes_ No _;�7 If yes, explain: EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Name of Employer: _1�122�x�a A c ��:•{ ec�s Occupation: b �� Education: Community Service/Activities: R. , Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or organization or inyouroccupation: net Organization ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you feel you are qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) previously indicated. T a �a n�C1 �t Tim. � A-. +R2 ,�. What do you believe you could contribute if appointed to an advisory board? _, `w..�o'� �i`v.ea_ ka '`�a- �'�tst-�• wry- t+^�-oxv'�--� � tn.e�- ��uS�c- a,�.. \.�cA�J :�.�z.� WAD 6Ph*N-� �%"�" A '9�A1� • 11 V How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a Board or Commission? I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following days / evenings (circle): Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes_ No X If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes __ No X If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? T- P G_k" W Gi C. r' —Rr—� YT ry ` J�•'^�M'4tj0 {i'YiE. T. ��t'�FZi— ' �'w.. O\V QawwO.M�f As required by City ordinance, if appointed to a City aevisory board, you must complete a disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk. You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates. Thank you for your interest in serving on an advisory board for the City of Rochester. Date Signature REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING z5 DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION EPREPARED IT DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO HIRE LOBBYIST FOR ROCHESTER HIGHER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INITIATIVES The Greater Rochester Area University Center Committee, GRAUC, is requesting that the City retain John Knapp from the law firm of Winthrop Weinstine to work with various groups to pursue the approval from the Legislature of the Rochester Higher Education Development Committee recommendations. The total cost of Mr. Knapp's services is not to exceed $30,000. GRAUC's 2006 appropriation from the City will be reduced by $30,000 in recognition of the fact that the City will be assuming these expenses. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Mr. Knapp for his services. • UNCILACTION: motion by: Second by: to: G February 7, 2006 Stevan Kvenvold. City Administrator 2014th Street SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Dear Steve: Enclosed is the proposal from John Knapp of the Winthrop Weinstine firm to represent the Rochester community in the 2006 Minnesota legislative session. Mr. Knapp has been asked to work with the -various groups including GRAUC and the Rochester Higher Education Development Committee to seek legislative approval of the RHEDC recommendations. Mr. Knapp is an experienced and well regarded attorney and lobbyist who was selected in consultation with representatives of the University of Minnesota, the Minncsota Office of Higher Education, IBM and Mayo Clinic. Mr. Knapp currently represents Mayo in their genomics initiatives and has worked for the University of Minnesota. He is also recommended by Bob Hentges who worked with GRAUC in the 2005 session. Although GRAUC retained a lobbyist for.the 2005 legislative session it is our request that Mr. Knapp be retained by the City of Rochester as this would reflect the a broader community effort. GRAUC would expect that its City appropriation be reduced by the amount necessary to pay for Mr. Knapp's representation. Please let me know what I can do to facilitate completing the agreement to retain Mr. Knapp in this effort. Sincerely Kathleen A. Meyerle. Chair Government Relations Committee cc: John Knapp Claudia Knowlton-Chike, President REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a (� DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATINGDEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR IT NO. �... DESCRIPTION: AGREEMENT WITH OLMSTED COUNTY RELATING TO CSAH PREPARED BY: 22/TOWNE CLUB ROAD INTERSECTION G. NEUMANN The Towne Club Development and Eastwood Golf Course improvements require the installation of intersection improvements where Towne Club Road joins Highway 14 and CSAH 22. The improvements on the new south leg of that intersection are the responsibility of the developer and the City under terms and conditions of the executed development agreement. Under that agreement the developer is responsible for 54% of the applicable costs and the City is responsible for 46% of the costs up to a maximum of $250,000. In addition some improvements will also be needed either now or in the fixture on the north leg of that intersection which is CSAH 22. The County has previously agreed that they would be responsible for the design costs and construction costs for improvements needed on CSAH 22 at this intersection. The City, County, and the developer have been working cooperatively to secure the permit needed for this new intersection with MnDOT. In our discussions we have determined that designating one party to be the lead responsible party for the design and contracting of the improvements would make more sense than having multiple contracts for the intersection improvements. The staff is recommending that the City be the responsible party for the design services and the construction subject to approval of an agreement with Olmsted County. An agreement for intersection improvements has been prepared and has been agreed to by the County staff. The City will bid the improvements and will bill the County and the developer for their respective costs as agreed to by the County in this agreement and by the developer in the development agreement. Council Action Requested. Approval of the agreement with Olmsted County for the TH 14/CSAH 22/Towne Club and 40d' Ave. SE Improvements. .,wUNCIL ACTION: MoBon by: Second by: to: I TH 14 Intersection / Roadway Improvements at CSAH 22 / Towne Club Road and at 401h Avenue SE This agreement is entered into this _ day of February, 2006, by the County of Olmsted, Minnesota ("County"), and the City of Rochester, Minnesota ("City"). WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the public's best interest for the County and City to enter into an agreement for the improvements related to the construction of a southerly roadway extension from the intersection of TH 14 and CSAH (East Circle Drive); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 471.59, the County and City may by agreement jointly implement a public improvement project. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: The City shall construct by public bid contract, the following improvements (collectively referred to as the "Construction") as shown on Exhibit A: a. Construction of southbound to eastbound left turn lane(s) within the existing CSAH 22 median. b. Construction of an eastbound to southbound right turn lane. c. Construction of an additional eastbound to northbound left turn lane within the existing TH 14 median. d. Construction of a new multi -lane south approach to the intersection. e. Construction of a westbound to southbound left turn lane within the existing TH 14 median. f. Construction of traffic signal modifications at the intersection of CSAH 22 / Towne Club Road / TH 14 intersection. g. Construction of a westbound median acceleration lane with the TH 14 median west of 40`h Avenue SE 2. The City shall prepare or have prepared the plans and specifications (collectively referred to as the "Design"). Design of the Project must receive the City Engineer's, County Engineer's and MnDOT's approval prior to construction. Design costs shall be apportioned to the County and City based on their respective share of the Construction costs. County agrees to pay its share of the Design costs within 30 days of invoicing by the City after the City's award of contract for the Construction of the Project. 3. The City shall perform or have performed construction management, construction inspection and contract administration (collectively referred to as "Inspection"). The County's Inspection cost shall be 4% of their Construction Cost. County agrees to pay its share of the Inspection costs within 30 days of invoicing by the City after the City's award of contract for the Construction of the Project. Page 1 of 3 am 4. Payment for the Construction costs, Design services and Inspection services (collectively referred to as the "Project Costs") related to the project shall based on the following: a. County's share of the Project cost obligations shall include the following: i. any construction/modification of the westbound to northbound right turn lane on TH 14. ii. Construction of all improvements on CSAH 22. iii. Improvements to the north approach to the CSAH 22 / TH 14 intersection. iv. Drainage improvements along CSAH 22 resulting from the widening of CSAH 22. v. 25% of the costs related to traffic signal modifications/installation. vi. Within 60 days of project completion there must be a final settlement of the Project Cost. As part of the final settlement, the County shall promptly pay to the City any additional monies owed or the City shall promptly reimburse the County for any overpayment. b. City's obligation for the project includes the following: i. Payments to the Contractor and the Engineering Consult shall be made in a timely fashion consistent with the terms of the specific contractual arrangements. ii. Payments for all costs in excess of the County's share of the Project Costs outlined in '*a." above. Upon installation, activation and interconnect of the traffic signal this intersection will be included in the existing County / City Signal Maintenance Agreement and the MnDOT / City Signal Maintenance Agreement and the City shall provide the day-to-day signal maintenance and shall be reimbursed for the associated cost as described in that agreement. 6. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified in this agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Richard W. Freese, City Engineer Michael T. Sheehan, County Engineer Page 2 of 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Terry L. Adkins, City Attorney CITY OF ROCHESTER By: Mayor Date: _ By: City Clerk Date: COUNTY OF OLMSTED In LE Chairperson Administrator Page 3 of 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31 DATE: 2/22/06 3ENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO� Consent Agenda City Administrator ILI cm JESCRIPTION Request to initiate an amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance PREPARED BY: and Land Development Manual standards for swimming pool fencing T. Spaeth Several months ago, the Council discussed the swimming pool fencing requirements of the zoning ordinance. Planning staff presented information and discussed enforcement issues associated with the requirements. Mr. Brad Thatcher also attended the COW meeting to ask that the Council consider the option of allowing a mechanically controlled cover in lieu of fencing around an in ground pool. After the COW meeting, Planning staff prepared amendment language for consideration (see attached). Please also see the attached memo previously sent to the Council providing a synopsis of the proposed amendments. Please note the proposed amendment language will require a fence for the "surface" swimming pools that have a depth between 24 and 48 inches. At this time, the staff has received only one comment back from Council with a concern about the proposed amendment language, and that related to the option of allowing the mechanically controlled covers for in ground pools. At this time, the staff would request that the Council initiate a text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding swimming pool fencing requirements. Public hearings would be held before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to initiate a text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding swimming pool fencing requirements. L,UUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Memo To: Mayor & Common Council Cc: Stevan Kvenvold, Gary Neumann, Terry Adkins, Phil Wheeler, Ron Livingston, Randy Klement From:Terry Spaeth Date: 12/29/2005 Re: Swimming pool fencing requirements Several months ago, the Council held a COW meeting to discuss swimming pool fencing requirements and had requested Planning staff to prepare some ordinance language related to "portable" swimming pools for Council consideration. The staff has prepared some revisions to the swimming pool definitions and fencing requirements for Council consideration (see attached). A synopsis of the proposed language changes is as follows: The definition of a swimming pool has been changed to require that water depth be greater than 24 inches, rather than 18 inches as it is presently written. Creates a definition for an" in ground" pool, which is below the natural ground level. • Changes definition of an above grade pool to an "above ground" pool, which is a pool with exposed sides are 4 feet or greater in height above ground. • Creates a definition fora surface swimming pool, which is a pool that has exposed sides greater than 24 inches but less than 4 feet in height. ( This is what was being referred to as a "portable" pool in previous discussions.). Requires fencing for in ground or surface swimming pools, however an in ground a mechanically controlled cover may be used in lieu of fencing. 9 Page 1 33 (Recall that this was a recommendation of Mr. Brad Thatcher, who attended the COW meeting and requested such an amendment.). Please review the proposed amendment and let Randy Klement at Planning or myself of any concerns that you may still have. If there are none, we will bring back an RCA in the near future requesting the Council to initiate a text amendment to the LDM. Randy can be reached at 285-8232 and I can be reached at 285-8082. • Page 2 N SWIMMING POOL: Any private pool, pond, lake or open tank not located within a completely enclosed building and capable of containing water to a depth at any point greater than GRe and GRe half (I "" feet. twenty-four (24) inches. SWIMMING POOL, IN -GROUND: A swimming pool whose sides are not exposed and are below the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. SWIMMING POOL, ABOVE QR4B€ ABOVE GROUND: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of four (4) feet or greater above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. SWIMMING POOL, 13€k9W GRA9€ SURFACE: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of over twenty-four (24) inches, but less than four (4) feet above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. 5. Private Swimming Pools and Tennis Courts: No swimming pool or tennis court shall be allowed in any residential district unless it complies with the following requirements: a) The pool or court is not operated as a business or private club, except when allowed as a permitted home occupation. b) It shall not be located in any required front or required side yard, and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any property line of the property on which it is located. Pump and filter installations for pools shall not be closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. 1) For a made an in -ground or surface swimming pool, the pool or the property upon which said pool is located shall be enclosed by a fence of a type which effectively controls the entrance by children to the pool area, said fence to be at least five (5) feet in height. Wooden fences with boards placed vertically shall not have any opening wider than four (4) inches per opening and wooden fences with boards placed horizontally shall not have any opening wider than one (1) inch per opening. For an in -ground pool, a mechanically controlled cover can be used in lieu of fencing requirements. 2) Gates installed for access to the property or pool area shall be equipped with an automatic closing and latching device to protect against uncontrolled access to the property. 3) For as above grade an above ground swimming pool, the pool shall be equipped with an automatically retractable type ladder, a retractable ladder, or a removable ladder or shall be fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,l) and said ladder to be removed or retracted when said pool is not being attended. 3S 4) If access to the pool is via a deck or porch, then no access from the ground is permitted to the deck area unless the property or the ground access to the deck is fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,l). 5) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner where said pool is located to maintain all pool covers, fences, gates and closure devices in good operating condition. 6) Failure to maintain pool covers, fences, failure to have gates closed, or failure to either remove or retract the ladder access to the pool shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore be subject to the penalties contained therein. c) Enclosed pools and courts shall be considered to be structures for purposes of regulations limiting lot coverage. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' I DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: City Administrator ITEM NO. b _ 0 IT ESCRIPTION Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Rochester PREPARED BY: and MHFA for the administration of the Housing Tax Credit Program for 2007 T. Spaeth In past years the City has entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for the administration of the Housing Tax Credit program. The existing Joint Powers Agreement for 2005 is in effect until December 31, 2007, even though for 2006, the City opted to not participate in the Housing Tax credit program since we were not aware of any potential applications for the tax credits. However; several parties have expressed interest in filing applications for the 2007 Housing tax credits. The City is slated to receive approximately $199K in housing tax credits for 2007. Under a Joint Powers Agreement, the MHFA reviews and scores applications for housing tax credits based upon the MHFA's Qualified Allocation Plan (Several years ago, the City also adopted the MHFA's Qualified Allocation Plan, rather than have it's own separate Plan.). MHFA in return, will collect the application and scoring fees from the applicants to cover their expenses. The reason for this agreement is to provide a greater efficiency by having the applicants work directly with MHFA staff, rather than through the sub-allocators (such as City of Rochester) for application for tax credits and the day to day program administration. This arrangement has worked out well in the past, and staff is seeking Council approval to amend the 2005 Joint Powers Agreement for the 2007 tax credits. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution to approve the MHFA's Qualified Allocation Plan and an MHFA Housing Tax Credit Administration Amendment to the 2005 Joint Powers Agreement for 2007 and directing Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amended Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the City of Rochester. JNCILACTION: Mouonby: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 3� . AGENDA SECTION: Consent ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bid Award Asbestos Removal ORIGINATING I Administration ITEM NO. b —1 PREPARED BY: Doug Knott -T- Sta:f seeks Council approval to award a bid for asbestos and hazardous material abatement at 300 1" Street NE. This property was acquired by the City in 2005 for the expansion of the Civic Center North Parking Lot. All of the tenants have now relocated from the building. McGhie & Betts conducted an asbestos and hazardous materials survey and prepared removal specifications for the property. Bids were solicited from four firms specializing in this type of work. The following bids were received: Enviro Tech $6,250.00 Danewick Poole $8,455.00 Mavo Systems $9,680.00 We recommend award to Enviro Tech, the low bidder. We anticipate that bids for the demolition of the building will be presented to the Council for approval on March 6, 2006. Construction of the parking lot will occur as soon as weather permits this spring. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Award of a contract to Enviro Tech in the amount of $6,250.00 for asbestos abatement and hazardous material removal at 300 1 st Street NE with the Mayor and Clerk authorized to sign contract related documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Mofion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 A Ar_FNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES DONNAR SDCHOTT 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 Ronald McDonald House 850 2"d St SW Rochester, Mo. 55902 Raffle 7/23/06 AT RCTC Sports Complex 851 30`' Ave SE American Indian Center of Rochester, Inc. 1715 Marion Rd SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Raffle 3/18/06 & 3/19/06 Optimist Club of Rochester PO Box 485 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Raffle 5/26/06 AT Radisson Plaza Hotel 150 South Broadway GAMBLING — PREMISE RENEWAL American Legion Post #92 315 1` Ave NW Rochester, Mo. 55901 LIQUOR —ON SALE TEMPORARY Channel One, Inc. 131 35't' St SE Rochester, Mn., 55904 Fundraiser 3/5/06 AT Cinemagic Theatre 2171 Superior Dr NW COUNCILACTION: Motionby: second by: to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES KKK PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 22, 2006 SIDEWALK —CEMENT Mark Esau DBA Quality Concrete 11132 Fir Ave Riceville IA. 50466 SOUND AMPLIFICATION St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church 11 4`h Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Good Friday Procession of the Cross 4/14/06 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM From Government Center to Peace Plaza MISCELLANEOUS St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church 11eAve SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Good Friday Procession of the Cross 4/14/06 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM From Government Center to Peace Plaza COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities. REQUEST FOR OOUNCIL ACTION / / MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Clerk _ C ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Transportation Franchisse - Continental Services PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr Zuhier Mohdelhassan Hammadelniel, Rochester, owner of Continental Services at 15 West Center Street, is requesting the Council approve a Public Transportation Franchise for a shuttle service passenger vehicle with seven or fewer passengers including the driver. The service is scheduled from Oakwood Broadway Plaza to various locations throughout the City and the Rochester International Airport. Issuance of the Franchise license is pending the required fee, Rochester Police Department checks in compliance with the ordinance and a certificate of insurance as required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve a Public Transportation Franchise for Zuhier Mohdelhassan Hammadelniel, Rochester, owner of Continental Services at 15 West Center Street for the period of April 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009, and instruct the City Attomey to prepare the required Ordinance for adoption. £/ 'hi iN� G COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: NEiV LICENSE DATE RECEIJ"ED RENEII'AL LICENSE RECEIPT NUMBER APPLICATION NUAIBER AMOUNT PAID CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISE LICENSE COVERING THE PERIOD OFJANUARY 1, 20 0 W NAME OF APPLICANT.L��lE (FIRST) HOME ADDRESS: NAME OF COMPANY: COMPANYADDRESS. THRO UGH DECEMBER 31, 20 6 & (FULL MIDDLE) s+_ sE , R, Ebj,�=L (LAST) ,l CoNTi,jEn1 T�L 9ER\ji ce S S690a TELEPHONE (BUSINESS) CJ .0 ) �LF-gq (D (HOME) �� a ) a 9 — i�f Sc� SOCIAL SECURPTYNUMBER: c2 1 �6-a�-'032—FEDERAL ID NUMBER: DRIVER LICENSE if c,lP 63 o 3 19 $ 5.:?o 9 STATE ID NUMBER: _ DATE OF BIRTH: o I — C7 I — ( q- THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE COMPLETEDAND/OR ACCOMPANY THE COMPLETED APPLICATION. 1. TYPE OF SERVICE PROVIDED: �J n u 2, NUMBER OF VEHICLES TO BE LICENSED: 3. MAKE MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF EACH VEHICLE: 2 DOD VEHICLE #1 VEHICLE #2 VEHICLE #3 VEHICLE #4 ) O."Iclrp, I.19 4. r STATE FIXED ROUTE OF OPERATION. 5. 0 SCHEDULE OF FEES CHARGED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY: F To LICENSE FEE: $120.00 PER YEAR PER VEHICLE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE COVERING THE FOLLOWING: NOT LESS THAN $100, 000.00 FOR BODILY INJURY TO ANY ONE PERSON NOT LESS THAN $300, 000.00 FOR INJURIES TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON WHICH ARE SUSTAINED IN THE SAME ACCIDENT NOT LESS THAN $50, 000.00 FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE RESULTING FR OMANY ONE ACCIDENT IF EMPLOYER, PROOF OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION COVERAGE (MINNESOTA STATUTE 176.182) MAKE CHECKS OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO CITY OF ROCHESTER AND RETURN TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, ROOM 135, 201 4' ST SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904. UPON ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE, LICENSE PLATES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EACH VEHICLE. (SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 02/ 15/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Finance Department Z)" I I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of $12,006,914.46 Accounts payable of $4,241,969.60 Total disbursements $16,248,884.05 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: G, l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 AC�NDA SECTION: • Consent Agenda/Organizational Business ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. l ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approving Resolutions Authorizing Interfund Advances for Various PREPARED BY: Approved Tax Increment Financing Projects Dale Martinson The 2001 Tax Bill enacted by the State legislature included a number of changes to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) law (Laws of Minnesota for 2001, First Special Session, Chapter 5, Article 15). Among them was a requirement (effective 7/31/01) for the City Council to approve an authorizing resolution before any monies are "transferred, advanced or spent, whichever is earliest" from other available City finds to pay for development or redevelopment expenses that may later become eligible for reimbursement through tax increment revenues. The City has, on several occasions, used its internal monies to pay for upfront development costs of a tax increment -eligible development on either a temporary or long term basis. When the amounts needed are small enough to be funded internally, this method is more efficient and less expensive than a public bond offering. In some cases, such as the recently approved affordable housing assistance, we are initially unsure of how much of the assistance will actually be used so determining an upfront bond size would be difficult. Additionally, we often utilize our own monies for preliminary costs such as consulting, appraisals or other costs we incur before we get a permanent TIF bond issued on a large project. If any such preliminary costs are to be eligible for subsequent TIF reimbursement, we now need to have an authorizing resolution in place prior to being made. Those resolutions must include terms of the loan or advance, including at a •expenditures minimum, the principal amount, the interest rate and the maximum term. A summary of the TIF projects that will require an interfund loan transfer, and their estimated terms, are attached. Funding for these advances is recommended to be the 1% Flood Control Sales Tax Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve resolutions authorizing advances from other funds for the previously -approved tax increment projects as listed on the attached page. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 5ho Resolution j S WHEREAS, the City of Rochester has various tax increment Financing Projects related to affordable housing that require "upfront" expenditures that later become eligible for reimbursement through tax increment revenues. Be it Resolved: That the City Council or Rochester, MN approve the Interfund Loan and Advance authority for the following TIF projects for the terms stated below: City of Rochester Interfund Loans and Advances Authority Needed Approved Projects Currently Underway as of February 6, 2006 Advances to come from the 1% Flood Control Sales Tax Fund TIF TIF TIF Maximum Maximum Interest District # Fund !f2iA Project Name Purpose Advance Term Rate 31 544 2744 Georgetowne Homes 2nd affordable housing $ 745,602 25 years 6.50% 32 545 2745 Valley Side Estates 4th affordable housing $ 614,000 25 years 6.50% 33 546 2746 Old Town Hall Project affordable housing $ 686,000 25 years 6.50% 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is true and correct copy of resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Rochester, County of Olmsted, State of Minnesota, at a duly authorized City Council Meeting held in the City of Rochester, Minnesota on the 22nd day of February, 2006, as disclosed by the records of said City on file and of record in the office. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA AT A MEETING THEREOF HELD THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2006. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12006 (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) MAYOR OF SAID REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/2006 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda/Organizational Business ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. 33 �J ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorize Online Merchant Services agreement with Wells Fargo PREPARED BY: Merchant Services Dale Martinson The City has been accepting online credit card payments for parking tickets for sometime now but we have been working to expand the offerings of City services available for purchase online. We determined it more cost effective and technically feasible to develop our own "online shopping cart" and interface with Verisign and a Merchant Service Account. At the same time, our current provider of credit card transaction processing (Wells Fargo OPS) has announced their intention to cease providing their online transaction processing service. This has caused the need to set up our own separate online merchant services account. The language of the contract is very similar to that which we currently have with Wells Fargo for our walk-in customer present credit card transactions, but has some additional requirements and arrangements specific to online (web) transactions. Wells Fargo Merchant Services offers us, as a government agency, one of the best rates available with opportunity to improve on those rates as transaction volumes increase. We anticipate rolling out some online registrations for Park and Recreation activities in the coming month with many other services to follow after that. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTON: Authorize online merchant services agreement with Wells Fargo Merchant Services for the City's online (web) payment transactions. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: Cii ""JDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance Department ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorize licensing, implementation and support services with NBS PREPARED BY: Government Finance Group for D-Fast Software for the tracking of Infrastructure Dale Martinson Charges Council may recall discussion of this project that was authorized in the 2006 — 2011 CIP program as "Other Projects #18, J1946." The continued growth in the number and types of developer charges the City must track to equitably recover the costs in incurs for the installation of infrastructure (streets, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, traffic lights, etc.) has driven the need for us to implement a more flexible and complete system to track them all. Our previous system of tracking just special assessments (as defined in State Statute 429) is insufficient as we have found more creative an flexible methods to recover our costs from developers so as to not unduly burden them. There are, however, literally millions of dollars in outstanding obligations that we must assure get recovered eventually. A team of staff from the departments of public works, city clerk, finance and information systems have reviewed alternatives available and have determined that D-Fast software, offered by NBS Government Finance Group offers a flexible solution to address our needs at a reasonable cost. The system would be accessible by employees from each of these departments and would eventually tie in as a layer in our GIS system to assist in tracking and analyzing these expenditures and outstanding receivables. The agreement specifies a licensing cost of $37,500, annual maintenance of $7,500 and training and installation costs not to exceed $6,000. An additional $6,000 is allowed as a not -to -exceed cost for data conversion costs, but we do not anticipate needing this. Our initial phase would not convert our existing 429 special assessment charges so we would only be paying '/2 of the first two amounts initially. If we eventually decide to convert these assessments from our old system, we would incur the remaining licensing and support costs. We anticipate little or no additional hardware costs as we will be utilizing our existing SQL database servers and storage systems. The City Attorney has reviewed and negotiated amendments to the agreements to better protect the City. We would like to get this system installed and our staff trained on it before the next phase of development contracts, owner contracts, connection agreements and contribution agreements gets fully underway for the 2006 construction season. Those would be entered into this system as approved with our backlog of existing agreements being entered over the summer, perhaps with the assistance of summer interns. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize licensing, implementation and support service agreements with NBS Government Finance Group for the implementation of D-Fast software. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire ITEM NO. b- ITEM DESCRIPTION: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION PREPARED BY: DC Felsch Rochester Fire Department requests approval to accept donations received from the "David Clark Memorial Fund" to go toward Fire Prevention Programs. As of February 9th, we have received $1,028. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval to accept donations from the David Clark Memorial Fund. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 2/22/06 OncuDA ORIGINATING DEPT ITEM NO. Human Resources Z�N' ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Memorandum of Understanding - AFSCME and City of Rochester regarding Article 12, Layoff and Recall Linda Gilsrud During the last set of collective bargaining negotiations between AFSCME and the City of Rochester, the two parties agreed to form a labor/management team to discuss and to clarify language in Article 12 of the collective bargaining agreement that applies to seniority and layoff. Representing AFSCME were Jo Eastvold, AFSCME Business Representative, Cathy Bakken, Kim Hanson, Kari Haines, and Lisa Krueger. Representing the City were Audrey Belcher, Roy Sutherland, and Linda Gilsrud The parties have agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding modifying the language. The Memorandum of Understanding is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the Memorandum of Understanding COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER AND AFSCME LOCAL 319 The parties agree to the following changes to ARTICLE 12. Layoff and Recall language. This language will replace the current contract language upon ratification by both parties. 12. LAYOFF AND RECALL A. The City in its discretion shall determine whether layoffs are necessary unless it is clearly established that such a determination is arbitrary. Although not limited to the following, layoffs shall ordinarily be for lack of work and/or lack of funds. If it is determined that layoffs are necessary, each job title will be laid off in the following order: 1. Part-time employees not included in the bargaining unit; 2. Employees in their initial trial work period; and 3. Total city seniority and job title seniority shall be considered in the event of further layoffs as follows: a. The last employee hired in a job title with the least total city seniority shall be laid off. b. If that employee had been promoted within the city, that employee may assume the position of the employee with the least total city seniority of the job title in which the employee previously worked. c. Employees laid off shall have the right to assume lesser jobs within the department providing they are qualified, as determined by the Department Head, to perform the work associated with the lesser job and that they have more seniority than the employee they displace. d. Employees who have been notified of layoff or who are on layoff status will be given first consideration for comparable openings in departments other than their own, within the bargaining unit, after individuals exercising job title seniority and total city seniority rights. 4. The City shall issue written notice to any employee subject to layoff at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the layoff. The City will also issue written notice to the Union President. FOR THE CITY OF ROCHESTER: FOR AFSCME COUNCIL 65, LOCAL 319: Mayor AFSCME Staff Representative City Clerk Local President Date: Date: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING V / DATE: 2/22/06 ArFNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police _ I � —i ITEM DESCRIPTION: NightCAP Grant Program PREPAREDs : Roger Peterson The Rochester Police Department would like to apply for the Operation NightCAP — Annual Plan Grant Program through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Minnesota State Patrol. The contract dates are for 2006. Operation NightCAP (night-time concentrated alcohol patrol) is an impaired driving prevention program that involves law enforcement saturation efforts throughout the state. These saturations are coordinated by staff in each of the Minnesota State Patrol districts and include participation by county and local law enforcement agencies. Overtime saturations are concentrated in the 14 counties that have the highest number of alcohol - related fatal and serious crashes. Olmsted County is one of the counties on the list. Overall, Operation NightCAP has proven to be one of the most successful currently underway in Minnesota targeting impaired driving. This is a reimbursement grant for which there is no match. Reimbursement will be made for hours that officers work on a day off or on a shift extension. The City is responsible for operating costs including maintenance and repairs of squad cars used in performance of the grant. Grant funds are not expected to exceed $2,000.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to apply and accept Operation NightCAP grant funds and to enter into a grant agreement with the Commissioner of Public Safety, Sate Patrol Division, for the project entitled NightCAP Grant Program.during the period 2006. Further, it is requested that the Police Chief, Mayor, and City Clerk be authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Rochester, Rochester Police Department. COUNCIL ACTION: Moaonby: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING WIS U3 2/20/06 A^�NDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement to Initiate Nondegradation PREPARED BY: Analysis j d B. Huberty Minnesota rules require permittees who submit an application for an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit must complete a nondegradation analysis. When the Minnesota Pollutio: Control Agency (MPCA) issued the first Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit in March 2003, this requirement was not included. A court case ensued and, as a result, the MPCA was told to revise the MS4 permit to include a nondegradation analysis requirement. Therefore, when the revised permit is issued on February 28, 2006, Minnesota's 30 largest and fastest growing cities will need to complete a nondegradation analysis to meet this new requirement. The City has selected Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (hereafler, the Consultant) for this work due to their storm water management expertise and their extensive Rochester -specific experience and knowledge to prepare the required submittals. The nondegradation analysis will need to determine how past growth (1988 to the present) and expected growth (present to 2020) have increased or will increase storm water flows and pollutant loads. The analysis will also need to evaluate whether our existing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) are adequate to control these changes or whether new BMPs need to be added to our Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Rochester's analysis will need to address "all waters" and "waters with restricted discharges" (i.e., wetlands, calcareous fens, discharges affecting endangered and threatened species, and discharges affecting source water protection areas). The work associated with this analysis will be complex, MPCA guidance is somewhat ambiguous, and Rochester has only 15 months to prepare its MPCA submittals. Accordingly, a phased approach is recommended, as follows: Phase 1 — Preliminary Work. The Consultant will gather, review, and assess existing information that will be needed to model the specified changes in storm water flows and pollutant loads. This assessment will identify data gaps that will need to be filled before Phase 2 can be finished. Upon assessment of this data and in collaboration with the other 29 cities, the Consultant will develop a defensible modeling approach for Phase 2. Also as part of Phase 1, the Consultant will develop appropriate methodology to determine infiltration potential to address increased storm water volumes. Phase 2 — Loading Assessment. The Consultant will fill critical data gaps and proceed with modeling the specified time periods to determine changes in storm water flows and pollutant loads. They will also evaluate the efficacy of our existing BMPs to offset those increases. Phase 3 — Nondegradation Report and MPCA Submittals. The Consultant will prepare a narrative report to the MPCA that discusses the findings of the Loading Assessment and BMP evaluation. If the existing BMPs and SWPPP are inadequate to control increased storm water flows and pollutant loading back to 1988 levels, the Consultant will need to evaluate BMP alternatives, recommend new BMPs for Rochester's SWPPP, and facilitate the public input and permit modification process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates to complete Phase 1 of the nondegradation analysis in an amount not to exceed $46,839, with funding from the Stonn Water Utility. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 �NDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITE NO, — Iq ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #27; Project 9408 (J2247) PR�PARED BY: T.H. 14 /52 Design Build M. Easley "r' The MNDOT / City of Rochester, ROC 52 Design Build Project provided for the construction of new bridges and interchanges at 19`h St. N.W., Civic Center Drive, 2nd St. S.W. and 61h St. S.W. With the recommendation of the ROC 52 Architectural and Aesthetic Design Committee and the design guide established for the project, these four interchanges are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs and plantings in the islands, boulevards and adjacent City lands. For the purpose of maintaining the plantings irrigation conduits were provided for in the ROC 52 bridge construction plans and a water service was provided near each structure for future irrigation to planters on the bridges. The Engineer deems it prudent and economical to add additional irrigation conduits under the roadways at these four interchanges to connect islands and boulevards to the irrigation conduits placed in the bridges, to provide for irrigation to the future planting areas. MNDOT has prepared Supplemental Agreement #27, Project 9408 (J2247) in the amount of $45,591.28 to cover the cost of: 1. A total of 2,350' of 4" PVC Conduit under the roadways connecting landscape beds at the four interchanges. MNDOT Estimating has reviewed these costs and finds them acceptable. Costs associated with Supplemental Agreement #27 are City Share in accordance with the HWY 14 / 52 Municipal Cost Share Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment for Supplemental Agreement # 27, in the amount of$45,591.28 Project 9408 (J2247) HWY 14152 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: JITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D--010 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration c Phase 2, J7751 Sanitary Sewer, I PREPARED BY: LJ J. Loehr Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M., February 14, 2006 for the following local improvement project: Project No. M1-95-2-06, J7751 "Bear Creek Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve Portions of Sewer District 16 in Marion Township, Phase 2." The following bids were received: A-1 Excavating $1,362,314.84 Low Bid Elcor Construction $1,432,197.00 Three Rivers Construction $1,588,342.20 Heselton Construction $1,686,074.44 Hodgman Drainage $1,704,259.40 McHugh Excavating $1,724,613.96 Arcon Construction $1,736,816.50 Engineer's Estimate $1,289,126.50 The project Feasibility Reportwas adopted by the City Council on January 7, 2002 A request to amend the Feasibility Report will be presented to the City Council within 60 days. The amendment will be based on the executed Development Agreement between Platinum Development and the City, and based on changes to the sanitary sewer alignment to meet the sewerage needs of Rochester Towne Club Development and other future development in the Bear Creek Sewer Service Area. The City Council will be requested to establish the project rates at the time the amended Feasibility Report is presented to Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to A-1 Excavating in the amount of $1,362,314.84. Attachment: Project Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: sew"d by: to: 133HS 31111 M ' �' �� 2�. '_. •• £,k�i �� 'J 3153H ]tJM'JIFIfN.\\Ul iJl)IiI41V •� ! ' _ gee q� 41U)3NNIIV � � • g� 51N3443AOi1 K a3rN3S A:1V11NV'S Z 3SV'Hd _ d s '__s7a;yG 113N135,UIV11NV'S 3NMNna-B(15.`13RD VV38 S sN I..0 L J Q /WZ�- VN� W O LU ..� \U z Z O Z w W J �U O Z crn r8,10 }- a rvolo � 2 m F— Z Ln w Z N w noo w al� ULf) �_� w a- m 3 to y < 2 C O2O F C. O2 O Ci 2 Q F I�n 4 F �! _ = ZSS U In K J �� O u / BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No.: M1-95 and M1-95-2-06 J No: J9869 Phase 1 and J7751 Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Sub-Trunkline Roadway Restoration, Seed & Sod Construction Cost Engineering/Interest/Contingency Total Construction & Expense Bear Creek Phase 1 (J9869) Sub -Total Easements Total Construction Cost and Expense Cost Distribution Chester Heights Sewer District Valleyside Subdivision Thein Contribution Agreement Future Sewer Availability Charges Future Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges to 5-lots on 20th Street SE Future Sewer and Water Service Connection Charges to 5-lots on 20th Street SE Project Budget $ 911,130.00 $ 57,750.00 $ 968,880.00 $ 290,664.00 $ 1,259,544.00 $ 96,300.00 $ 136,791.00 $ 568,709.00 $ 457,744.00 Bid Cost $ 1,188,036.70 $ 174,278.14 $ 1,362,314.84 $ 340,578.71 $ 1,702,893.55 $ 419,217.91 $ 2,122,11136 $ 31,000.00 $ 2,153,111.36 $ 96,300.00 $ 94,930.72 $ 1,888,861.76 $ 46,410.00 $ 7,500.00 Previously Collected Water Availability Charges for Non Chargeable Watermain on 20th Street SE $ 19,108.88 TOTAL $ 1,259,544.00 $ 2,153,111.36 Final Cost REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 02/22M erPNDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D . a, I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J7237) PREPARED BY: Reconstruct Alley in 500 Block between 9th Ave SW & 10th Ave SW A d R. Kelm This is a Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for the following local improvement project: Pro-ect: City No. M5-21 (J7237) Reconstruct Alley in 500 Block between 9th Ave SW & 10th Ave SW. Project Background: A request was made on April 18, 2005 for reconstruction of the residential alley. The petition was signed by 7 of the 9 property owners representing 78 percent of the frontage abutting the project to be made. An informational meeting was held with the abutting property owners on November 17, 2005. 5 of the 9 property owners attended the meeting. Their support for an alley reconstruction project resulted in this preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report and request for project and assessment hearings. Estimated Project Costs: February 20. 2006 Engineer Estimate Cost Construction: 300 - Alley $54 000.00 200 - Sanitary $2 900.00 $56,900.00 Project Cost Distribution: February 20, 2006 Fundin Distribution: Engineer Estimate Cost Rochester Local Funds - May $37 382.93 Rochester Loral Funds - Sanitary Sewer $2 900.00 Special Assessments - Fronte a $16117.07 TOTAL $56,900.00 Distribution Percentages: City Local Share 65.70% City Sanitary Share 5.10% S ecial Assessments Share 29.20% TOTAL 100.0% Recommendation: We report the project is feasible and recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). City Local Share to be funded by J-2200. 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 20, 2006. Attachments: Petition and Feasibility Report . JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR: RECONSTRUCT ALLEY IN 500 BLOCK BETWEEN 9TH A V E SW & L O T H A V E SW February 20, 2006 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project: Reconstruct Alley in 500 Block between 9th Ave SW & 10th Ave SW, was referred to the Public Works Department on April 18, 2005 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. The petition was signed by 7 of the 9 property owners representing 78 percent of the frontage abutting the project to be made. Feasibility Report We report the project is feasible and recommend its reconstruction. The existing concrete pavement has been overlaid with bituminous that has pealed away causing ponding of water. Reconstruction will provide a new concrete surface which will convey the stormwater meeting the desires of the abutting residential properties. The costs of this project should be paid from City local funds and assessment charges to abutting property owners Recommendations: We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost- effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications: February 20. 2006 Engineer Estimate Cost Construction: 300 - Street $54 000.00 200 - Sanitary $2,900.00 $56,900.00 FEBRUARY 15. 2006 Special Assessments —Alley Fronta?e: The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy for the year 2006 is $23.74 per assessable foot of the abutting residential properties as shown in the table below: Alley Reconstruction Rates Rate yr 2006 $Ift frontage feet Total Cost Residential Zones $23.74 599.96 $16,617.07 Commercial Zones $70.53 $0.00 Industrial Zones $70.53 $0.00 Subtotal $16,617.07 All special assessments may be levied for a period of five years with interest charged at a rate of 5.75% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. Fundine Distribution: The costs of this project should be paid from City local funds and assessment charges to abutting property owners February 20, 2006 Funding Distribution: Engineer Estimate Cost Rochester Local Funds - Alley $37 362.93 Rochester Local Funds - Sanitary Sewer $2 900.00 S ecial Assessments - Frontage $16,617.07 TOTAL $56,900.00 Submitted for your consideration: Russ Kelm, Project Manager Approved: Richard W. Freese, PE City Engineer I''D.PRO.II:a'TS'.!-PP.O.P.I'237\OcsimiiDncv'J casibilin Rcpnrt.17237DOC — 3 — FEBRUARY 15, 2006 Alley Reconstruction in the 500 block between 9th Ave S W & 10th Ave SW P PRo IECISU-PROPJ 7237\DesigninncstFusibility ReportJ7237. CX K' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING sr-GNDA SECTION: DATE: 2-22-06 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works �- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement (J2247 and J2269): Fiber optic traffic ppEPARED BY: signal interconnect at TH 63 & 401h Street South interchange R. D. KramerL,,,.r, As part of the ROC 52 project, fiber optic cable has or will be installed along TH 63 from TH 52 to 48'h St S. The purpose of the fiber optic cable is to transmit data related to Mn/DOT's "Intelligent Transportation System" (ITS) equipment, such as cameras, vehicle speed and congestion detectors, and changeable message signs. The installation of this fiber optic cable provides an opportunity for better and lower cost traffic signal interconnect to the 401h St S interchange, rather than installing separate interconnect cable to connect with the existing interconnect at 28`h Street S. The ROC 52 project contractor, Zumbro River Constructors (ZRC), has provided a proposal of $12,031.70 for additional work and equipment to be able to use the fiber optic cable to interconnect to the traffic signals at the TH 63 & 40t' St S interchange. The city's share is $8,442.19. The extra work will be administered by MnDOT and invoiced to the city as part of the ROC 52 project, J2247. However, the work benefits the TH 63 & 40`h St S interchange project, and the city's cost will be charged to the TH 63 & 40`h St S interchange project, J2269. Note to City Clerk: Please file in both J2247 and J2269 files. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve entering into an agreement for "Work Order 89, Minor Extra Work" with MnDOT and Zumbro River Constructors on the TH 52 reconstruction project from 85 St NW to TH 63 ("ROC 52"), J2247, for additional work for 40`h Street S traffic signal interconnection, with the city's cost share $8,442.19, and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. D_23 I M DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids: Washed Sand, Gravel, Crushed Rock, Pea Gravel, PREPARED BY: Plant Mixed Bituminous, Ready -mixed Concrete, and Cutback Asphalt Jennifer King The Rochester Public Works Department requests approval to have the City Clerk advertise for the 2006 Season Supply of Washed Sand, Gravel, Crushed Rock, Pea Gravel, Plant Mixed Bituminous, Ready -mixed Concrete, and Cutback Asphalt. The City Council approved funding for these materials in the 2006 budget. • COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the City Clerk to advertise bids for the 2006 Season Supply of Washed Sand, Gravel, Crushed Rock, Pea Gravel, Plant Mixed Bituminous, Ready -mixed Concrete, and Cutback Asphalt. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22106 AGENDA SECTION: A Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works p -Z4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement —Rochester Towne Club Second I PREPARED BY: Supplemental Agreement M. Nigbur_e`-," The Owner, Platinum Development Group, Inc., of Rochester Towne Club Subdivision and the City Staff have held discussions relating to amending the existing Development Agreement. The agreement includes the following amendments: • Requires Owner to provide payment to the City of an additional +-$136,364.88 to cover the City's carrying cost for other area owners served by the Bear Creek Sewer extension project. • Extends the timeframe for bidding of the REA sanitary sewer trunkline to 6/1/06 Staff recommends the Council approve the Second Supplemental Agreement to the Development Agreement for Rochester Towne Club Subdivision. The Owner has executed the agreement. ROCHESTER TOWNE it LAND SWAP EXHIBIT YAGGY COLEY �IS. 112 SEC. 5 �ND SWAP SEC- 6 SWAP UBHOUSE L"D SWAP PLATINUM To crry-7 '��If 1�61•� �q \\per ��11111Gi1\►1�`� ■ f i- •�•��/^way v�fy wu',.R� Fw�Lu COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Second Supplemental Agreement to the Development Agreement for Rochester Towne Club Subdivision with Platinum Development Group, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: ' -12-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: [PREPARED EM NO. JBLIC HEARINGS - Continued Item PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South BY: Brent Svuiby, Senior Planner February 14, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated February 9, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following modificationstconditions: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees shall be paid, per the January 30, 2006 memo from the G1S/Addressing Staff. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via land dedication as specified in the January 25, L2005memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. The Owner Is obligated for providing a 10' wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of le Avenue SW and 4dh Street SW. The Owner shall dedicate Outlot B for a mid -block pedestrian connection and construct the required pedestrian path connection within the Outlot. 4. The Owner shall be responsible for the cost of construction of the by-pass lane on le Avenue SW (Co. Rd. 147). Prior to the recording of the final plat documents the Owner shall execute the agreement between Arcon Development and Olmsted County for the by-pass lane. 5. No Parking signs shall be posted along the following roadways: a. No parking on Taurus Court SW, the entire length from Gemini Drive SW to Gemini Drive SW, on the inside (south) side of the roadway. b. No parking on Odyssey Drive SW, from 40t6 Street to a point 120' more or less north of 40ib Street SW, both sides of the roadway. c. No parking on Starburst Drive SW, from 18m Avenue SW to a point 120' more or less west of 181b Avenue SW, both sides of the roadway. d. No parking on Gemini Drive SW, froml8th Avenue SW to the easterly intersection with Taurus Court SWM, 6. Prior to the recording of the final plat Storm Water Management & Sediment Control during development needs to be addressed. It the Owner intends to utilize an existing drainage channel vs providing on -site sediment control, then the Owner shall execute a Storm Water Facilities Use Agreement prior to the recording of the final plat 7. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the revis� grading and drainage plan and construction plans shall be approved. J� Council Action Needed: A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 500 ft. Notification Area of Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South located in Pt SW 1/4 Sec 22 Rochester TWP Final Plat #04-28 by Arcon Development Inc. PINS:64.22.32.075189:64.22.31.075191; 64.22.31.075192; 64.22.32.075190; 64.22.34.073830;64.22.33,069365 Council Ward: 3 Neigh. Assoc: None 1123/06 a AIR N MF C. 1,. GIs.11 Is rql rnpeviblelarommif PI or DI—t.21M1erein.REDom E.1are IwMwhin.,(WT pueendlly ne GlS Giesion,P hesbr.Gin,are Gounq Pbmag ppMmnl.P1S Campus prior GE. Rodwaix,MN 559W,�SpiI]FS.B]]2 A 2�9�R°R A� TFj Y�i1 W 8 [aYf.. iY § o �av 11Lll,DS995 ,/l as �vl s ja[g Q 44% OD'OOZL " �9�r� 0 We wwe aem,wJ •,Y 'S 4 13 3 H 1 S u° if .l 0 Y 0 P g — LIL.wiR o—Rp�b i p• R11�.%GiS �G! W 99 w r al .wAs a+ x N v I F1 8 I6 IT H [ A 5 a 7 r j s - _ �� " 3 A f N a —_ _ _y S In a R n4 y C 1 aYis ,fir L IliariM4 1 1 ^ T� "1 VI I q •¢ i °P T4,6 �ne $'n 1��_ 3LliLAM Ni LSAX ,`Y S � 1 M I '��\l• W9L1 inL4 k4 rr r $ qq"w O !! 1 '$ 9 Y a _•• .5 ria�*° .7 A'f U a Jim I N 3 9 g co st It Y■ ? � ��`{ .rrAoei+O LQ'i w " ki G \ aS yue�N,o,IL-- .A d'" 'AA . 3 p r -At tan03 Sni/nY11 1 �{{ wlit 3 AM A N uMl vn A 1 R N n en•[( as N' 0 ° zl ys a wm ee wavy 1 vH �+ MLij .,� cc 1N,ll�00ZL rn Ia txn : 7. - .d33N,d5 HL 0P 6$ r� 0r 06 9—n— 0I LIQ W�\ fly a €e p 'jiiwl 0" 5 w \ yp Lr m K H.44= p-- S T A R°' U R S O O II? w +g T w �R 111 ■1 1� J' plrtlYM ` + wg W 8 * N G • � KII. t as ae _,y07•LII F- {� il��6. KatD1 Z O i wsrr �� {' y KOFT p V 'A'S S Q� roi x ad a A� 91 wnsr � wwn jryz'e A CO �- LLI y O N � Q y� ` ajC rarsau ~ L'V W S6L�'YHS JO P S,Y�HS XVS ;[�J] W W ld- U?, 11SBN•HJ Y , s 3 �-gp'�� a F g N lili HN IOga4lON, pill] f SLUMS FAA 0 . E� � Z9 ME D i TO: FROM DATE: RE: ROCHESTER-OLbISTED PLANNING DEPARTDIENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 c u UK T r OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby, Senior Planner February 14, 2006 Dt •Ru C ilF 5 TER •.tll.4:1A. ' �i x(1(:U Final Plat #04-28 by Arcon Development Inc. to be known as hart Farm South. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Arcon Development Inc. 7625 Metro Blvd., Suite 350 Edina, MN 55439 Surveyors/Engine McGhie & Betts, Inc. ers: 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Report 1. Referral Comments Attachments: 2. Copy of Final Plat Development Review: Location of The property is located along the west side of 181h Avenue SW and along Property: the north side of 40 Street SW. Zoning: Blocks 1-10 and outlots A and B are zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Lots 1-4, Block 11 and all of Block 12 is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) while Lot 5, Block 11 and Outicts C and D is zoned B-5 (Residential Commercial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 53.51 acres into Development: 77 lots for single family residential development and 4 outlots. Townhome units will be constructed on lots 1-3, Block 11 and all lots in Block. Streets: The Plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for a number of new public roadways. The plat will allow Odyssey Drive SW to connect to 181h Avenue SW. The plat also provides two new roadway connections to 181h Avenue SW. Utilities: Public utilities plans have been approved by the City to serve the BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIVADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/265-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 _, _ AN EOUAL OPPORTIINITV/6FFIaM8TI11F Page 2 February 14, 2006 development. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalk) are required at the Owner's expense, along both sides of all new public roadways within this Subdivision as well as a bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22). Drainage: The grading and drainage plan was approved by the City on January 9, 2006; however, slight modifications are needed because of the reconfiguration of some of the lots. Prior to the recording of the final plat mylars the grading and drainage plan will need to be approved. If the Owner intends to utilize an existing drainage channel vs providing on -site sediment control, then the Owner shall execute a Storm Water Facilities Use Agreement prior to the recording of the final plat. Wetlands: No wetlands are located on this portion of the property. Parkland Parkland dedication should be met via land dedication. The applicant will Dedication: have .07 acres if excess dedication credit for use in future SW plats. Tree/Brush The applicant has indicated that there are no trees on the site that will be Disposal: disposed of. General This property is part of the Hart Farms GDP and Hart Farms South GDP. Development Plan: PreliminarV Plat: The Council approved a preliminary plat for this area on September 8, 2004. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to seven (7) conditions: The conditions are listed below: 1. The Plat shall be revised. a. Changing the roadway type Boa Circle SW to "BOA COURT SW", Odyssey Avenue SW to "ODYSSEY DRIVE SW'; and Cobra Street SW to "COBRA ROAD SW. b. Designate the roadway between Cobra Street S W and 40rh Street SW as "GALAXY DRIVE SW". c. Rename the roadway Coral Avenue SW, keeping Avenue and S W. d. Dedicating a 20' minimum public utility easement between two lots in Block 9 if the 12" water main stub -out that is needed to serve the unplatted property to the south Is located within Block 9. e. Dedicating 60' right-of-way for 18'h Avenue SW and 407h Street SW allowing sufficient area to construct the required pedestrian facilities within the right-of- way. f. In addition to the controlled access along the entire frontage of 18"' Avenue SW and 40`h Street SW with the exception of the approved public road access g3 Page 3 0 February 14, 2006 locations, additional controlled access shall be provided as recommended in the memorandum from City Public Works, dated July 30, 2004. 2. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to submitting the Final Plat for the area of the plat that is zoned R-1. For the areas of this plat that are zoned R-2 and B-5, Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development. The GDP indicates that private on -site detention facilities will be constructed on proposed Outlot 'B", to serve this development. Final determination on whether this facility will be built as a permanent structure on an Outlot, or whether it will be on an easement, as a temporary sediment control structure that will be removed by the developer once the portion of the Hart Farm South that drains to the facility is developed, will be addressed in the Development Agreement. in addition, the future property line grading abutting, and street elevations intersecting 401h Street S W must match the future 40'h Street SW proffle as determined by the City. 3. Pedestrian facilities are required at the Owner's expense along both sides of all new public roads within this development. In addition, the Owner is obligated for providing a 10' wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of 18`h Avenue SW and 40'h Street SW. The Owner is required to dedicate to the City, upon request, the proposed mid -block pedestrian connections on separate Outlots, and construct the required pedestrian path connections within the Outlots. 4. Dedication of parkland shall be met via: Deferred land dedication to be met through the dedication of the neighborhood park, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department In the attached memo, dated July 26, 2004. 5. Access permits are required from the Olmsted County Engineer for access to 18`' Avenue SW and 40'h Street SW. Turn lanes and by-pass lanes will be required with the development of this plat. 6. The following are parking restrictions that shall be applied to the subdivision, as determined by City Public Works — Traffic Division and shall be posted "No Parking": • No parking on Boa Cir SW, the entire length from Diamondback Dr SW to Diamondback Or SW, on the Inside (south) side of the loop. (28' road] • No parking on Galaxy Or SW, from 40'h St SW to Cobra St S W, both sides. • No parking on Odyssey Ave SW, from 4e St SW to a point 120' more or less north of 40'h St SW, both sides. • No parking on Copperhead Dr SW, from 18'h Ave SW to a point 120' more or less west of ie Ave SW, both sides. • No parking on Diamondback Dr SW, from 18'h Ave SW to the easterly Intersection with Boa Clr SW, both sides. Because on and off site public facilities are currently Inadequate to handle the proposed development, the development must be phased -in In a manner consistent with the City's planned infrastructure Improvements. As such, no development will occur and no further development permit will be Issued until the Council determines public facilities are adequate to accommodate this development. Alternatively, should the developer voluntarily agree to Join with the City In making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, the developer may enter into a Development Agreement that outlines the developer's and City's obligations relating, but not limited, to: storm water management, transportation improvements Page 4 February 14, 2006 including right and left turn lanes as the proposed street intersections with 40f8 Street SW, access control, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 61.1101, 2.a.1 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alteration as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal for movement on the entire parcel in excess of 100,000 cubic yards. Because of the amount of materials being moved on the site exceeds 100,000 cubic yards thb grading work being done on the site is classified as an substantial land alteration. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suggested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alteration, staff recommends the following findings to Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The grading plan will not result in unstable slopes or excessive traffic. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) Limited off -site fill will be required so the impact to the safety and maintenance of the public roadways will be reduced. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area is being re -graded to provide adequate slopes for single family dwellings. 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Page 5 February 14, 2006 8) The grading will be completed within one phase. There are homes in the immediate area that will be visually affected by the grading activity for only a short time during the grading process. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Grading of the site is such that run-off will be directed to appropriate locations in the roadways and handled through the City's Storm Water Management Plan. 11) The areas of grading do not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not affect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed within one phase. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner -contract process for this development. If grading is to occur prior to an owner -contract, a separate surety will need to be provided. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) All material cut or fill within the project area is coming from or staying on the property. There will be no burden of use on the public roadways. 2) Not applicable. 3) Not applicable. 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable. 6) Not applicable. 7) Not applicable. 8) Not applicable. U Page 6 February 14, 2006 Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and would recommend approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions / modifications: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees shall be paid, per the January 30, 2006 memo from the GIS/Addressing Staff. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via land dedication as specified in the January 25, 2005 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. The Owner is obligated for providing a 10' wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of le Avenue SW and 40"' Street S W. The Owner shall dedicate Outiot 8 for a mid -block pedestrian connection and construct the required pedestrian path connection within the Outiot. 4. The Owner shall be responsible for the cost of construction of the by-pass lane on 181h Avenue SW (Co. Rd. 147). Prior to the recording of the final plat documents the Owner shall execute the agreement between Arcon Development and Olmsted County for the by-pass lane. 5. No Parking signs shall be posted along the following roadways: • No parking on Taurus Court SW, the entire length from Gemini Drive SW to Gemini Drive SW, on the inside (south) side of the roadway. • No parking on Odyssey Drive SW, from 40rh Street to a point 120' more or less north of41P Street SW, both sides of the roadway. • No parking on Starburst Drive SW, from 18'h Avenue SW to a point 120' more or less west of le Avenue SW, both sides of the roadway. • No parking on Gemini Drive SW, from 18th Avenue SW to the easterly intersection with Taurus Court SW. 6. Prior to the recording of the final plat Storm Water Management & Sediment Control during development needs to be addressed. if the Owner intends to utilize an existing drainage channel vs providing on -site sediment control, then the Owner shall execute a Storm Water Facilities Use Agreement prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the revised grading and drainage plan and construction plans shall be approved. I• ROCHESTER Mew TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 1/31/06 REVISED APPLICATION COMMENTS 2/10/06 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 REVISED application for Final Plat #04-28. for the proposed Hart Farm South subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this request from 1/31/06. NEW comments are indicated in BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed by the revised plat are indicated in , A Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract have been executed for this Property. Development of this Property is subject to the terms of [lie Agreement & Contract. Storm Water Management & Sediment Control during development needs to be addressed prior to recording the Final Plat. As currently proposed the Owner intends to utilize an existing drainage channel an eAsting Regional eentml vs providing on -site sediment control. Use of the City's facilities will require the execution of a Storm Water Facilities Use Agreement. 4. No Parking will be permitted on Taurus Cir SW. 5. Revised Grading Plan approval is required prior to recording the Final Plat Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property have been included in the Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract. C:\Documents and Settings\plabsven\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FIIes\OLK198\FP04-28 Hart Farm South REVISED 2-10-06.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE - SUITE 200 ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 www.olmstedpublicvvorks.com 507.285.8231 January 31, 2006 Stephanie Foster Planning Department Dear Stephanie: The Public Works Department has reviewed Final Plat #04-28, to be known as Hart Farm South, by Arcon Development Inc. and has the following comments: Arcon Development Inc. will be required to pay for the by-pass lane on Co. Rd 147 (181h Ave SM. Agreement between Arcon Development and Olmsted County will be required. Sincerely, //Ut^' �.Geb-A-1 Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS/ss C: Arcon Development McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1 TAPWDATAIENGINDOC1Planning Zoning LetterstPLANZONE.DOC �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .�.�. <eQRochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507) 285.8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: January 30, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Ed Kuisle; Jan Chezick; McGhie & Betts Inc. RE: HART FARM SOUTH FINAL PLAT # 04-28 REVISED UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE PLAT IS RECORDED. THIS APPLIES TO ALL PLATS RECORDED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2005. E911 ADDRESSING FEE: $5390.00 (77 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $1665.00 (81 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats must be legally recorded before request for address Applications are submitted to E911 Addressing Staff-Rochester/Olmsted Comity Planning Dept. A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: Upon review of HART FARM SOUTH the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. 0�' ROCHESTER PARK AND I. -:CREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Hart Farm South Final Plat #04-28 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 53.51 Number of dwelling units ............................................. 209 Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 5.10 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. NA The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Land dedication in the form of Outlot A Hart Farm South. Dedication to occur when the site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development. The applicant has 0.60 acres of parkland credits as a result of the Aug 2005 dedication via metes and bounds of the north 3.45 acres of what is to be platted as Outlot A of this plat. The City will need to sign this plat as part of Outlot A is currently owned by the City. The applicant to be extended an additional credit of4.57 acres once dedication of the 8.02 Outlot A is dedicated to the city. The applicant will have 0.07 acres of excess dedication credit for use in future SW plats. C:\Documents and Settingslplajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK61\HART FARM SOUTH.DOC G ru February 9, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: Final Plat #04-28 by Arcon Development to be known as Hart Farm South. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections. The approved utility plans must be revised prior to construction. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have 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 Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsim le 507-280-1542 i p,, IV? pledge, wr drfevrr DATE: January 25, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities 280-1579 SUBJECT: Final Plat #04-28 to be known as Hart Farm South by Arcon Development Inc. The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 53.51 acres of land into 77 lots for single family residential development and 4 outlots. The plat also dedicates right-of- way for new public roadways and land for a public park. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for the movement of earth on the entire parcel in excess of 100,000 cubic yards. The property is located along the west side of 18th Avenue SW and along the north side of 40th Street SW. RPU's Core Services Division review of the above -referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections. Sincerely, 1--�1'ema40 -- jb Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: ✓� �'L% ^ JDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Hearings Finance Department 4E-C7� ITEM DESCRIPTION: A Public Hearing to Consider Giving Preliminary Approval To The PREPARED BY: Issuance of Revenue Bonds on Behalf of Mayo Clinic Dale Martinson This hearing is to consider a proposal by representatives of Mayo Foundation that the City issue healthcare facility bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $125,000,000 to finance all or a portion of the cost of the following project: (a) construction of a research building on the block between 4`h and 51h Avenue and 3Td and 4'h Street in the City, and (b) other capital 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 2"d Street SW in the City. Bond Counsel is of the opinion that the Project constitutes a "project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153, Subdivision 2(d). That statute allows the City to essentially lend its tax- exempt bonding authority for purposes meeting the requirements of the law. Representatives of Mayo believe that the undertaking of the Project will further promote the public purposes and legislative ,)bjectives of the Act by providing substantial inducement for the continued health care operations of the ,orporation in the City and surrounding area. The bonds, including the interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues and proceeds pledged to the repayment by Mayo Clinic. Our bond attorney would be retained to review and amend all bond documents associated with this issue to assure that this debt would, as the legal jargon states, "not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the Issuer (the City) 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 City." Representatives of Mayo Foundation will be available at the hearing to address any questions or concerns. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Following the hearing, approve the resolution giving preliminary approval to the issuance of healthcare facility bc:ids on 1' half of Mayo Clinic and authorizing preparation of necessary documents. J 1 COUNCIL ACTION: Mono" by: second by: to: tGENDA SECTION: 'UBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 02-22-06 PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #05.15 by Rochester Ready Mix. The applicant is PREPARED BY: I proposing to annex approximately 14.28 acres of land located south of 191h Street NW, Theresa Fogarty, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks in part of the Northwest 1/4 Senior Planner of the Southeast A of Section 29 of Cascade Township. February 8, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on January 25, 2006. The Commission found that city services are presently available along the south side of 19' Street NW offsite both to the east and to the west of this property and along the south side of the DM&E Railroad tracks, just east of the property. 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 18, 2006. Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township. 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 $166.58. Council Action Needed: 1. 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. 2. The zoning district established on this property shall be concurrent with the zoning district amendment request #05-18 as approved by the City Council. Attachments 1. Staff report, dated January 18, 2006. 2. Copy of the minutes of the January 25, 2006 CPZC meeting Distribution: IYj l 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 Wednesday, February 22, 2006, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Swond by, to: a Properties within and contiguous to parcel located in the NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 29 Cascade TWP PIN: 74.29.41.051217 (in City) m 001 6awwn n. x, M O�mnbn c.ui+Fi mnin�y0xr� E1E n. YOwytwdx �nbW nilin w. my.pnx wN �nMnOM SC WtlrN, W nsu.l�i1 xes.eax. ANNEXATION EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION: rh SEE ATTACHED SCALE 1 " = 200' LL"41,, 4E n -- — - 1261.73 o T 5 E µ n rk A a AREA TO HE /",NEXEII 14.26 ACRES ST C Y /IMI b n r DQKorA A4) IV�S pTA & Sre, RAI�pn, b � SCALE, V = 200' F441 o.e.e....1W lllllfY.t WW1- DRAvx are klc ROCHESTER READY MIX412 a 2ND AVENUE N.W. wu •�rlffll� DATE 1-5-06ROCHESTER, Accr. Nil2090/5516 Eadd N0.551GANNE MINNESOTA 55901 FILE N(l r HK. PG. 0 RO(•HENfER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochesler, MN 55904.4744 C O U M, Y OF www.clmstedcounty.corrdplanning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner DATE: January 18, 2006 of :•v- f�' . �I} RE: Annexation Petition #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 14.28 acres of land located south of 191h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks in part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 29 of Cascade Township. CP&ZC Meeting Date: January 25, 2006 Planning Department Review. Applicants/Owners: Rochester Ready Mix 412 Second Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Architect/Engineer: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Existing Land Use: The existing land use Is temporarily used as a concrete business. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned I (Industrial) District on the Olmsted County zoning map. Future Zoning: The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment request to the M-2 (Industrial) district and will be considered by the City Council at their February 22, 2006 meeting, concurrent with this annexation request. The zoning district established on this property shall be concurrent with the zoning district amendment request #05-18 as approved by the City Council at their February 22, 2006 meeting. Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "industrial' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its eastern and Limits: southern boundaries. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285.8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345 FAx 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i Page 2 �Ol Annexation 405-15 Rochester Ready Mix January 18, 2006 Sewer & Water: This area is within the Northwest High Level Water System Area, which is currently available along the south side of 191" Street NW offsite both to the east and to the west of this property and along the south side of the DM&E Railroad tracks just east of the property. The development of the northerly portion of this property will require the east -west extension of the water main across the entire 19'" Street NW frontage. 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 22, 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 (1 letter) Staff Recommendation: This property is adjacent to the City limits and is presently available along the south side of 1916 Street NW offsite both to the east and to the west of this property and along the south side of the DM&E Railroad tracks, just east of the property. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2 (3). O� z rru MI? *IeGgr, wr dr&Vet January 10, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: AMENDED Annexation Petition #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix to annex 14.28 acres of land located along the south side of 191h St. NW and west of West Circle Dr. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced amendment is complete and our comments follow: 1. This area is within the Northwest High Level Water System Area, which is currently available along the south side of 191h Street NW offsite both to the east and to the west of this property and along the south side of the DM&E Railroad tracks just east of the property. 2. The development of the northerly portion of this property will require the east -west extension of the water main across the entire 19th St. NW frontage. 3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, ..'�J0614A 1ou`'�'V' &' Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inc. Rochester Ready Mix. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 \0 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 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Mr. Jay Burke, Chair; Ms. Leslie Rivas, Vice Chair; Mr. Jesse Wallace; Mr. Paul Only; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Vince Barry; Mr. Bruce Snyder; and Mr. Robert Haeussinger Members Absent: Mr. Michael Quinn Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi A. Baker; Mr. Logan Tjossem; and Ms. Jennifer Garness Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney SET ORDER OF AGENDA: Ms. Wiesner moved to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Haeussinger made a motion to approve the following consent items. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. • January 11, 2006 minutes • Amended Annexation petition #05-15 by Rochester Ready Mix. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 14.28 acres of land located south of 19th Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks in part of the Northwest '/. of the Southeast '/. of Section 29 of Cascade Township • Annexation Petition #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 Lakes Estates development in part of the Northwest Y, of the Southeast'/, Section 5 of Rochester Township • CPZC review of proposed Development District #33 and Tax Increment Financing Distract #33-1 for consistency with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land use Plan The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Amended Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix to zone 14.28 AND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT: uA 1 G: O. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ��ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #05.18 by Rochester Ready Mix to zone RED BY:14.28 FBrent acres to the M-2 (Industrial) zoning district. The property is zoned I (Industrial) on Svenhy,the Olmsted County Zoning Map and is in the process of being annexed. The property isr located along the south side of 191h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the Planner DME Railroad tracks. February 9, 2005 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 25, 2006 to consider this zone change. They also reviewed a GDP for the property. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report dated January 19, 2006 and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of Amended Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix based on staff's recommendation. Mr. Snyder seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated January 19, 2006 Council Action Needed: The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning for the property Attachments: y' 1. Staff Report dated January 19, 2006 2. Minutes of the January 25, 2006 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 Wednesday, February 22 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. LINCIL ACTION: ,.,. tion By: Seconded By: Action: ^� ZONlr � MA \ NZ MONROE DR NW Z , E I S PLC cu,r, j i ZONING DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT N9090'007 _ K ! 114 — - 1261.23 '- YR E s AREA TO BE �ONED M-2 14.28 ACRES 2 ST C Y IMI c ri DAkOrq MINN�SO rq &= SreRN `Oq0 FLR ROCHESTER READY MIX 412 2ND AVENUE N.W. w ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 Rif A �a NORTH SCALE 1" = 200' C' r SCALE'1' = 200' DRAWN 6Y, ktc DATE 1-5-06 ACCI. ND. 2090/5516 ,.® FILE rv0. BK. PG. coaa No. 5516ANNE ROuNESTER-OLiNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC U H T. OF www_ olmstedcounty.com/planning City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: January 19, 2006 g11C 11 F.STF:q'.I/l iL. RE: Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix to zone 14.28 acres to the M-2 (Industrial) zoning district. The property is zoned I (Industrial) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map and is in the process of being annexed. The property is located along the south side of 19'h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Rochester Ready Mix 412 Second Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55904 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 191h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks. Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to zone approximately 14.28 acres to the M-2(Industrial) zoning district upon annexation. Existing Land Use: The property is currently used as by Rochester Ready Mix as a temporary concrete plant. Proposed Land Use: Rochester Ready Mix is proposing to develop a permanent concrete plant on the property. Adjacent Land Use and East: Property owned by Rochester Ready Mix that Zoning: has been used as a temporary concrete plant and is zoned M-2 (Industrial) on the zoning map. Further to the east is the Industrial zoned property in the City. South: The land south of the railroad tracks is in the City and is zoned M-2 (Industrial). North: Across 19'h Street NW is property zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) developed with a bar/restaurant and movie theater. There is also property zoned A4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINO/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 CM GlN Il.I r.PPn"TI I MITVIAPP I PAA AT] L ArTInN FAA PI nVPQ Page 2 January 19. 2006 West: The property to the west is developed with a concrete plant. This property is not in the City and is zoned I (Industrial). Transportation Access: A full access to this property will be from 191h Street NW. This access aligns with Heartland Drive NW. The current access to the site is a shared access with the property to the west. As part of the development of the property the shared access into property would move to the east to align with Heartland Drive NW. The roadway would be 24 foot in width and cross the creek. There is also a south access to the property via 401h Avenue NW. The GDP identifies a "potential future bridge" crossing on the easterly portion of the property. The recently adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows 19 h Street NW as a Major Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification as a 4U type street design. The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies 191h Street NW as a Class 1 Bike facility which means off -road paths on both side will be required in the future. The applicant will be responsible for the bike path on the south side all along their property. According the City of Rochester Capital Improvement Program 2006-2011, 4h Street NW from CSAH 22 to Ashland Drive is programmed to be reconstructed this year. Wetlands: Hydric soils underlay portions of the site. The areas not previously filled/developed should be checked for wetland characteristics. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on December 29, 2005. Minutes from the meeting are attached. Referral Comments: 1. Attached to GDP Report. Report Attachments: 1. Area Zoning Map 2. 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: I Page 3 January 19, 2006 z 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 RCCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. The area, as presently zoned, is consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the property is zoned industrial on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this area as appropriate for "industrial" land uses. The property is currently in the .process of being annexed and should be zoned Industrial upon annexation. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by format petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Uses allowed in the M-2 district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties in the area. The properties located to the south and east are zoned M-2. According to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance, the M-2 zoning district is intended to accommodate those uses which are potentially incompatible with uses in other districts because of the negative Impacts they generate in terms of truck traffic and nuisance characteristics, and to provide areas where different level of Infrastructure and transportation Improvements can be provided in a cost effective and efficient means to serve the needs of industrial, transportation and manufacturing uses. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). If approved, this amendment would not constitute spot zoning. Staff Recommendation: Based upon the findings, staff would recommend approval of this zone change as petitioned. Minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting For Rochester Ready Mix General Development Plan In Attendance: See attached attendance list Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need further investigation or consideration. General Discussion: Ms. Kristi Clarke of McGhie & Betts, Inc. made a brief presentation on the proposed project. She explained the history of the approximate 21.50 acre property beginning in January 2002 with the original Conditional Use Permit approval within the Cascade Township for the Rochester Ready Mix site. She outlined the proposed changes to the site from the original C.U.P. Which are as follows: 1. Building a drive over aggregate system that is 75' away from Cascade Creek (a protected waterway) in compliance with the City of Rochester and the DNR. 2. Building a new permanent ready mix plant 3. Designing and implementing a grading and drainage plan for the entire site and building an on -site detention pond 4. Building a concrete reclaimer and recycling area 5. Showing the approximate location for a future bridge over Cascade Creek on the east side of the property. 6. Showing the permanent locations of the two accesses allowed onto 191' Street N.W. 7. Removing 4 buildings as shown in the dashed pattern on the exhibit attached. 8. Annexing approximately 1.46 acres including the ready mix plant and office building into the City of Rochester. We will comply with the requested City of Rochester zone of M-1 and all the rules and regulations as outlined in the Land Development Manual for the City of Rochester for the site. 9. Request that the term of the Conditional Use Permit be extended until the entire parcel is annexed in September of 2015. She then explained the process for public hearings and the proposed public hearing dates. Those meeting dates are as follows: January 11, 2006 for the Planning and Zoning public hearing and February 6, 2006 for the City Council meeting and January 18, 2006 for the Cascade Township Planning and Zoning public hearing. Questions/Comments by Attendees: Question 1: Was there a required Environmental Impact Statement completed for this site during the original conditional use permit process? Answer 1: No. Environmental concerns was not an issue for the current CUP nor were their any conditions placed on the CUP to address any concerns. Question 2: How is the reclaimation of the concrete going to be done? Will a crusher be used? Answer 2: A water reclamation system is shown on the southeastern corner of the site. We don't intend to crush. Question 3: How many tons of recycled material will you generate? Answer 3: ' We don't know at this time. Question 4: What is being annexed? Answer 4: Ms. Clarke showed the neighbors the exhibit that was submitted to the City of Rochesterfor annexation and explained that the total annexation is approximately 1.46 acres adjacent to the city limits. Question 5: Beth Rice, a representative for the parcel to the east of the Rochester Ready Mix site explained that they are marketing their site with commercial uses and was wondering if our site might potential convert to commercial in the future. Answer S: No. Question 6: How will the site look once it is completed? Answer 6: David Castleberg answered by saying that it will be an aesthetically pleasing site with as little dust and noise as possible. He asked those with concerns to visit the downtown site. Question 7: Will there be huge clouds of dust like the Leitzen property? u3 Answer 7: No. We are planning on using the water recycling process not crushing. Question 8: Mike Coats asked how the site will affect his well located about 600 feet down in the Jordan soil type? Answer 8: Your well would most likely be affected by Leitzen's project. We should not affect your well. Question 9: What are the potential hours of operations in the M-1 zone? Answer 9: M-1 allows the use to operate non-stop during a 24-hour period. Question 10: Will the batch plant located downtown be moved to this site? Answer 10: No. Question 11: How will you access the site while 19`h Street is being constructed? Answer 11: We will use the southern entrance to 40`h Avenue. Question 12: Will the bridge access impact the creek flow upstream? Answer 12:, No. Question 13: Do you have a signed development agreement for this site? Answer 13: Yes. 4N i R o c it e s t e r Nt i n n e s o t a 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester. MN 55904 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail. mdi@mcghiaheits.com Equal Opportunity Employer Attendance &off NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROJECT: Rochester Ready Mix DATE: December 29, 2005 TIME: 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. "LACE: Meadow Lakes Senior Living Center 22 45th Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO/ FAX NO./ E-MAIL ADDRESS 1. 2. (�117 3. 9 4. 5 `fl.. Zls S�ia. tt o;. �,�.v£ ) S217- 53 b" nn.11' k'u y;&,� me--' 00 52"?.53Y3 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12, 13. 14. 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 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Mr. Jay Burke, Chair; Ms. Leslie Rivas, Vice Chair; Mr. Jesse Wallace; Mr. Paul Ohly; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Vince Barry; Mr. Bruce Snyder; and Mr. Robert Haeussinger Members Absent: Mr. Michael Quinn Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi A. Baker; Mr. Logan Tjossem; and Ms. Jennifer Garness Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney SET ORDER OF AGENDA: Ms. Wiesner moved to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Haeussinger made a motion to approve the following consent items. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. • January 11, 2006 minutes • Amended Annexation petition #05-15 by Roches r Ready Mix. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 14.28 ores and located south of 19th Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of th DM ailroad tracks in part of the Northwest /< of the Southeast Y. of Section 29 of C ca Township • Annexation Petition #05-19 by Girl Scout ncil of River Trails. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 2.25 a of land located south of 8th Street SW and southwest of the Meadow Lakes Estates velopment in part of the Northwest Y. of the Southeast''% Section 5 of Rochester To n ip • CPZC review of proposed Developm t Dist t #33 and Tax Increment Financing District #33-1 for consistency with the Rochest r Urban Service Area Land use Plan The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Amended Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix to zone 14.28 uimstea County coning map ano is in the process of being annexed The property is located along the south side of 19th Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks. AND Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 25, 2006 General Development Plan #267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix by Rochester Ready Mix. The land owned by the applicant is approximately 21.88 acres of which 7.6 acres are already annexed and 14.28 acres are in the process of annexation The plan potential future bridge crossing over the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creel; The property is located along the south side of 19th Street NW west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks. Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff reports, dated January 19, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the primary access would line up with Heartland Drive. The applicant's representative, Kristi Clarke from McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. She showed an overview of what exists versus what they were proposing. When 19th Street is improved this spring, their two approved accesses to the site would be put in. They proposed to retain all increased water from the site in a detention pond. Ms. Clarke stated that the applicant is in agreement with all recommended conditions by staff. A wetland analysis has been completed and will be submitted to the City on Monday. Mr. Burke asked if the detention pond was a settling pond. Ms. Clarke responded yes. Mr. Haeussinger asked if they would be recycling concrete. Mr. Randy Watson, from Rochester Ready Mix, addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission to define "recycle". Mr. Haeussinger responded grinding concrete without wire. Mr. Watson responded that they do have some they cut up and grind at this time. However, once they get their new system in place, they will not continue to grind it as it is not cost effective. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing <<1 Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 25, 2006 1. Prior to the development of the property the development shall be reviewed through the Site Development Plan review process. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to the development of the property. Storm. water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations Mr. Logan Tjossem presented the staff report; staff report is on file at the Rochester -&mated Mr. Haeussinger suggested that the term "man that he had read some law materials that suao, Mr. Ohly stated that either definition would be wary 18, 2006, to the Commission. The Department. be changed to "clearly". He explained "manifestly" could be challenged. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Bute clkd the public hearing. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING M / - .NDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING DATE: 2-22-06 ITEM NO. DV�` E ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #267 to be known as Rochester Ready PREPARED BY: Mix by Rochester Ready Mix. The land owned by the applicant is approximately 21.88 Brent Svenby, acres, of which 7.6 acres are already annexed and 14.28 acres are in the process of Senior Planner annexation. The plan shows that the property will be development with a cement plant, office and garage area along with a truck wash out and aggregate staging area. The plan also identifies a potential future bridge crossing over the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. The property is located along the south side of 191h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks. V67 c : <- c cpg- - February 9, 2006 Note: Based on a revised referral comment received staff recommends that condition number 8 be changed to reference the January 26, 2006 letter instead of the January 3, 2006 letter from the Rochester Fire Department. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On January 25, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this General Development Plan. The applicant's representative, Kristi Clarke from McGhie and Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. She showed an overview of what exists versus what they were proposing. When 1 gth Street is improved this spring, their two approved accesses to the site would be put in. They proposed to retain all increased water from the site in a detention pond. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and d Development Manual. The Commission recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the development of the property the development shall be reviewed through the Site Development Plan review process. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to the development of the property. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding stormwater management, are addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. 3. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of 19'h Street NW with the exception of the approved access location (1 full access aligning with Heartland Drive NW and 1 right intright out located 350 feet east of the centerline of Heartland Drive NW). Best Management Practices shall be used on the design and operation of the truck wash out area. If required by the MPCA, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the MPCA and comply with the construction standards of Paragraphs 62.851, 62.852 and 62,854 of the Land Development Manual. Development of the property Is subject to meeting the shoreland regulations (section 62.1000) of the Land Development Manual. Approval of the "potential future bridge" is subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary permits for Its construction, such as DNR permits, grading and filling permits from the City, FEMA, etc... The applicant shall investigate the areas of the property, which have not been previously filled or developed, for the presence of wetlands. the applicant shall comply with the January 3 26, 2006 letter from Vance Swisher of the Rochester Fire Department. COUNCIL ACTION: Motlen by: second by: to: \Page 2 RCA February 9, 2006 Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix by Rochester Ready Mix with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Snyder seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. councu Acuon Neeaed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, you should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated January 19, 2006 2. Draft Minutes of -the January 25, 2006 CPZC Meeting (See zone change #05-18) 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 Wednesday, February 22 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. �y J I 1400 ft. Notification Area of propos ( General Development Plan #267 for property identified by PINs:74.29.42.072650 and 74.29.41.051217 of which 1.46 acres of the parcel is proposed to be annexed into the City and be rezoned from I (Industrial) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). The parcel is located in the NW 114 SE 1/4 Sec 29 Cascade TWP £/� ONROEOR Annexation #05-15 and Zone Change #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mix Council Ward: 3 Neighborhood Assoc: None 12/16/05 PIN: 74.29.42.072650 (in County) W« U■ au,mne cnwNls nm rreronsld. iw omanxyore a<ann,..mun.e mran. nascop.aaea w. mnm .awn nw map. gaaa, none dtn GIS danon. Roc9aM1rOlr,cmCCouray pdnnirx� Depamm�m, b22 Ca,riq,a Ohre SE. ROO,aler. MN 55994. (WIJ pe5gA9 City Limit 1 PIN: 74.29.41.051217 (In City) I r ��'. I i I �i' 1, •. w� S �<I GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ROCHESTER READY MIX ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA al n pyll V T'p A %�OO V- "Ail The hand to reach for.. DAVID A. KAPLEA Fire Chief DATE: January 26, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: REVISED GDP 9267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix by Rochester Ready Mix. The property is located along the south side of 191h St NW, west of West Circle Drive and North of the DIME Railroad tracks. 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 commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the buildings being proposed. b) A minimum of We two fire hydrants shall be made available for service for this project. The hydrants shall be spaced evenly around the property. 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) The roads associated with this facility shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. b) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. c) 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. 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) Rochester Ready Mix McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only) ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAKP\IENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Y;?a;\` r CC Y M 1 Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning �• -! r k.l fF.11:du Cv�C.Y TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: January 19, 2006 RE: General Development Plan #267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix, by Rochester Ready Mix. The land owned by the applicant is approximately 21.88 acres, of which 7.31 acres are already annexed and 14.28 acres are in the process of annexation. The plan shows that the property will be development with a cement plant, office and garage area along with a truck wash out and aggregate staging area. The plan also identifies a potential future bridge crossing over the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. The property is located along the south side of 19th Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and north of the DME Railroad tracks. Planning Department Review., Applicant/Owner: Rochester Ready Mix 412 Second Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. Attn: Kristi Clarke 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 191h Street NW, north of the DM&E Railroad tracks and west of West Circle Drive. Requested Action: According to the GDP a concrete plant will be constructed on the property. An office, truck garage, truck wash out area and aggregate delivery area will also the constructed on the property. The plan also identifies a new future bridge crossing over the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. Existing Land Use: In the past Rochester Ready Mix has used the property for the placement of a temporary cement facility. Zoning: The property is in the process of being annexed into the City. The applicant has requested that the property be zoned M-2 (Industrial) upon annexation. The property is currently zoned Industrial on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 .m.•w. PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OF PORT UNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPI OVFR r Page 2 \ General Development Plan fk267 January 19, 2006 Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be constructed along the south side of 19'h Street NW as part of the 19'h Street NW reconstruction project that is scheduled for this year. Drainage: The northerly portion of the site drains to the north while the southerly portion drains to the southeast, eventually draining into the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. The applicant is proposing a detention pond in the southeast portion of the property, located within the flood fringe area. It is anticipated that this pond will hold the storm water run-off from the property. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to any grading activities taking place on the property. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding stormwater management, are addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. Transportation A full access to this property will be from 19'h Street NW. This Access: access aligns with Heartland Drive NW. The current access to the site is a shared access with the property to the west. As part of the development of the property the shared access into property would move to the east to align with Heartland Drive NW. The roadway would be 24 foot in width and cross the creek. There is also a south access into the property via 40`h Avenue NW. The GDP identifies a "potential future bridge" crossing on the easterly portion of the property. The recently adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows 19'h Street NW as a Major Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification as a 4U type street design. The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies 19'h Street NW as a Class 1 Bike facility which means off -road paths on both side will be required in the future. The applicant will be responsible for the bike path on the south side all along their property. According the City of Rochester Capital Improvement Program 2006-2011, 19' Street NW from CSAH 22 to Ashland Drive is programmed to be reconstructed this year. Public Utilities: The property is within the Northwest High Level, which is available to the north and south of the property. The development of the northerly portion of the site will require the east -west extension of the water main across the entire 19'h Street NW frontage. If connection to the city water system in done in the future, the applicant will need to extend the water mains to the adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU. The applicant intends to connect to the sanitary sewer line located to the south of the property. A minimum of five hydrants will be necessary for serving this Page 3 General Development Plan #267 January 19, 2006 development. Hydrants will need to be located and installed in accordance with the specification of the Water Division. Wetlands: Hydric soils underlay portions of the site. The areas not previously filled/developed should be checked for wetland characteristics. Tree/Brush Disposal: The applicant has indicated that removal of trees and brush from the site may consist of burning on site, chipping on site or salvaging and removing from the property. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Copy of General Development Plan 3. 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 (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. 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. 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. A Zoning District amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendment is approved, the land uses within the M-2 zoning district would be consistent with the land use designation for the property. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designated this property for "industrial' land uses. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. The proposed access to the property is being moved to the east so that it aligns with Heartland Drive NW. This access will also need to provide access to the property to the west, it crosses a bridge located on the west property line. There is an existing access to the south, 40rh Avenue NW, which will also provide access to the property. This access crosses the DME railroad tracks. The GDP also identifies a potential future bridge crossing on the easterly portion of the property. Approval of this bridge crossing is subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary permits for its construction. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. \ Page 4 General Development Plan 4267 January 19, 2006 No housing is proposed for this development Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. A full access to this property will be from 19th Street NW. This access aligns with Heartland Drive NW. The current access to the site is a shared access with the property to the west. As part of the development of the property the shared access into property would be moved to the east to align with Heartland Drive NW. The roadway would be 24 foot in width and cross the creek. There is also a south access to the property via 40'h Avenue NW. The GDP identifies a "potential future bridge" crossing on the easterly portion of the property. The recently adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows le Street NW as a Major Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification as a 4U type street design. The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies 19'h Street NW as a Class 1 Bike facility which means off -road paths on both side will be required in the future. The applicant will be responsible for the bike path on the south side all along their property. According the City of Rochester Capital Improvement Program 2006-2011, 19'h Street NW from CSAH 22 to Ashland Drive Is programmed to be reconstructed this year. 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. A full access to this property will be from W Street NW. This access aligns with Heartland Drive NW. The current access to the site Is a shared access with the property to the west. As part of the development of the property the shared access into property would be moved to the east to align with Heartland Drive NW. The Page 5 ,O General Development Plan #267 January 19, 2006 roadway would be 24 foot in width and cross the creek. There is also a south access to the property via 401b Avenue NW. The GDP identifies a "potential future bridge" crossing on the easterly portion of the property. The recently adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows 19th Street NW as a Major Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification as a 4U type street design, The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies 191h Street NW as a Class 1 Bike facility which means off -road paths on both side will be required in the future. The applicant will be responsible for the bike path on the south side all along their property. According the City of Rochester Capital Improvement Program 2006-2011, 19th Street NW from CSAH 22 to Ashland Drive is programmed to be reconstructed this year. 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 Citys 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. The property is within the Northwest High Level, which is available to the north and south of the property. The development of the northerly portion of the site will require the east -west extension of the water main across the entire 10h Street NW frontage, if connection to the city water system In done in the future, the applicant will need to extend the water mains to the adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU. The applicant intends to connect to the sanitary sewer line located to the south of the property. A minimum of five hydrants will be necessary for serving this development. Hydrants will need to be located and Installed in accordance with the specification of the Water Division. 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 northerly portion of the site drains to the north while the southerly portion drains to the southeast, eventually draining into N Page 6 General Development Plan #267 January 19, 2006 the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. The applicant is proposing a detention pond in the southeast portion of the property, located within the flood fringe area. It is anticipated that this pond will hold the storm water run-off from the property. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to any grading activities taking place on the property. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding storm water management, are addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property maybe subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. 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 northerly portion of the site drains to the north while the southerly portion drains to the southeast, eventually draining Into the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. The applicant is proposing a detention pond In the southeast portion of the property, located within the flood fringe area. It is anticipated that this pond will hold the storm water run-off from the property. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to any grading activities taking place on the property. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding storm water management, are addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. Nydric soils underlay portions of the site. The areas not previously filled/developed should be checked for wetland characteristics. Portions of the property are located in the floodway and flood fringe area and are subject to additional zoning and development regulations. The shoreland provisions of the Land Development Manual will also need to be applied when the property is developed. The construction of the truck wash out in the flood fringe area will require a permit from the MPCA and subject to the construction standards of Paragraphs 62.851, 62.852 and 62.854 of the Land Development Manual. 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. According to the Bedrock Geology Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County the Decorah Shale is not the first encountered bedrock. The first encountered bedrock is the Prairie Du Chien Group consisting of either the Shakopee Formation or Oneota Dolomite which has a typical thickness of 130 to 170 feet. 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 Page 7 General Development Plan #267 January 19, 2006 contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. This GDP proposes annexing the property and developing a concrete plant along with an office, truck garage, and truck wash out area and aggregate delivery area. The plan also identifies a new future bridge crossing over the South Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. Prior to the development of the property, the proposed uses will need to be reviewed through the site development plan review process. Portions of the property are located in the floodway and flood fringe area and are subject to additional zoning and development regulations. The shoreland provisions of the Land Development Manual will also need to be applied when the property is developed. The construction of the truck wash out in the flood fringe area will require a permit from the MPCA and subject to the construction standards of Paragraphs 62.851, 62.852 and 62.854 of the Land Development Manual. Summary & Recommendation: Based on the above criteria, staff would recommend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 1. Prior to the development of the property the development shall be reviewed through the Site Development Plan review process. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to the development of the Property. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding stormwater management, are addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. 3. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of 19+' Street NW with the exception of the approved access location (1 full access aligning with Heartland Drive NW and 1 right In/right out located 350 feet east of the centerline of Heartland Drive NW). 4. Best Management Practices shall he used on the design and operation of the truck wash out area. It required by the MPCA, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the MPCA and comply with the construction standards of Paragraphs 62.851, 62.852 and 62.854 of the Land Development Manual. S. Development of the property is subject to meeting the shoreland regulations (section 62.1000) of the Land Development Manual. 6. Approval of the "potential future bridge" is subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary permits for its construction, such as DNR permits, grading and filling permits from the City, FEMA, etc... 7. The applicant shall Investigate the areas of the property, which have not been previously filled or developed, for the presence of wetlands. \ Jr Page 8 General Development Plan #267 January 19, 2006 8. The applicant shall comply with the January 3, 2006letter from Vance Swisher of the Rochester Fire Department. The hand fo reach for.. DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: January 3, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: GDP #267 to be known as Rochester Ready Mix by Rochester Ready Mix. The property is located along the south side of 191h St NW, west of West Circle Drive and North of the DME Railroad tracks. 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 now for this commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire Flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the buildings being proposed. b) A minimum of five fire hydrants shall be made available for service for this project. The hydrants shall be spaced evenly around the property. 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) The roads associated with this facility shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. b) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. c) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Street; less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. 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) Rochester Ready Mix McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only) rpu January 17, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED SUBMITTAL: General Development Plan #267 by Rochester Ready Mix to be known as Rochester Ready Mix. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. The development of the northerly portion of this property will require the east -west extension of the water main across the entire 19"' St. NW frontage. 2. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-OA R Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inc. Rochester Ready Mix Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507 1.80-1542 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: Amended Zoning District Amendment #05-18 by Rochester Ready Mir: ❑ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey ❑ Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. ❑ A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. ❑ A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. ❑ A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. ❑ No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. ® Other or Explanation: Hydric soils underlay portions of this site. Areas not previously filled/developed should be checked for wetland characteristics. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative TRANSPORTATION STArr DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 2005 Comments December 2005 Uur H mi Rochester-Ulmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG), City and Olmsted City Rochester Ready County have adopted the Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 in August Mix 2005. The plan has established a classification hierarchy that influence design and operational features for existing and future non -local roads. identifying the relative importance of the road in the network. The ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan has also adopted the Urban Area Bikeway Map and Regional Bikeway Map. The adopted Functional Designation Map shows 19+6 Street NW as a Major Urban Arterials. The Street Design Classification Map recognizes 19'4 Street as 417 type Street design. Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Map shows 19th Street as Class 1 Bike Facility which means off -road paths on both sides will be required in future. The developer/applicant will be responsible for bike path on the south side all along their property line as per the ROCOG Lang Range Transportation Plan. Summary 1. The Right of Way (ROW) requirements along the 19'h Street should be in accordance with the recommendation of ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan as shown in the table below. 19th Street is a future Major Urban Arterial with a Street Design indicated to be four lanes undivided. The minimum ROW suggested in the Long Range Transportation Plan for this type of roadway varies depending upon its projected traffic level, as follows: Swale/Ditch Curb/Gutter Right of Way for 4 125 ft 100 ft Lane urban arterial or 2+ road up to 20,000 ADT with bike path Right of Way for 4 135 ft 110 ft lane urban arterial or 2+ road over 20,000 ADT with bike path Note: the table includes the ROW needs for bike path Additional ROW is recommended where conditions dictate additional area that may be required for drainage, safety, operational or multi -modal needs. 3. The access control as per spacing guidelines included in the ROCOG Transportation Plan will be needed along 19"' Street NW. The guidelines require minimum of 660' for local street spacing and 375' for driveway spacing (35-45 MPH) on 4-U Street Design major urban arterial (like 19" Street NW). The spacing between Superior Drive, NW and Heartland Drive NW is 700 feet. GDP is proposing one access point serving two parcels an the south side of 19"' Street across Heartland Drive and other access point as Right In/Right Out roughly 350 feet from Hartland Drive. The Right In/Right Out will be roughly 360 feet from the Superior Drive, NW on the east side. The access spacing is at the boarder line and a few feet shorter than the requirements as per the Long Range Transportation Plan. rpv wr plydgr, we dr(lvrr DATE: December 30, 2005 TO: Stephanie Foster, Planning Dept. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Cook Environmental & Regulatory Affairs SUBJECT: General Development Plan #267 — Rochester Ready Mix RPU's Field Services Division has completed a review of the above -referenced General Development Plan. • The proposed development is located outside of our existing DWSMA's but there are DWSMA's within a half mile on 3 sides of the site. • The soil in the area is considered highly sensitive so we ask that best management practices be used to control runoff and prevent contamination from any hazardous chemicals that maybe used or stored at the facility. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906.2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 i ROCHESTER M44,1_� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 12/30/05 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for GDP#267 for the Rochester Ready Mix property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property and development is subject to the terms of the Agreement. Development Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are/will be specified in the executed Development Agreement, and/or City -Owner Contract. C:1Documents and Set ingslplajgam\Local SettingslTemperary Internet Filesk01_K61\GDP267 Rochester Ready Mix.doc 34 Narrativefor RCl"I----� �p General Development Plan Amendment FFDEC 1 4 2GBr3 For Rochester Ready Mix The Rochester Ready Mix property is approximately 21.88 acres bounded by 19`h Street NW and Westfire Grille and Cinemagic Theater to the north, the DM&E Railroad line to the south, Leitzen's industrial site to the west and Venstar's industrial site to the east. The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with Appendix B E-3. a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design and construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to overcome the limitations. The property slopes from the northwest corner with a high point elevation of approximately 1033 to Cascade Creek where the water elevation is approximately 1023.5. The southern half of the site slopes from Cascade Creek towards the southeastern edge of the parcel with a high point near the creek at 1034 and the low point in the southeastern corner of 1027. The soils are well suited for building site development and sanitary facilities. b) Storm drainage problems, which in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. The General Development Plan shows a proposed detention pond located along the central eastern edge of the site. This pond will hold the storm run-off from the property. At this time, we do not anticipate storm drainage problems that would result in costs exceeding that of normal engineering. c) Identification of potential off -site drainage problems. At this time, we do not anticipate storm drainage problems that would result in costs exceeding that of normal development. d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. A sanitary sewer line will be constructed from the south to provide services to the truck garage/office/plant building. A private well on -site will serve the site's water needs. R, e) Identification of possible erosion problems, which may, arise in the estimation of the applicant. A large portion of the developable site has 2% or less slope with very little potential for erosion concerns. This site will be constructed with normal engineering standards. A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. The proposed cement plant will be built in one phase. However, a 24' future roadway with access across Cascade Creek will be studied and reviewed in the future as a potential access to the site. This will only be constructed after the appropriate government agencies have reviewed and approved the necessary permits to bridge Cascade Creek. RECEIVED DEC 1 k 2005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING lM AGENDA 'UB LIC ING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #06-02 by LeCesse Development Corporation to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on Lot 2, Block 1 Grandeville at Cascade Lake to allow for the placement of a maintenance building on the lot. The property is located along the north side of County Club Road (CSAH 34) and west of 23rd Avenue SW. February 16, 2006 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated February 16, 2006. Council Action Needed: DATE: 02-3?-00 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Thucsa Fogargy. Senior Planner Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as recommended by staff. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated February 16, 2006. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m February 22, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, N ' I I on Wednesday, 151 4th Street SE. a r r e ci �3 °'ijaa is o sjai ma'fs' .o17n—g g , A m B i I r S 6611'p' M r r r ru r � g,a —g m sid a c•g � a�J F I •nor. N I I I all CpUNT�r S tar a s N l c k r L p . � \ \ N • v -s y%a>atJs f�\ k� 1 h Gp)bb �>f EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED N.W. COR.— LOT 2. 8L I ORANOEVLLE AT OASWE LAIC N SCALE 1" = 30' 143 W .ECESSE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 350 S. NORTFILAKE BLVD. STE. \LTAMONTR 1,PRINf:3 PT. gP7nl SCALE I = 30' 0 V 10/06 4' 200 ft. Notification Area of'� r Lot 2 Block 1 ` Grandeville at Cascade Lake Vacation #06-02 by LeCesse Development Corporation P I N s: 74.33.44.064942 Council Ward: 2 (Marcia Marcoux) Neighborhood Assoc: None 2107/06 ,,willss its, FROM DATE ROCHESTER-0LlISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 559C4-4744 ca unrr or Rochester City Council www.olmstedcounty.com/planning Theresa Fogarty, Planner February 16, 2006 KUCIIPtiT P:g.•11/ n � eR'17T'D..AULUS I•� RE: Vacation Petition #06-02 by LeCesse Development Corporation to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on Lot 2, Block 1 Grandeville at Cascade Lake to allow for the placement of a maintenance building on the lot. The property is located along the north side of County Club Road (CSAH 34) and west of 23rd Avenue SW. City Council Meeting: February 22, 2006 Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): LeCesse Development Corporation 650 South Northlake Blvd, Suite 450 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Architect / Engineer: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Reason to Vacate: To accommodate the placement of a maintenance building to be located within the existing drainage easement. Referral Comments: No objections received by referral agencies. Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Site Plan 2. Location Map 3. Copy of approved Final Plat Grandeville at Cascade Lake. Staff Recommendation: The applicant is proposing to construct a 55'x 30' maintenance building of which a portion will encroach into the existing drainage easement. Upon review of this request and the referral agencies having no objections, staff recommends approval of vacating a portion of the existing drainage easement as requested. The remaining portion of the drainage easement is included on the Grandville at Cascade Lake First Replat which will be considered by the City Council at their February 22, 2006 CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ACORESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 o.w PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELJSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN Pn I A I nPPnRTI INITVIG FFIGAA ATI\/P AI`TIwJ cn Pi nvvo REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING "41 / " A;NUA bLU I IUN: IBLIC HEARINI ORIGINATING PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat. The Plat proposes to re -subdivide lots 2 and 4, Block 1, Grandeville at Cascade Lake into 2 lots and 2 outlots. The property is located along the north side of Country Club Road (CSAH 34), west of 23rd Avenue SW and east of the fire station. February 16, 2006 Planning Department Review: DATE: 03-22-06 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner See attached staff report dated February 16, 2006, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the final plat: a. The final plat shall be revised dedicating additional utility easement "bump outs" at each fire hydrant providing for the 10' minimum easement requirement. b. Approved Vacation Petition #06-02 shall be recorded. 2. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the February 8, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — 61S Division. Council Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. L �1 Yyny, COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second ey: to: C� �1 94 if 4J \Ills lilt, �e h �n— ill}! �t a i I p i ;•{/�� a�; if%l;ef ';(.`��j^w�` ' BqJ �7„',�� \ \\\ \ I Ilrnl iI ICI •y 'I i I�� III I III N� "r� I I .•. I i" I I I J p� ! w I I 71,1 N I ilk II I I E1 FES 0 3 2006 i ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904.4744 o, www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: February 21, 2006 hef��iA u�rN Ofm.soUUs�.!6�� gl{ii'ijG 2liiil _ w�rq�f��gj'�1 z-7 RE: Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat. The Plat proposes to re -subdivide lots 2 and 4, Block 1, Grandeville at Cascade Lake into 2 lots and 2 outlots. The property is located along the north) side of Country Club Road (CSAH 34), west of 23rd Avenue SW and east of the fire station. ITEM NUMBER: E-7 Condition Number 1 may be stricken from staff's recommendation for Approval, per RPU —Water Division revised comments. Attached. is IF BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA507/2B5-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 7i�7 AN ECNAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER u � P., it- . ve dtlivsr February 21, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED COMMENTS. Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandville at Cascade Lake First Replat. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and ive have no canmenfs eurBsmneitts fi lam The final utility plans have been approved. 4- Additional utiI4 easeffient'%ump outs" are needed at uaeb fife hydFant to provide fe 0,-niIIIInivzii-easement :e THifefoant. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. • Very truly yours, 06,u� it, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inc. • Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 J 7Grandeville 0 ft. Notification Area of Lot 2 and 4 Block 1 _ at Cascade Lake i Final Plat #06-03 to be known as Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat by LeCesse Development Corporation PINs: 74.33.44.064942; 74.33,44.064944 Council Ward: 2 (Marcia Marcoux) Neighborhood Assoc: None 2107/06 Om.un Courry �. roi r«ponah. b.mmY.ia« or carer. <oni.nu «rwn_ Irp�.b«w. hurt WrYr M.«q pM«. W�! n. cis ar,.iwr.Aw«ur.am.haw..nvi.m.ra o«.nm.n fia..•�__.,._.. .. «r�M FROM la1AVICA ROCHESTER-OLAISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904 4744 c n u x r r OF www.olmsiedcounty.com/planning Rochester Common Council Theresa Fogarty, Planner February 16, 2006 up C11 i k,, TGUy� UOU5�•' RE: Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat. The Plat proposes to re -subdivide lots 2 and 4, Block 1, Grandeville at Cascade Lake into 2 lots and 2 outlots. The property is located along the north side of Country Club Road (CSAH 34), west of 23rd Avenue SW and east of the fire station. City Council Hearing Date: February 22, 2006 Plannina Department Review: Applicant/Owner: LeCesse Development Corporation 650 South Northlake Blvd, Suite 450 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1646 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works Department 2. Rochester Park & Rec Department 3. Planning Department —Addressing 4. Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat 2. Copy of General Development Plan 3. Location Map 4. Referral Comments (4 Letters) Plat Data: Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this plat. Pedestrian Facilities: A Development Agreement and Supplemental Development Agreement have been executed which addresses pedestrian facilities requirements. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELVSEPTIC 507/285-8345 �� FAX 507/287-2275 i Page 2 Final Plat 406-03 Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Replat February 16, 2006 Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Wetlands LGU Representative submitted a response of no comment. Drainage: Separate Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required during the review process for individual lot development. Public Utilities: Additional utility easement "bump outs" are needed at each fire hydrant to provide for the 10' minimum easement requirements. Spillover Parking: Parking for this development was reviewed at the time of the Site Plan Development Review. Disposal of Trees & Brush: As per Section 61.200 of the LDM, any person seeking approval of a subdivision activity, development activity or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the proposed activity. Not applicable. Parkland Dedication: Dedication for this replat has been met via previous ` dedication of land / cash in lieu of land. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Grandville of Cascade Lake General Development Plan (GDP). Preliminary Plat: According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right- of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land Subdivision Permit). Planning Staff Review and Recommendation: A Development Agreement and Supplemental Development Agreement have been executed. The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval with the following condition: 1. Prior to recording the final plat: a. The final plat shall be revised dedicating additional utility easement "bump outs" at each fire hydrant providing for the 10' minimum easement requirement. b. Approved Vacation Petition #06-02 shall be recorded. 2. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the February 8, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 143 ROCHESTER H� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 2116/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507.287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-03 for the proposed Grandeville at Cascade Lake First Reolat. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. A Development Agreement and Supplemental Development Agreement have been executed and development of the Property is subject to the terms of said Agreements. 2. Recording of the Final Plat should not take place prior to final approval of the proposed vacation of the utility easement proposed as VAC#06-02 Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property have/will be included in the Development Agreement(s) and/or City -Owner Contract. C:\Documents and Settings\plhtfoga\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files10LK27\FP06-03 Grandeville at Cascade Lake ist Replat.doc `11h`t r 1 -"� ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester,_PIIY ! DEPARTMENT DATE: Feb 8 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Final Plat #06-03 Cascade Lake First Replat Dedication for the replat has been met via previous dedication of land J cash in lieu of land. 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROOM 150 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TEE 507-281-6164 FAX 507-281-6165 0STOTZ@CI.ROCHESTER. MN.US 4 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GI&AI ddressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: February 8, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growl GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; McGhie & Betts Inc. RE: GRANDVILLE AT CASCADE LAKE FIRST REPLAT FINAL PLAT #06-03 UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE PLAT IS RECORDED. THIS APPLIES TO ALL PLATS RECORDED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2005. E911 ADDRESSING FEE: GIS IMPACT FEE: $000.00 (0 LOTS/ADDRESSES) $510.00 (4 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats must be legally recorded before request for address Applications are submitted to E911 Addressing Staff-Rochester/olmcted (nnnty il T%.—* A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: 1. Upon review of GRANDVILLE AT CASCADE LAKE FIRST REPLAT the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. rr U 1pfpc,t�,, wr A'avrr February 9, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-03 by LeCesse Development Corporation to be known as Grandville at Cascade Lake First Replat. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow: The final utility plans have been approved. Additional utility easement "bump -outs" are needed at each fire hydrant to provide for the 10' minimum easement requirement. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yoouur�s�n,.'& 064A Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention LeCesse Development Corporation McGhie & Betts, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �1 MEETING nuuYun J�. I V IV: PUBLIC HEARINGS INATING DEPT: PLANNING DATE: 2-22-06 ITEM NO, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #05-07, initiated by the Planning Commission, to P amend Chapter 65 (Noncon formi ties) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to comply with MN State Statute 462.357, subd. le. February 81h, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: REPARED BY: Lngan Tjosscm, Planner On January 251h, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed zoning text amendment. The Planning & Zoniog Commission found that the proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Land Development Manual and recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The commission recommended approval of this text amendment 8-0. Mr. Wiesner moved and Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached revised staff report dated February 8th, 2005, Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached staff report). Distribution: -"t,, 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File DUNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to; ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT N 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C 0 U . TI OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester City Council FROM: Logan Tjossem, Planner DATE: February 8, 2006 ZEST. R..IlLI'l ro., of RE: Text Amendment #05-07, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Chapter 65 (Nonconformities) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to comply with MN State Statute 462.357, subd. le. Applicant: ` The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated this amendment on June 22iid, 2005. Proposed Text Amendment: The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a text amendment to Chapter 65 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual that addresses nonconformities. Land Use Plan: The Land Use Plan does not specifically address this issue. Zoning: Referral Comments: Baciceround and Analysis: Currently, Chapter 65 provides the standards for Nonconformi ties. None. The State Legislature amended Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. le relative to nonconformities (see attached). As a result, the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual's Chapter 65 no longer complies with state law. In an effort to bring our City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual into compliance, staff would recommend the Planning Commission amend Chapter 65, the language within, and all references thereto to comply with Minnesota State Statute 462.357, subd. le. accordingly (see attached). Staff and the City Attorney's Office met on numerous occasions to come up with a final draft of the proposed amendment to Chapter 65. At this time, there is no case law to use for guidance. Therefore our interpretation is based on a basic understanding of the State Legislature's intent of Minnesota Statute 462.357. Not every section of Chapter 65 was amended. The following list reflects only those sections of Chapter 65 staff and the City Attorney's office felt were warranted. In parenthesis you will find a brief explanation as to why the change was made. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285.8232 - HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 enl CI l lel noonaT1I IITv,4Cc1o\.1eT1%1C &rTlnu CI1Io1 nv CG • Section 65.100 INTENT; through Section 65.160 LANDSCAPE AREA AND APPEARANCE STANDARDS. (Clarification and consistency). • Section 65.320 NONCONFORMING USES, EXPANSION; through 65.370 CONTINUED EXCAVATION. (Clarification and consistency). • Section 65.400 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE; was removed and added to Section 65.340 CONTINUATION AND TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMITIES. (Section 65.340 was revised incorporating other sections other than just 65.400 for clarification and to avoid repetition). • Section 65.410 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION; through 65.700 NONCONFORMING APPEARANCE. (Clarification and consistency). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Rochester City Council amend Chapter 65. FINDINGS,& RECOMMENDATION: A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (staff suggested findings follow each criterion): a) whether there is a public need for the amendment; There is a public need for this amendment to clarify the ordinance and make the language consistent with the administration of the Ordinance; b) whetherthe amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester; This amendment will further the purpose of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual by protecting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community by being consistent with the regulatory powers granted by Chapter 462 of the Statutes of the State of Minnesota which relate to Municipal Planning (in particular 462.357). e) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. Tire amendment will provide clarification, and this amendment will be lawfid pursuant to Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd. le Nonconformities. Staff recommends approval of this text amendment. ATTACHEMENTS: 1. City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text — Chapter 65. 2. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Official Controls: zoning ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 65.100, 65.110, 65.120, 65.130, 65.150, 65.160, 65.320, 65.330, 65.340, 65.360, 65.370, 65.410, 65.440, 65.500, 65.510, 65.700, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 65.350, 65,400, 65.420 AND 65.430 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO NONCONFORMING USES IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 65,100 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.100 LEGISLATIVE INTENT. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the regulation of uses, buildings, structures or lots which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance but which fail to comply with one or more of the applicable regulations or standards established by this ordinance or subsequent amendment of this ordinance, or which have been rendered nonconforming due to circumstances which were not self-created. It is the intent of these regulations to specify those circumstances and conditions under which such nonconformities shall be permitted to continue. Buildings or structures which are now in existence and which were constructed in compliance with the terms of the regulations of some other public entity but became nonconforming upon the annexation to the City, and which are not in compliance with the terms of this code are hereby designated as legal nonconforming buildings or structures. Subd. 2. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. Subd.3. The basic policy of this chapter is to allow the continuation of any nonconformity and the normal repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement thereof, and to encourage their move toward conformity when the opportunity arises through M discontinuance or destruction. In certain cases nonconformities may be permitted to be upgraded when it can be shown that such action will not be harmful and will be beneficial to the surrounding properties, the neighborhood, or the community; and that the goals of local plans will not be impeded by the continuation of the nonconformity. Section 2. Section 65,110 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.110 DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this chapter, the different types of nonconformities are defined as follows: Nonconforming Appearance: Any nonconforming use. Any conforming use located on a lot which: (1) is zoned nonresidential; (2) abuts a lot in a residential district; (3) in existence at the time this ordinance was adopted; and (4) that does not meet the appearance control standards of this ordinance. Nonconforming Lot of Record: Any validly recorded lot existing at the time this ordinance was adopted which does not comply with the minimum lot area or frontage requirements of the district in which it is located. Nonconforming Parking: Any development which does not provide the number of off street parking spaces that would be required by this Code for a new development of the same type. The existence of parking spaces located outside of an approved driveway in the front or side street side yard on a property in a residential district that were not approved through a lot and site development approval procedure do not constitute legal, nonconforming parking. Nonconforming Sign: Any sign established prior to the effective date of this ordinance or subsequent amendment to it which is not in full compliance with the regulations herein. Nonconforming Structure: A structure which does not comply with the height, setback, density or floor area ratio requirements of the district in which it is located. Included in this definition are structures that do no comply with the flood proofing and elevation regulations of the flood plain overlay districts. Nonconforming Use: An activity using land or structures which would not be permitted to be established as a new use in the zone in which it is located by the regulations of this ordinance. Section 3. Section 65.120 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.120 AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE: Except as otherwise provided for in this chapter, any nonconforming use, structure, lot of record, sign or appearance or parking existing on the effective date of this ordinance or subsequent amendment thereto may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, unless (1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. All nonconformities shall be encouraged to convert to conformity whenever possible. Section 4. Section 65.130 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.130 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF NONCONFORMITY: The repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement of any nonconforming is permitted subject to Section 65.340 and the issuance of a zoning certificate by the zoning administrator. Any repair or modification cannot increase the number of dwelling units or the amount of floor area of a nonconforming use. Section 5. Section 65.150 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: V0 G 65.150 TRANSITIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Developments approved under the regulations of Section 72.730 (Transitional Development) authorizing the use of structures or land for uses not normally permitted in the applicable zoning district shall be not classified as nonconformities as long as they meet the requirements applicable to transitional uses. Section 6. Section 65.160 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.160 LANDSCAPE AREA AND APPEARANCE STANDARDS: Developments existing on the effective date of this ordinance which do not meet Landscape Area or Appearance Control requirements are not considered nonconforming. However, alterations or changes to such developments shall not further reduce the current level of compliance with appearance related requirements, unless approval through the Type II Review Procedure is obtained. In reviewing such a request, the Zoning Administrator shall find that the reduction in landscape area or level of appearance will have no adverse impact on surrounding properties. Section 7. Section 65.320 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.320 NONCONFORMING USES, EXPANSION: Subdivision 1. Nonconforming uses may be expanded in certain situations subject to approval through the Type III review procedure, utilizing a Phase III hearing process. In acting on an application for modifying a nonconforming use, the Commission and Council shall use the factors contained in Section 65.330 to compare the impact of the proposed change against the existing development. A proposal where the Commission finds significant injurious impact should be denied or approved with conditions which will mitigate the impact of the proposal. Subd. 2. Potential expansions which the Commission may include: A. Expanding a nonconforming use of structure to a portion of the structure not clearly arranged or designed for such use at the time the use became nonconforming. Such expansion shall not increase the intensity of use (i.e., increasing the number of residential units or increasing amount of nonresidential floor area devoted to the public). B. The addition of new principal buildings or accessory structures on the same parcel of land occupied or under the same ownership on the effective date that the use became nonconforming. The new structures added must be for such purpose that if not associated with the nonconforming use they would be permitted by the zoning district on the property. The applicant must show that the intensity of use will not substantially increase over the current level of activity with the addition of the new structures. Section 8. Section 65.330 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.330 CHANGE IN USE: Subdivision 1. Any nonconforming use of land or structure may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same nature or less intensive nature if no structural alterations are involved and if it is found that the relation of the structure and proposed use to surrounding property is such that adverse effects on occupants and neighboring property will not be greater than if the original nonconforming use continued. Subd. 2. Approval for such a change shall be processed through the Type III review procedure with a Phase III hearing process utilized and the criteria that shall be considered in making the determination on the permit shall include: A. The character and history of the use and of development in the surrounding area. B. The comparable degree of noise, vibration, dust, odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable at the property line. C. The comparative numbers and kinds of vehicular trips to the site. D. The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading and parking. E. The comparative visual appearance. F. The comparative hours of operation. G. The comparative effect on existing vegetation. H. The comparative effect on water drainage. 1. Other factors which tend to reduce conflicts of incompatibility with the character or needs of the area. Section 9. Section 65.340 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.340 CONTINUATION AND TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMITIES: Subdivision 1. Any nonconformity, including but not limited to a nonconforming use of land or structure, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: A. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or B. Any nonconformity use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value so long as no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. Subd. 2. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall conform to all provisions of local ordinance. Subd.3. Any nonconforming use located in any zoning district which has been discontinued for a period of 365 days or more may be resumed, reestablished or changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the length of discontinuance, upon approval through the Type III review procedure utilizing a Phase I hearing process with the Council as the designated hearing body. The Council must base the factors on Section 65.330 when proceeding under this subdivision. Subd.3. Where a structure housing a nonconforming use has been damaged to an extent greater than 50 percent of its market value and the owner fails to make application for a building permit within the required 180 days, the nonconforming use shall be terminated unless approval to rebuild is obtained under paragraph 65.320. SubdA. A nonconforming structure may be used for occupancy by any use permitted in the applicable zoning district. Section 10. Section 65.360 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.360 NONCONFORMING USE CREATED BY FLOOD DISTRICT REGULATIONS: Except as may be provided by federal rules and regulations, the modification, expansion or termination of a nonconforming use created by flood district regulations, where the structure is conforming, is subject to this chapter. Any expansion, modification or reconstruction shall not increase the flood damage potential of the use or structure and, if located in a floodway, shall not increase the degree of obstruction to the flood flow. Section 11. Section 65.370 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.370 CONTINUED EXCAVATION: For purposes of this section, continued excavation on a parcel of land being legally excavated at the time of ordinance adoption and adhering to the requirements of any applicable permits shall not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming use. Excavation of adjoining parcels or parcels not a part of the original approval shall constitute a new use not included in a site plan covered by applicable permits. Section 12. Section 65.410 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.410 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION: A nonconforming structure shall not be enlarged or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity except under the process outlined in Section 65.330 and 65.320. Section 13. Section 65.440 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.440 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE CREATED BY FLOOD DISTRICT REGULATION: Subdivision 1. A nonconforming structure created by flood district regulations may be continued in the same manner as other nonconforming structures subject to the following additional standards that are necessary to protect the public health, welfare or society: A. Whenever any alteration, addition or repair to a nonconforming structure exceeds 50 percent of its current market value as determined from the records of the Olmsted County Assessor, the entire structure shall be made to conform to all applicable flood plain regulations. (This requirement shall also apply at such time the cumulative effect of all additions, alterations or major repairs since the date the structure became nonconforming exceed 50 percent of the current market value). B. The alteration, addition or repair to a nonconforming structure, when the value of such work does not exceed 50 percent of its current market value as determined from the records of the Olmsted County Assessor, shall not increase the flood damage i potential of the use or structure, and, if located in the floodway, shall not increase the degree of obstruction to the flood flow. C. The minor alteration, addition or repair to any nonconforming structure, which does not contribute to the increased intensity of use within the structure, and which does not exceed ten percent of the current market value of the structure as determined from the records of the Olmsted County Assessor, need not conform to the applicable flood plain regulations if in the opinion of the zoning administrator the increase in flood damage potential is minor. Section 14. Section 65.500 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.500 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: The maintenance and minor repair of nonconforming signs is permitted. No such sign shall be moved in whole or in part to any other location where it would remain nonconforming. Section 15. Section 65.510 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.510 TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Subdivision 1. This section governs the termination and removal of nonconforming signs within the city. Subd.2. Signs which are now in existence and which were constructed in compliance with the terms of any prior ordinance of the City of Rochester or which were constructed in compliance with the regulations of some other public entity but became nonconforming upon the annexation of the sign location to the City, and which are not in compliance with the terms of this code are hereby designated as legal nonconforming signs and shall be subject to removal in accordance with this section. A. Any advertising sign contained in an annexed area which conforms to the current city ordinance regulating advertising signs at the time of annexation shall increase the number of the cap set forth in Section 63.224 (1)(e). B. Any signs in annexed areas which did not conform to the regulations of the public entity previously responsible for administering the location of the sign are deemed illegal and must be removed immediately upon notice to the sign owner. Any such signs which are advertising signs will not increase the number of the cap set forth in Section 63.224 (1)(e). Subd. 3. Termination by Abandonment. Any nonconforming sign, the use of which has been discontinued for a period of one year, regardless of any intent to resume or not to abandon such use, shall be presumed to be abandoned and shall not thereafter be reestablished except in full compliance with this ordinance. Subd. 4. Termination by Damage or Destruction: If any nonconforming sign requires change, repair or maintenance which would constitute an expense of more than fifty percent of the market value cost of the sign and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged, the sign must either be removed or brought within the requirements of this section. Any sign which must be removed shall be removed within 60 days of the date of receipt of notice from the Zoning Administrator. Any sign requiring change, repair or maintenance to become conforming must be restored within six months of the date of the need for restoration becomes apparent. Subd. 5. Sign Credits: Any person or entity wishing to erect a new advertising sign that owns a legal nonconforming advertising sign must remove an equal or greater amount of legal nonconforming advertising sign area than the advertising sign area of the new advertising sign to be erected. A. Once the advertising sign owner has furnished proof of the total area of nonconforming advertising sign removed and proof of removal of the supporting structure, the owner will be issued a sign credit. This sign credit must be furnished to the Zoning Administrator before a sign permit to erect the new advertising sign will be issued. The sign permit shall allow the erection of a new advertising sign so long as the number of the cap set forth in Section 63.224 (1)(e) is not exceeded and the amount of area of the new advertising sign does not exceed the area of the nonconforming advertising sign which was removed. B. Except as provided in Subdivision 5(C), sign credits shall expire two years from the date of issuance. A complete sign permit shall be submitted to and approved by the zoning administrator prior to the sign credit's date of expiration. If the sign credit expires, the person or entity seeking to erect a new advertising sign must remove an additional equal or greater amount of legal nonconforming advertising sign area in order to erect a new advertising sign. In addition, if the sign credit expires, the number of the cap set forth in Section 63.224(1)(e) shall decrease by the number of expired credits. However, the period of time during which an interim ordinance on the erection of new advertising signs is in effect will not be counted in determining whether a sign credit has expired. C. A sign credit issued to a sign company involving a location that is adversely affected by the Trunk Highway 52 or Trunk Highway 63 reconstruction projects will expire on December 31, 2009. D. Where a sign credit permit has been issued for an advertising sign by the zoning administrator and the sign permit expires as specified in Section 61.131(2), the sign credit will also expire. No advertising sign may be erected following the sign permit's expiration. E. This replacement requirement applies to all persons or entities that own legal nonconforming signs and wish to erect new advertising signs until the person or entity no longer owns any more legal nonconforming signs. F. In addition, even if an advertising sign owner would otherwise qualify to erect a new advertising sign pursuant to this subdivision, the advertising sign owner may not erect the sign if doing so would cause the number of the cap on advertising signs as set forth in Section 63.224 (1)(e) to be exceeded. G. Multiple sign credits may be used to obtain a single sign permit for the erection of a single advertising sign. The amount of the area of the new advertising sign may not exceed the area of the nonconforming advertising signs the removal of which resulted in the issuance of the sign credits. Furthermore, the number of the cap set forth in Section 63.224 (1)(e) must be reduced by the number of sign credits submitted to the zoning administrator, minus one, in order to obtain the single permit for the new advertising sign. (For example, the use of three sign credits to obtain one new sign permit will reduce the cap by two.). H. If an advertising sign has been removed as a result of public purchase or condemnation initiated by the City of Rochester, then the sign owner will be entitled to either financial compensation or a sign credit, but not both alternatives. When the City is not otherwise legally obligated to pay financial compensation, the City retains the right to designate whether the sign owner will receive financial compensation or a sign credit. (1) If, however, an advertising sign is removed by a public entity other than the City, the sign owner will not be entitled to a sign credit although the sign owner may still qualify for financial compensation from the other public entity. (2) advertising signs which are taken as a result of purchase or condemnation where the sign owner does not receive a sign credit will reduce the number of the cap set forth in Section 63.224 (1)(e) by the number of advertising signs purchased or condemned. I. Persons or entities wishing to erect an advertising sign that do not own any legal nonconforming signs may purchase a sign credit from a current sign owner. However, even if a person or entity purchases a sign credit, that person or entity is not entitled to erect an advertising sign if doing so would cause the cap on advertising signs as set for in Section 63.224 (1)(e) to be exceeded. J. A sign credit may only be used in a location that meets all standards of this Code. K. Credits may be transferred between parties through legal means. Section 16, Section 65.700 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 65.700 NONCONFORMING APPEARANCE: Whenever any nonconforming use or conforming nonresidential use on a lot abutting a residential zoning district is expanded, or a nonconforming use is proposed for re-establishment after one year of discontinuance, or a change of use to a use with a higher bufferyard indicator is proposed for the property, such development shall, to the extent practical, provide the bufferyards required by this ordinance. 03 / Section 17. REPEAL. Sections 65.350, 65.400, 65.420 and 65.430 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances are hereby repealed. Section 18. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective as of the date of its publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2006. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2006. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Ord05S66.100 et seq i Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 25, 2006 (Nonconformities) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to comply with MN State Statute 462.357, subd. le. Mr. Logan Tjossem presented the staff report, dated January 16, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Haeussinger suggested that the tens "manifestly" be changed to "clearly". He explained that he had read some law materials that suggest that "manifestly" could be challenged. Mr. Ohly stated that either definition would be appropriate. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 AGENDA SECTION: OKIUINA t tnt; utr t : 11 tm nV F ' 'b Hearing CHARTER COMMISSION I n DESCRIPTION: Consideration of an ordinance amending the home rule charter, Subdivision 3 PREPARED BY: of Section 3.06, and repealing Section 5.09 (vacancies). Charter The Charter Commission proposes that the City Council amend Subdivision 3 of Section 3.06 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter and delete Section 5.09 relative to the process for filling vacancies in the ward councilmember position. The charter currently contains both appointment and special election provisions to fill a vacant ward councilmember position. To avoid confusion over which process is to be used, and to ensure that a special election will be called if a vacancy occurs more than one year prior to the next general election and not otherwise, the commission proposes an amendment to Subdivision 3 of Section 3.06, and the repeal of Section 5.09. The proposed amendment reads as follows: Subdivision 3. Ward Councilmember. A vacancy in any ward councilmember position shall be filled as follows: (1) If the vacancy occurs more than one year prior to the next regularly scheduled general election, the council shall call a special election to fill the unexpired term of the vacant position. The elected successor shall serve until the next regularly scheduled election for that position and until the successor is elected and qualified. Until the time the vacancy is filled by a special election and a successor is elected and qualified, the common council may make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy. (2) If the vacancy occurs less than one year prior to the next regularly scheduled general election, the council shall appoint a successor who shall serve until a successor is elected and qualified at that next general election. The elected successor shall serve for the unexpired term of the vacant position unless that position was scheduled to be filled at that election. (TO REPLACE: Subdivision 3. Ward Councilmember. The common council shall call a special election to fill a vacancy in any ward councilmember position. The elected successor shall serve until the next regularly scheduled election for that position and until the successor is elected and qualified.) (DELETE) SECTION 5.09. (Vacancy). In the event of a vacancy in the office of Councilmemberat-large or ward Councilmember, a successor shall be appointed by the common council to hold office until the successor of such appointee is elected and qualified. The City Attorney's office has concluded that this amendment will allow the Council's appointment to serve until the successor is elected during the 2006 general election. The City Council is not prohibited, however, in calling for a special election if such action is taken prior to the effective date of this amendment. Under Minn. Stat. §410,12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Following the hearing, the council may adopt the ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members, subject to the public's right to object by petition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the proposed ordinance amending Subdivision 3 of Section 3.06 and repealing Section 5.09 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter. An affirmative vote of all members present is necessary to amend the charter by ordinance. trvUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2-22-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED - REPORTS & RECOMMENDATION rrEM PLANNING DESCRIPTION: Request to Clarify a Condition from Item E-2 from the July 18, 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 21, 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". There was no specific discussion by the Council of the use of the front porch of the building, which faces TH 63. Staff would appreciate 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. 1 'p Attachments: F^ vNYYy` 1. Minutes of City Council Meeting ti, 2. Letter from Ken Moen 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 22, 2006 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2-6-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS & RECOMMEND PLANNING OPATION _3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Clarify a Condition from Item E-2 from the July 18, 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". There was no specific discussion by the Council of the use of the front porch of the building, which faces TH 63. Staff would appreciate if the Council could clarify whether this condition allows for the front porch of the building to be used by patri (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: 1. Minutes of City Council Meeting 2. Letter from Ken Moen 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. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: i r w ep� a`s r tea :_g 9 't tY;tti gHfi 'o F 8+�gsR=RuG p�gBh}EC Pip# Vtl pp fl1g �Q€ o8f p i 6 41 IF ell till fill . C rr r cz _LL ow W --- :�� _•: x .3 p sk;g y& 3y 9 \ z Lr) O �t S v nt . "r q r 202 RIVERSIDE BUILDING 400 SOUTH BROADWAY ROCHESTER, MN 55904 January 31, 2006 Rochester City Council 201 5th St. SE Rochester, MN 55904 KENNETH R. MOEN MOEN LAW FIRM Re: Clarification of CUP #05-10, Todd Powers d/b/a Pints Pub Dear Members of the City Council: Tel: 507.281.2437 Fax: 507.281.2438 E-,nail: AENBMOENLAWFIRM.COAS— F 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 reads: "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 Rochester City Council 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 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/22/06 'IDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, )LUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY L. ADKINS — _�. G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Amending And Re -Enacting Section 134.34 Of The Rochester Code Of Ordinances, "' ` Relating To Enforcement Of Parking Meters On Certain Holidays. 'alt. b) An Ordinance Amending And Reenacting Section 12.05 Of The Home Rule Charter Of The City Of I° Rochester, Relating To The Public Bidding Process. c) An Ordinance Rezoning 7.99 Acres From The R-1 Zoning District To The B-1 Zoning District, And 5.73 Acres From The R-1 Zoning District To The B-4 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 South of Overland Drive NW and East of Bandel Road NW. n A. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: