Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/03/2006_Regular
CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 9 REGULAR IMM E CIF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS O(o`os APRIL 3, 2006 7:00 P.M. 3-4 D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes 5-14 2) Request to Sell City Property 15-16 3) Airport Operating Agreement 17-18 4) Airport Fire and Crash Protection Agreement 19-20 5) 2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award 21-28 6) CDBG Citizen Participation Plan 29-30 7) Change Order #3 on the 2004 Runway Lighting System Material and Equipment contract with Premier Electric 31-34 8) Request for public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Home Rule Charter Sections 4.03, 6.00, 6.031, 6.04, and 6.05 relating to the Mayor's Veto authority -35-36 9) Repeal RCO 131.05 Registration of Bicycles 37-38 10) Transfer of Wine & 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Leo's Pizza Palace 39-42 11) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 43-44 12) Approval of Accounts Payable 45-46 13) Advertise Request for Proposal for Life Insurance 47-48 14) Memorandum of Understanding — LELS Participation in the MSRS Health Care Savings Plan 49-50 15) Safety Grant Contract with State of Minnesota 51-52 16) Parkland Dedication Credits for Hart Farm South Storm Sewer and Grading Work • Council Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 2 of 4 53-58 17) Orderly Annexation #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 18,000 square feet of land located along the north side of Marion Road SE (CSAH 36) and south of 201h Street SE, described as Lot 3, Block 1, Christ Lutheran Church Subdivision located within Marion Township 59-64 18) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action 65-66 19) TH 52/551h Street Ramp Improvement Cost Share Agreement 67-68 20) Professional Services Agreement, Traffic Signal at South Broadway and 3rd Street S, J6021 69-70 21) Engineering Services to Design Sanitary Sewage Flow Monitoring Project J2179 71-72 22) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II — J5217 73-74 23) Engineering Services Contract for Environmental and Design Services for CIP project to "Construct 20'h Street S.E. from C.R. 1 to C.R. 36" (J-2208) 75-76 24) Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with the Pedestrian Tunnel Extension for the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center— J5220 77-78 25) Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Rochester — Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center 79-80 26) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Weatherstone West Subdivision — J5204 81-82 27) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve West 80 Development — J5126 83-84 28) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — James P. McGovern and Frances P. McGovern (M&B#05-19) 85-86 29) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Joseph H. Postier & Wendy A. Pastier (M&B#05-20) 87-88 30) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Sunstone Hotels LLC (SDP#05-49 for Textile Care Facility) 89-90 31) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Senst Properties, LLP, Vendor of Contract for Deed and LeRoy G. Hall and Ann F. Hall, Vendee of said Contract for Deed (SDP#05-61 for Bandel Heights Business Park) 91-92 32) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Partnership 10 (SDP#05-52 for Home Design Studio) 93-94 33) Engineering Services for Condition Survey/Third Street and Civic Center Parking Ramps 95-96 34) Agreement to Create Official Street Map Connecting 65�h Street and 75h Street NW 97-98 35) 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 3 36) (from E-12) Approval Mayo clinic Revenue Bonds for $125,000,000 37) Owner Contract — J5217 Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II —J5217 38) 2006 Season Supply of Bituminous Paving Materials Council Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 3 of 4 E) HEARINGS 99-104 1) Continued Hearing on Annexation Petition #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union to annex approximately 9.95 acres of land located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive in Haverhill Township. 105-128 2) Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union to amend the land use from low density residential to commercial on land located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive in Haverhill Township 129-134 3) Zoning District Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union to change the zoning map from R-1 to B-1 on land located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive in Haverhill Township. 135-168 4) General Development Plan #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be known as Think Plaza Northeast 169-180 5) Zoning Change #05-15 by DeWitz Construction to amend the zoning of Lots 5, 6, and 7 Rose Harbor Third from R-1 to R-2 located south of Eastwood Road S.E., east of Hillcrest Court S.E. 181-206 6) General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction to be known as Rose Harbor Third and Variance #06-06 by DeWitz Construction to allow for a front yard setback on property located south of Eastwood Road S.E., east of Hillcrest Court S.E. 207-234 7) REVISED Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit #05-16 by Franklin P. Kottschade, North American Realty approving a Substantial Land Alteration permit for property located east of TH 52, along the north side of 371" Street N.W. within Maplewood Square. 235-242 8) Zoning District Amendment #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities to rezone from I to R-1 land for the Rose Harbor Water Tower site located south of Eastwood Road S.E., east of Harbor Drive S.E. and north of Harbor Heights Court S.E. 243-272 9) Preliminary Plat #06-04 by Mark Hemann to be known as Rochester Towne Club Second and requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration Permit for property located south of Eastwood Road S.E., east of Harbor Drive S.E. and is part of the Rochester Towne Center Development. 273-282 10) Final Plat #06-06 by MSB Holdings Rochester LLC to be known as Pennington Business Park Seventh 283-284 11) 2006 Applications for Federal Transit Assistance 285-286 12) Providing Final Approval to the Issuance of Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 in the amount of $125,000,000 on behalf of Mayo Foundation — moved to D-36 F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Design Modification: Rose Harbor Third Subdivision 2) Reconsider Final Plat Conditions for Pine Ridge Estates Fifth Subdivision G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 287-288 Council Agenda Monday, April 3, 2006 Page 4 of 4 H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENI]A SbG I IVN: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD EM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 IT NO. A S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. OUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENUA SC(: I IUN: CONSENT AGENDA ..'EM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MEETING 2 DATE: 4/3/06 ITEM NO. D-1-35 C NA111J3/V12I This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: 1) Approval of Minutes 2) Request to Sell City Property 3) Airport Operating Agreement 4) Airport Fire and Crash Protection Agreement 5) 2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award 6) CDBG Citizen Participation Plan 7) Change Order #3 on the 2004 Runway Lighting System Material and Equipment contract with Premier Electric 8) Request for public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Home Rule Charter Sections 4.03, 6.00, 6.031, 6.04, and 6.05 relating to the Mayor's Veto authority 9) Repeal RCO 131.05 Registration of Bicycles 10) Transfer of Wine & 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Leo's Pizza Palace 11) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 12) Approval of Accounts Payable 13) Advertise Request for Proposal for Life Insurance 14) Memorandum of Understanding — LELS Participation in the MSRS Health Care Savings Plan 15) Safety Grant Contract with State of Minnesota 16) Parkland Dedication Credits for Hart Farm South Storm Sewer and Grading Work 17) Orderly Annexation #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 18,000 square feet of land located along the north side of Marion Road SE (CSAH 36) and south of 20"' Street SE, described as Lot 3, Block 1, Christ Lutheran Church Subdivision located within Marion Township 18) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action 19) TH 52/55'�' Street Ramp Improvement Cost Share Agreement 20) Professional Services Agreement, Traffic Signal at South Broadway and 3`d Street S. J6021 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: N Page 2 April 3, 2006 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) Engineering Services to Design Sanitary Sewage Flow Monitoring Project J2179 Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II — J5217 Engineering Services Contract for Environmental and Design Services for CIP project to "Construct 20'' Street S.E. from C.R. 1 to C.R. 36" (J-2208) Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with the Pedestrian Tunnel Extension for the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center — J5220 Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Rochester — Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Weatherstone West Subdivision — J5204 Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve West 80 Development — J5126 Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — James P. McGovern and Frances P. McGovern (M&B#05-19) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Joseph H. Postier & Wendy A. Postier (M&B#05-20) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Sunstone Hotels LLC (SDP#05-19 for Textile Care Facility) 31) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Senst Properties, LLP, Vendor of Contract for Deed and LeRoy G. Hall and Ann F. Hall, Vendee of said Contract for Deed (SDP#05-61 for Bandel Heights Business Park) 32) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Partnership 10 (SDP#05-52 for Home Design Studio) 33) Engineering Services for Condition Survey/Third Street and Civic Center Parking Ramps 34) Agreement to Create Official Street Map Connecting 65t' Street and 75t' Street NW 35) 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 3 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 CONSENT AGENDA ADMMSTRATION .. EM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO SELL CITY PROPER _C S. KVENVOLD On March 6, 2006, the Committee of the Whole reviewed the request for authorization to sell three pieces of City property. The C.O.W. indicated their authorization to sell the properties involved, but requested some additional information on the sealed bid process mentioned by Councilmember Carr. Mike Nigbur has prepared the attached memo on various sales approaches. I recommend the following sales process for the properties involved. 2nd Street Fire Station Property - I recommend that the sealed bid process be used for marketing the sale of this property. During the past couple of years, the City has been approached by several individuals who have expressed an interest in purchasing this property. 2. Sheflebine Property. I support Mr. Nigbur's recommendation on marketing the sale of this property by staff. The City has received three unsolicited written offers to date for the purchase of this property. The Sheflebine Trust has the right of first refusal to repurchase the property. 3. 20th Street 5 E (former Fire Station #5 proposed site) I support Mr. Nigbur's recommendation to market the sale of this site with the use of a real estate agent after first determining if the neighboring property owners have any interest in purchasing the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the City staff to market the properties for sale as recommended above. .;OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: r M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Steve Kvenvold FROM: Michael Nigbur,;V4 RE: Sale of City Property. CC: Richard Freese Based on Council direction, I would like offer my perspective regarding the sale of City owned parcels keeping in mind that there is not necessarily any right or wrong answers. As you are aware there are several options any seller has for determining what method one should use when selling a parcel of land. The following are a few of the options available for the City to dispose of property: 1. Auction. - The City could retain a licensed Auctioneer to perform an auction to dispose of the property. a. Advantage - you have a fixed date for the auction. b. Disadvantage —you do not know what prospective buyer will bid on the property due to lack of market exposure. c. Advantage -You could have a minimum reserve bid that must be met for any sale to occur. 2. Sealed Bid —The City could advertise the sale of City property in various publications noting of the taking of bids for the parcel on a given date. a. Advantage - fixed date for receipt of bids. b. Advantage — little sales expense to City C. Disadvantage - you do not know what prospective buyer will bid on the property due to lack of market exposure. d. Advantage - you could have a minimum reserve bid that must be met for any sale to occur. e. Advantage —this process works well in conjunction with redevelopment where the City may wish to dictate specific conditions on the property. 3. Open Market with a Broker— The City would enter into a contract with a residential or commercial broker to sell the property. a. Advantage - Broker exposes the property to the market and coordinates the marketing and transactions for the sale. b. Disadvantage — expense to City for sale of the property c. Advantage — possible higher sale price due to market competition ROCHESTER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION 4. Open Market by Owner — City could market the property via the newspaper, contacts, signage etc. a. Advantage — limited expense to City of Rochester b. Disadvantage — likely more staff time involvement in the marketing of the property- C . Disadvantage —possible lower sale price due to lack of active marketing Recommendations: I would not support the notion that one procedure is the proper method to use for every conveyance. On the contrary, each property the City will be selling should be reviewed and a determination made for which method is the best method to sell the property to generate the most benefit for the City (not necessarily the most money). I would impart caution on the use of the auction or sealed bid processes. Since the City is likely under no specific timeframes to convey the property (we are not forced to sell) we may likely find greater value (monetary) through another process that exposes the property to the market longer or more effectively. The following are several real life examples and what process I would recommend for selling the property: • 2 ,d Street Fire Station — I would support marketing this property through either a broker or through the staff through the sealed bid process. However, as part of the sealed bid process I would also include the following: minimum bid amount, buyer pays all commission fees, City has the right to reject all bids, City has the right to approve the use on the property (Since this is a high profile comer the City may wish to restrict the use of the property prior to bidding to maintain a higher quality of building .... ie no fast food restaurants or require only office buildings, etc.). This site has great visibility and has had exposure opportunity. Many people have already expressed interest in this site so the site has already been exposed to the market for a significant amount of time. We also already know the value of the property though the completion of a recent appraisal (which would set the minimum bid amount). • Sheflebine Property — I would support the use of marketing of this property though staff (setting the sales price, marketing of the site, and considering any offers). This site has great visibility and exposure opportunity due to its proximity to Circle Drive NW as well as all of the commercial development in the area. Staff has already received several offers for consideration. • 20`h Street SE (former fire station site) — I would support the use of a broker to market this site. However, Prior to retaining a Broker we should set a price and check the interest of the abutting owners (they have expressed interested in this site previously). NOTE: In areas of residential neighborhoods I would always recommend offering the property to the abutting owners first. As we move forward to dispose of other properties I will gladly provide my recommendation as to the procedure I believe will provide the City the best benefit. Lastly, I would also suggest that whatever methodology or process is ultimately adopted it should done so for the entire organization (Public Works, Park & Rec, RPU, Airport, etc). We should all be operating under the same general procedures. I Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: February 27, 2006 Subject: Authorization to Sell City Property The City staff is requesting authorization to market for sale several City owned properties. The City owned properties which are proposed for sale are as follows: 1. The Shefelbine Property. This property is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of 415` St. N.W. with Circle Drive (see attached map). In June of 2005, the City purchased 14.90 acres of the Shefelbine property for the construction of a regional storm water pond. Approximately 4.2 acres of this property is not needed for the storm water pond purposes and could be resold. The City paid $39,000 per acre for this property. The City has received three written offers to purchase this property. The offers ranged from approximately $1.00 per square foot ($43,560 per acre) to $2 per sq. ft. ($87,120 per acre). The purchase agreement gives David Shefelbine, co -trustee of the Shefelbine Trust, the right of first refusal to repurchase the property. The owner of the property in question will have the obligation to construct, at the owner's expense, the future Superior Drive roadway connection across the parcel. 2. Old Fire Station #3. This property is located on the south side of 2nd Street S.W., immediately west of T.H. 52. The City has had numerous indications of interest in purchasing this property. 3. TO Ave and 20a' St. S.E. This is a City owned piece of property that was purchased many years ago as a future site for an additional fire station (see attached map). The City staff recommends that "For Sale" "For Sale" ad be placed in the Post Bulletin to assist in marketing the properties. Mike of these properties. signs be placed at all of the three sites and that a The staff does not see a need to retain a realtor Nigbur would be the contact person for the sale 4. 40'h St.IT.H. 63 So. Parcel. The staff recommends that this parcel which was originally designated as a site for fire station #5 be retained until after a site for fire station #5 has been selected. tk rato-'ll AMIN E,:Ol LOINUM t F ILTO HIM-* Z City of Rochester Site F". � 4 L a Seneca Warehouse OMEN-ff- M" 5:1 '71 Former Fire Station Site St. Marys --n-- Z*4 I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 7 , DATE: 413/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AIRPORT OPERATING AGREEMENT FPRErARED Iy��i F � The current airport operating agreement between the City of Rochester and the Rochester Airport Company has expired and a new operating agreement has been proposed for your consideration. The City of Rochester has had a long and productive relationship with the Rochester Airport Company in the operation of the Rochester International Airport. The Rochester Airport Company is a subsidiary of the Mayo Foundation. The proposed operating agreement is relatively unchanged from the past agreement. The only significant change is the amount of money which the Rochester Airport Company is able to make or lose from the operating profits or deficits from the Airport operation. Under the proposed agreement, the maximum annual operating profit or deficit assigned to the Airport Company would be $50,000. Under the old agreement, the maximum annual Airport Company profit or loss was $37,500. The proposed agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the Mayo Board of Governors. The term of the agreement is 10 years with a 5 year renewal option. I recommend your approval of the proposed Airport Operating Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Council to execute the proposed operating agreement on behalf of the City. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM D-3 APRIL 3, 2006 AGENDA Mayor & Council S}PVan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese AIRPORT OPERATING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into as of by and between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA (herein called "City"), and the ROCHESTER AIRPORT COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation (herein called "Company"). WITNESSETH: Part 1. Recitals and Definitions. The parties agree that the following facts exist and are pertinent to the subject and matters herein contracted: 1.1 The City has, since 1945, been provided with an airport, largely by donations made by Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota eleemosynary corporation, which airport has been operated for the City and public at substantial cost to Company and Mayo Clinic. In 1960, a new airport facility was developed now called Rochester International Airport. Rochester International Airport is situated in Sections 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16, Township 105 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The cost of said site, improvements and equipment was paid for with funds provided in part by bonds issued and taxes levied by the City and in part by Federal and/or State grants and in part by donations from Mayo Clinic and/or Company. The Company aided the City in the acquisition, improvement and equipment of the new airport without compensation for its services or expenses in. so doing. The term "airport", as herein used, means the Rochester International Airport and all improvements, f unishings and equipment owned by City and now thereon and any extensions, expansions, additions or replacements thereof made before or during the term of this agreement, and includes any and all personal property acquired by or for the City which is used or useful in the operations hereunder. 1.2 The City has determined it is in its best interests and those of the public users of the airport that it be operated for the City by an agent skilled and experienced in such operation. The Company has such skill and experience. In addition, the Company and Mayo Clinic, as the Company's sole stockholder, have provided substantial financial assistance which has reduced and minimized the need for City funds for the purpose, and the Company may provide funding in the future as hereinafter set forth. 1.3 Consent or approval of the City, as referred to herein, shall be evidenced by resolution duly adopted by the City Part 2. Operating Agent. 2.1 The City hereby designates and employs the Company as its exclusive and official Agent to manage and operate the airport, on the terms and provisions and in accordance with the directions and limitations herein contained, for a term commencing on the date hereinabove set forth continuing through December 31, 2015, or until the prior termination thereof as permitted by Part 8 hereon. The Company shall have the option to extend this agreement for an additional five year term by providing written notice not less than 6 months prior to expiration of this agreement. The Company hereby accepts such agency and agrees to said terms, provisions, and limitations. Part 3. Title and Rights of Possession. -2- 3.1 The airport and all improvements at any time thereon and all personal property owned by the City and used and usable in connection therewith shall at all times be and remain the property of the City and devoted exclusively to the public purpose of providing aeronautical services to the City and surrounding territory. The agency relationship created hereunder shall not constitute the Company becoming a lessee of such real or personal property. The Company shall nevertheless be entitled to possession and use of any and all such property whenever and to whatever extent suitable for the performance of its duties and agreements as Agent for the City, but only to such extent. Part 4. Manner of Operation 4.1 The Company agrees to manage, operate, and maintain the airport for the City in such a manner that the public is not deprived of its rightful, equal and uniform use thereof, and so as to comply with Federal and State laws, regulations, rulings and all sponsors assurance agreements heretofore or hereafter entered into between the City and the Federal Government relative to the airport. 4.2 The Company shall have no authority or power to obligate the City for any capital improvements without the prior consent and approval by the City. 4.3 City shall be responsible for all capital improvements, but the Company may, in its own name and at its own cost and expense, contract for and make or cause to be made any capital improvements, but only according to plans and specifications approved by the City. 4.4 The Company shall supervise the making of any and all capital improvements, including the procuring and preparation of preliminary and final architectural and engineering -3- estimates, plans and specifications, and the making and performance of any contracts therefore. 4.5 The Company shall have full power and authority and it shall be the Company's duty to maintain the airport and improvements thereon in good and serviceable condition and repair. The cost of such maintenance and improvements shall be an operating expense as described in Part 6 hereof. Such duty is, however, limited to the funds available thereof as specified in said Part 6. 4.6 The Company shall supervise any repairs which are required to be made by a tenant on leased portions of the airport or buildings, and it shall also act for the City in periodically inspecting the premises so leased and shall assist the City in enforcing compliance by such lessees with the terms of the lease. 4.7 The Company shall perform and bear the cost of all routine maintenance and repair on the air terminal building, landing areas and such other structures and facilities not leased by the City to others or for which maintenance is not supplied by the Federal or State Government or the City under this agreement, but the cost of all major repair or renovation of or to buildings and/or other facilities located on the airport shall be born by City. Company agrees to call to City's attention the need for such repair or renovation. For purposes of this agreement shall include, but not be limited to, such items as replacement of fixtures or facilities, reroofing, restructuring, rebuilding or any extension to existing buildings, heating, cooling, electrical, sewerage, water or other such systems. 4.8 The Company shall employ, supervise and direct any and all personnel which the Company deems necessary for the efficient operation, maintenance and repair of the airport, and fix their compensation and terms of employment. All salaries, wages and other compensation of such employees shall be paid by the Company as an operating expense. ME 4.9 The Company may and shall contract for the operation of concessions or furnishing of services and facilities to patrons or customers of the airport; provided that if the Company deems it better that any such contract be made by the City rather than the Company with the other party, the Company shall assist in negotiating the terms thereof and recommend to the City the contract to be made directly between the City and such party. 4.10 From time to time, Company shall prepare and recommend to City for its approval, schedules of rates, charges and fees for the use of the facilities and services provided by or at the airport. City, in recognition of Company's knowledge of standards and customs in the aviation industry, and of its expertise in these matters, agrees to give due consideration to the schedules so submitted by Company. 4.11 The Company shall receive and collect all income from any leases of any part of the airport or improvements thereon, and from rents, rates, charges, fees, franchise concession agreements or other operating income. The Company shall, in its own name or in the name of the City, as the Company shall deem best, enforce any liens or other security or rights of the City fof the collection of such items. 4.12 The Company shall counsel, advise and assist the City in respect to obtaining grants from the United States and from the State of Minnesota and from any other public or private parties for use in connection with the improvement, enlargement, maintenance or operation of the airport. 4.13 The Company shall recommend to the City adoption of ordinances or resolutions for the proper policing of the airport and approaches thereof and shall cooperate in the enforcement thereof. 4.14 The Company shall recommend to and assist and advise the City with respect to .5- the City's regulation and restrictions on the use of highways, roads, street, avenues, boulevards and territory at or near the airport, as permitted by Minn. Stat. § §360.032, subd. 3 and 4, and §360.038, subd. 3, or acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto. 4.15 The Company shall have full power and authority, and it shall be the Company's duty to purchase contracts of fire and extended coverage insurance from reputable insurers, the proceeds of which shall be payable to the City and the Company as their interests may appear. The Company shall also have full power and authority, and it shall be the Company's duty to purchase contracts of public liability insurance coverage from reputable insurers with such bodily injury and property damage limits as may be deemed adequate by the Company, which contracts or policies shall name the City as an additional insured. 4.16 The provisions of Chapter XII of the Rochester Home Rule Charter need not be complied with in the making of purchases, sales and other contracts which the Company is herein authorized to make as operating Agent and which are not required by this agreement to be approved or consented to by the City. 4.17 The City and the Company agree that the following provisions shall be controlling in the event that it is found that other provisions of this agreement arc in conflict therewith. 4.17-1 The Company agrees to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make available all airport facilities and services to the public without unjust discrimination. The Company does hereby covenant and agree to operate in compliance with all other requirements imposed pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally - Assisted programs of the Department of Transportation —Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said regulations may be amended. The Company does hereby further covenant and agree that (1) no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land and the famishing of such services thereon, no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, and (3) that the Company shall use the premises in compliance with all other requirements by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally - Assistance Programs of the Department of Transportation -- Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said regulations may be amended. 4.17-2 The City reserves the right to further develop or improve the landing area of the airport as it sees fit, regardless of the desires or views of the Company, and without interference or hindrance, but City shall seek the Company's advise and counsel with respect to sane. 4.17-3 The City reserves the right, but shall be obligated to the Company, to maintain and keep in repair the landing area of the airport and all publicly owned facilities of the airport, together with the right to direct and control all activities of the Company in this regard. 4.17-4 The City reserves the right to take any action it considers necessary to protect the aerial approaches of the airport against obstruction, together with the right to prevent the Company from erecting, or permitting to be erected, any building or other structure on the airport which, in the opinion of the City, would limit the usefulness of the airport or constitute a hazard to aircraft. 4.17-5 During time of war or national emergency, the City shall have the right to lease the landing area or any part thereof to the United States Government for military or naval use, and, if any such lease is executed, the provisions of this instrument, insofar as they are inconsistent with -7- the provisions of the lease to the Government, shall he suspended. 4.17-6 This agreement shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreement between the City and the United States relative to the operation or maintenance of the airport. Part 5. City Services and Utilities 5.1 The City, throughout the period of this agreement, will furnish or provide an adequate supply of electricity, water, and sewer disposal service, and such fire and police protection as may be needed for the proper operation of the airport as it is now constituted and as it may later be expanded or improved. The City will also bear the cost of all replacements and capital improvements or extensions of the sewage disposal and water systems as may be necessary for the proper operation of the airport during the period of this agreement. The cost of airplane lire and crash protection, as now required or as hereafter may be required, or of other facilities or services not required or in effect at the time of the execution of this agreement, by State, Federal or other authorities, shall be the obligation of the City and shall not constitute an operating expense within the meaning of paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4. Company agrees, however, at City's request to provide, manage and supervise at City's sole cost and expense, such fire and crash protection services as —re necessary at the airport to satisfy Federal, State or local law, ordinances and regulations. 5.2 The electricity so to be furnished shall include light and power for landings lights, beacons and other navigation aids, whether or not located on the airport, as well as light and power for the buildings on or at the airport and approaches thereto. -8- 5.3 The cost of all such electricity, water, sewer, and other services, except natural gas, shall be paid by the City and not chargeable as an operating expense of the airport. 5.4 The City shall also provide the foregoing services to lessees of portions of the airport or of buildings thereon, and may charge such lessees therefore on a metered or other basis, as agreed between the City and the lessees, and all payments by the lessees for such water, electric, sewer, or other services, shall be payable directly to the City, and shall not be included as airport operating income. 5.5 The City shall procure and provide funds from time to time for the sponsor's or owner's share of the cost of all State and/or Federal participating projects for resealing and resurfacing runways, taxiways, and ramps or other improvements authorized by the City, and no part thereof shall constitute costs of operating or maintenance to be paid by the Company or chargeable as operating expense. 5.6 Income or any governmental aids or subsidies related directly to any of the services or utilities mentioned in paragraphs 4.6, 4.7, 5.1-5.- 5 of this Agreement shall be paid to City Company agrees to collect such income and/or aids and subsidies and pay same over to City unless they are payable directly to the City. Part 6. Accounting and Financing 6.1 The Company shall at all times keep financial records showing all its receipts and disbursements as agent in form and manner conforming with accepted accounting practices. Such records shall be open to inspection by the City and its accountants and attomeys at all reasonable times. The fiscal year for such operations shall be the calendar year. Within ninety {90) days after KIM the close of each fiscal year, the Company shall cause the records to be audited by a certified public accountant who shall prepare a summary and report of such examination, copies of which shall be delivered to the City and the Company. The expense of such audit, as well as the expense of keeping such records, shall he included in current operating expense. 6.2 In such accounts and accounting, all moneys received by the Company hereunder shall constitute operating income except the following: 6.2-1 Any moneys paid by a fixed base operator which are received by the Company for payment over to the City as its agreed share thereof. 6.2-2 Donations by the City or any other party which the donor shall specify are not to be included as operating income. 6.2-3 The charges for the services described in paragraph 5.4. 6.2-4 The funds described in paragraph 5.5. 6.2-5 Operating income shall also include aid from any governmental source for routine maintenance and operation of the airport. City agrees to cooperate with Company in making the necessary applications for such aid and, if payable directly to the City, agrees to turn any such sums over to Agent Company. 6.3 In such accounts and accounting, all disbursements by the Company shall, according to recognized sound accounting practices, constitute normal, reasonable and current costs of operating and maintenance of the airport and shall be deemed and treated as operating expense. The following are hereby expressly declared to be includible therein, whether or not they would he includible under the preceding sentence: 6.3-1 An allowance for depreciation of Company's equipment used in connection with the operation of the airport. -10- 6.3-2 Premiums of policies of insurance described in paragraph 4.15. 6.4 The difference between the operating income, as defined in paragraph 6.2 hereof, and the operating expense, as defined in paragraph 6.3, for any year shall constitute net annual operating profit or net annual operating loss, as the case may he. 6.5 The provisions of Chapter XI of the City Charter shall not apply to the Company's receipts, disbursements and handling of money hereunder. The provisions of Minn. Stat. §§471.38-.392, shall apply with respect to accounts, claims or demands for payments from the operating income administered by the Company. Part 7. Compensation of Company and Sharing of Income and Losses with City. 7.1 Compensation to Company shall be payable solely out of net operating profit, and the City shall not be or become liable for the payment thereof from any other City moneys at any time or in any manner. City and Company each shall be entitled to the receipt of one-half of the first $100,000 of annual net operating profits, if any. City shall be entitled to all net operating profits in excess of $100,000 per year. The parties agree to share any net operating losses up to $100,000 per year in the same percentages as net operating profits are to be shared, with City being responsible for all net operating losses, if any, in excess of $100,000 per year. It is agreed that City's share of any net annual operating profit shall be paid to City by Company within 30 days following the completion of the annual audit of the Company's books and City agrees to reimburse Company its share of any annual operating losses within 30 days of said audit and notice to the City of the amount of said losses. [redundant]. -11- Part 8. Termination of Agency 8.1 Notwithstanding the terms specified in paragraph 2.1 hereof, the City may terminate this Agreement without cause upon ninety (90) days' written notice to the Company and the Company may terminate this Agreement without cause upon one hundred eighty (180) days' written notice to the City. 8.2 Should the City at any time during the course of this agreement transfer its interests in, or its authority to, control the operation of the airport to an airport authority, this agreement may be terminated by either party, but consideration then will be given to the possibility of assigning the City's interest in this agreement to the airport authority. Any such assignment must be with the consent of both parties hereto. Part 9. Sale of Airport Property 9.1 Whenever the airport, or any portion thereof, is no longer required for aeronautical purposes and it, or such portion, is sold or otherwise disposed of by the City, the net proceeds thereof shall he paid to the City: first to the City until the City has been reimbursed for its contributions to the original cost of the airport in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Thereafter, all other net proceeds of any such sale or disposal of the airport, or any portion thereof, shall be paid one-third (1/3) to the City and two-thirds (213) to Mayo Clinic; provided, however, that Mayo Clinic's share of such proceeds shall not exceed its contribution of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the original cost of the airport made pursuant to an agreement dated March 1, 1956, between the parties hereto and Mayo Clinic. -12- Part 10. Related Agreements 10.1 Prior to the execution and delivery of this instrument, the City, with or without the joining of the Company therein, or the Company, has/have executed certain agreements relating to the airport, each of which the parties hereto recognize as bearing upon this agreement and the rights, powers, and obligations hereunder. Nothing herein shall be deemed to vitiate the terms of said agreements. Part 11. Miscellaneous 11.1 The Company agrees that it will give suitable notice to the City Clerk of the City of the annual meeting of the Company's Board of Directors, and that the Mayor, President of the Common Council, and the City Engineer, as representatives of the City, shall have the right to attend such directors' meetings, but such representatives shall not be deemed members of the Board or have the right to vote thereat. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this agreement to be executed in its behalf by its Mayor and City Clerk and sealed with its seal pursuant to authorization and approval by its City Council, and the Company has caused it to be executed by its President and Secretary and sealed with its seal pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, as of the day and year first above written. - 13 - DMizAwVa CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation BY ITS MAYOR ATTEST: ITS CITY CLERK ROCHESTER AIRPORT COMPANY BY ITS PRESIDENT BY ITS SECRETARY Approved: MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER BY BY -14- DA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ADMINISTRATION „ EM DESCRIPTION: AIRPORT FIRE AND CRASH PROTECTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 ITEM NABY: L PREPAS. KV The fire and crash protection aYthe Rochester International Airport has been provided by the Rochester Airport Company under the Airport Operating Agreement between the City and the Rochester Airport Company. Pursuant to this agreement, the City pays the Airport Company all of the costs and expenses associated with airport fire and crash protection. The fire and crash agreement has been separated from the master Airport Operating Agreement in order to provide the Airport Company the flexibility to manage changes in the manner that such services are provided without causing changes in the master agreement. I recommend your approval of the proposed agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed agreement on behalf of the City. :-OUNCIL ACTION: Moton by: second by: to: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM M APRIL 3, 2006 AGENDA Mayor & Council Evan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese j. Airport Fire and Crash Protection Agreement THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into as of , by and between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA (herein called "City"), and the ROCHESTER AIRPORT COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation (herein called "Company"). WHEREAS, the City and Company have entered into an Airport Operating Agreement dated and WHEREAS, under the terms of that agreement the City is responsible for providing fire and crash protection services, and WHEREAS, Company agrees to provide such fire and crash protection. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Company agrees to provide, manage and supervise such fire and crash protection services as are necessary at the Rochester International Airport to satisfy Federal and State or local law, ordinance and regulation, 2. City shall pay all costs and expenses for such fire and crash protection directly to Company. 3. This agreement may be terminated by either party by giving one hundred eighty (180) days prior written notice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this agreement to be executed in its behalf by its Mayor and City Clerk and sealed with its seal pursuant to authorization and approval by its City Council, and the Company has caused it to be executed by its President and Secretary and sealed with its seal pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation BY ITS MAYOR ATTEST: ITS CITY CLERK ROCHESTER AIRPORT COMPANY BY ITS PRESIDENT BY ITS SECRETARY DMA27078 A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A DATE: 04-03 06 { -1 CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPI ITEMCZ CITY ADMINISTRATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: :01044COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AWARD I Theresa Fogarty March 27, 2006 The City of Rochester has been advised that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has awarded the sum of $576,344 for the City's 2006 CDBG Program. This amount is $63,656 less than estimated would be received last fall when the Council approved the 2006 allocations. The $63,656 reduction will be reflected by not funding the contingency activity ($54,000) and by reducing 2006 activities (listed below). The City will need to officially accept the award of the 2006 CDBG Program and execute the Grant Agreement with HUD. The 2006 allocations are as follows: Aldrich Memorial Nursery School (Nursery School Scholarships) $ 4,913 Boys & Girls Club of Rochester (Transportation Program) $ 6,069 Planning Department (City's Home Rehab Program) $250,000 Child Care Resource & Referral (Child Care Programs) $ 13,102 Senior Center (Operating Costs) $ 13,106 Hiawatha Homes Foundation (Window Replacement— Main Facility) $ 9,441 Camp Olson (Camp Scholarships) $ 8,960 Ability Building Center (Installation of Handrails @ Workforce Center) $ 8,960 Olmsted County HRA (Flood Home Rehab) $ 15,800 City Park & Recreation Dept. (West Silver Lake Park) $ 37,100 Rochester Area Foundation (Heritage Homes Program) $ 30,443 CDBG Program Administration $ 35,000 Channel One (Building Addition to Accommodate Elevator) $ 23,507 Salvation Army (Environmental Clean -Up — Castleview Apartments) $ 39,210 Senior Center (Building Improvements) $ 36,417 Rochester Area Foundation (First Homes — Blight Removal) $ 15,414 Friendship Place (Administration Expenses— Internet Costs) $ 1,060 PossAbilities of SE MN (Purchase Commercial Grade Shredders) $ 4,046 RADAR (Administration Expenses) $ 3,950 SE MN Mediation Services (Administration Expenses) $ 4,143 SEMCIL (Home Mod Access Program) $ 15,703 Council Action Needed: 1. Accept the CDBG funding award of $576,344 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and approve the Grant Agreement for 2006. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second bv: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Mtt I ING DATE: 04-03-06 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA TEM DESCRIPTION: : DBG Citizen Participation Plan March 27, 2006 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATION ITEM( NO. b` 10 PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty As required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the City of Rochester, an "Entitlement" recipient of Community Development Block funding must have an adopted Citizen Participation Plan. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development encourages that the Citizen Participation Plan be updated from time to time in order to reflect changes with regulations of the Community Development Block Grant Program initiated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The current Citizen Participation Plan for the City of Rochester was adopted by the City Council on July 2, 1990. The Citizen Participation Plan basically explains how the City of Rochester will work with the citizens of Rochester throughout all stages of administration of the CDBG Program, including the availability of CDBG funding. Attached for your review and information is a copy of the updated Citizen Participation Plan. Council Action Needed. 1. A motion adopting the City of Rochester's updated Citizen Participation Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second to: City of Rochester, Minnesota Community Development Block Grant Program Citizen Participation Plan (Updated 2006) Federal regulations require that recipients of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program follows an approved Citizen Participation Plan in order to receive continued federal funding. To meet the federal requirements for receipt of CDBG funds, the City of Rochester certifies that it will adhere to the following approved Citizen Participation Plan in providing for and encouraging public participation in the development and administration of its CDBG program. The City of Rochester does not currently receive Home Investment Partnership (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds; however, if, in the future, the City of Rochester does receive HOME, ADDI, ESG or HOPWA funds, the Citizen Participation Plan will be amended to include those programs. I. Intent of the Community Development Block Grant program. The City of Rochester's intent for its CDBG program is to meet the identified needs of low and moderate income residents and to provide a more desirable living environment for all residents within the City. Due to limited resources, it is impossible for the City to identify all of the needs of our residents and/or fund all of the programs / activities necessary to meet those needs. Therefore, the City must rely on a coordinated effort among private citizens, social service providers and other governmental agencies to assist in addressing the needs of the residents of Rochester. To encourage citizen participation, in the identification of community needs and appropriate measures to address them, the City has adopted the following Citizen Participation Plan. II. Scope of Public Participation in the CDBG Program A. The City of Rochester will provide for continuity of citizen participation throughout all stages of the application and administrative tasks of the CDBG program. Citizen involvement will be encouraged through the reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information and records relating to the following areas: • The Consolidated Plan and needs analysis; • The annual One Year Annual Action Plan; • The Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER); • The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AL); • Subsequent amendments and other changes to the above initiated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or other federal agencies. FA B. Upon request, staff will assist in providing technical assistance to any individual and/or organization in developing proposals and submitting comments for any of the program areas listed in Section II -A, above. C. Citizens and their representatives will be given the opportunity to assess all aspects of the performance of the CDBG program throughout the year and submit comments to staff. All records, except for those which are considered to be private or confidential under applicable laws, pertaining to past use of CDBG funds may be reviewed during normal business hours at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, to assist in the public's assessment of the City's CDBG program. At various times throughout the year, the City will specifically request comments on various aspects of the CDBG programs. The requests will be advertised in one or more of the following methods: Paid legal notice or display ad in the Rochester Post Bulletin Articles in the Rochester Post Bulletin The city will also maintain an attitude of openness and helpfulness in order to encourage public response through an atmosphere of mutual cooperation. D. The City will record the following items of comment in its annual performance report(s): • Copies of all comments submitted, throughout the year, by citizens in regard to the City's performance. a The City's assessment of the citizen's comments; and • A summary of any action taken in response to the comments received. E. All complaints and / or grievances filed by a citizen, or a representative of a citizen, shall be submitted in writing to the staff. Upon receipt of the complaint and / or grievance, staff will review it, prepare a written response and forward the response no later than fifteen (15) working days following the date the complaint and/or grievance was received. III. Application for Funding A. The application process for each new CDBG program year will begin in late fall of the preceding program year. Staff will prepare a "Notice of Funding Availability" and "Requests and Public Hearing" statement. The statement will include the following information: Citizen Participation Plan 2 Rochester, MN Updated, 2006 • The total amount of CDBG funds available or anticipated to be available to the City of Rochester for new program year; • The range of activities that may be financed with CDBG funds; • The objectives set forth by the federal government which must be met to qualify for funding. • The procedure to follow for submitting proposals to the City and a brief summary of the entire application process, including a schedule of applicable notices, public hearings and meetings; • Any additional information which the staff determines to be significant to any particular program year (i.e. new regulations). B. The "Requests and Public Hearing" statement will be published in easily readable type in the local newspaper of general circulation, at least twenty (20) days prior to the deadline set for accepting proposals. C. The "Notice of Funding Availability" statement will be mailed to local non-profit public and private organizations and/or agencies to solicit their assistance and input on the needs of the community and proposed uses for the anticipated CDBG funds. The organizations/agencies will be given no less than twenty (20) days to submit their proposals and/or comments to the City for review. IV. Review of Proposals for Funding A. The proposals submitted by City Departments, community members and / or non-profit organizations will be reviewed by staff and project eligibility will be evaluated. Upon making a determination of program / project eligibility, staff will prepare a written report regarding the eligibility and summary of each proposal for to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the deadline date for submitting proposals or the pre -scheduled public hearing date for the City Council. B. The qualifying project proposals will be forwarded in a report from staff to the City Council for review at a public hearing meeting. The City Council will select the projects to be funded and the level of funding for each project at a second public hearing meeting. V. Public Hearing A. The City of Rochester will hold a public hearing for the purpose of soliciting community input for preparation of the City's Annual Action Plan for the CDBG program. The public hearing will be held in the evening beginning at 7:00 pm and will be noticed in easily readable type in the local newspaper at Citizen Participation Plan 3 Rochester, MN Updated, 2006 least two weeks prior to the schedule meeting. The following provides a summary of action to occur at the public hearing. The public hearing will be held in September. The City Council will review the written proposals (submitted by deadline date), hear public testimony regarding the proposals, listen to verbal testimony and evaluate the comments provided by staff on the general program requirements and project(s) eligibility. The City Council will make selection of the projects for inclusion in the City's application for federal funds. This public hearing will be held in October. The projects selected by the City Council, in addition to comments from citizens regarding the needs of the community, will be included in the City's "Annual Action Plan" for the new program year. B. All public hearings for the CDBG program noted in II.A. will be held in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. The Council / Board Chambers are located in the downtown area of Rochester and provides a centralized location which is easily accessed through public or private transportation. The Council / Board Chambers are also accessible to the disabled community. Notices for all public hearings will be published at a minimum ten (10) days prior to the public hearing in the local newspaper prior to the scheduled meeting. C. If a significant number of non-English speaking residents are expected to participate at a public hearing, the City will make every effort to accommodate them through the use of presently -employed, bilingual City staff or by hiring a translator for the meeting. VI. Award of Funding A. After the City Council has selected the projects for inclusion in its application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the public hearing process, a notice of the draft "Annual Action Plan" for the new program year will be prepared and published for public comment. The "Notice for Public Comments" will be published in the local newspaper and will announce the opening of the public review period; the review period will be no less than thirty (30) days in length. B. Citizens of Rochester wishing to object to HUD approval of the application submitted by the City may do so by contacting: Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Phone: 507.281.7389 Fax: 507.287.2275 Email: Fogarty.Theresa(a)_Co.Olmsted.MN.US Citizen Participation Plan 4 Rochester, MN Updated, 2006 C. Public comments on the draft profile shall be submitted in writing, to staff. Upon completion of the review period, staff will include all comments with the submittal of the Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Citizens of Rochester wishing to object to HUD approval of the application submitted by the City may do so by contacting the Minnesota Office of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 920 Second Avenue South, Suite 1300, Minneapolis, MN 55402, (612) 370.3019. Citizen objections should be filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development within thirty (30) days of the publication of the City's notice that the application has been submitted to HUD for approval. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will consider objections to the application on the following grounds only: The City's description of needs and objectives is plainly inconsistent with available facts and data; or the activities to be undertaken are plainly inappropriate to meeting the needs and objectives identified by the City; or the application does not comply with the requirements' applicable law; or the application proposes activities which are otherwise ineligible according to federal regulations. All objections should include identification of the requirements not met and, in the case of objections made on the grounds that the description of needs and objectives is plainly inconsistent with generally available facts and data, the data upon which the persons rely. D. The City's final application for CDBG funds will be prepared by staff and forwarded to the Minnesota State Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prior to the November 15`" deadline. VII. Displacement Minimization It is the intent of the City of Rochester to avoid, whenever possible, the involuntary displacement of any family, household, individual, business or non- profit organization as a result of acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition activity funded through the CDBG program. As a general rule and under routine circumstances, the City will not undertake any CDBG project which will result in the involuntary displacement of low / moderate income households from their homes. If, however, involuntary displacement does, in fact, occur as an unanticipated result of any activity funded by CDBG (or an activity which is not funded directed by CDBG funds, but part of a larger CDBG funded project), the City will adhere to its approved "Residential Relocation Plan" (Uniform Act 1046)) assistance to the displaced households. Citizen Participation Plan 5 Rochester, MN Updated, 2006 The City's Residential Relocation Plan was originally adopted in 1987. The Plan will be updated as necessary to provide adequate protection to displaced households as a result of CDBG related activities. Vill. Program Amendments The City will adhere to this Citizen Participation Plan whenever it's Annual Action Plan is amended and shall forward such amendment to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for documentation . The City is required by federal regulations to amend it's final Annual Action Plan whenever a decision is made to: add a project not previously identified; or to substantially change the purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries of an identified activity. For the purpose of processing amendments to the City's final Annual Action Plan, "substantial change" is defined as: A change in the CDBG funding level of a project or activity 25% or greater than the original adopted project budget. Prior to amending its Annual Action Plan or any other aspect of its CDBG program, the City shall provide citizens with reasonable notice of and opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. When necessary, the City will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment(s) according to the procedures outlined in Section V of this Plan. Adopted by the Rochester City Council on: April 3, 2006 Citizen Participation Plan 6 Rochester, MN Updated,2006 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A DATE: 433/06 ,GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order 43 on the 2004 Runway Lighting System Material and PREPARED BY: Equipment contract with Premier Electric. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Accept Change Order #3 on the 2004 Runway Lighting System Material and Equipment contract with Premier Electric. This change order involves the installation of the constant current regulator that was purchased under Change Order #2. (6971) (FAA AIP 20) (MnDot 5501-136) Changer Order #2 $4,115.00 New Total Project Cost: $402,983.25 Funding: 95% Federal 5% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Change Order 43 with Premier Electric. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: sccood by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 413106 AGENDA SECTION ^onsent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: CHARTER COMMISSION ITE1O. 2 rEM DESCRIPTION: Request for public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the home rule PREPARED BY: charter, sections 4.03, 6.00, 6.02, 5.031, 6.D4, and 6.05, relating to the mayor's veto authority. I Charter The Charter Commission proposes that the City Council amend Sections 4.03, 6.00, 6.02, 6.031, 6.04 and 6.05 all relating to the mayor's veto authority. The amendments would make it clear that the mayor has the authority to veto any action taken by the council, whether the action is by ordinance, resolution, findings of fact, conclusions of law and order document, or by motion. The proposed amendments recognize the use of "findings of fact" that are increasingly used to approve council actions. The proposed amendments are attached hereto showing the proposed new language as well as the strikeouts from the existing language. Although changes are not suggested for Sections 6.01 and 6.03, they are included to aid the council in understanding how the veto process is intended to proceed. Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Amendment of a charter may be made only after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment. 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: By motion, direct the City Clerk to publish notice of a public hearing to be held Monday, May 1, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following that hearing, the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bysecond by: to: rA SECTION 4.03. (Veto power). He shall possess the veto power over all ordinancesfesolutions findings of fact conclusions of law and orders, and motions ' Deleted: passed by the common of the common council Such veto power shall be exercised in the manner and count, and over all .............. _.. 1...-_.-.--_-.._._.__.__-- subject to the restrictions hereinafter set forth. Deleted:, where the action taken thereby is required to betaken by resolution under the tenns otthis SECTION 6.00. (When required). Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise provided by charter the laws of this state or this charter, all legislation shall be by ordinance adopted by a majority of all members of the common council. When action is not required to be by ordinance, the common council shall act by written resolution by written findings - -- Deleted: in writing -- of fact conclusions of law and order, o,by motion. to be entered on the minutes. -...... _........._..._-. Diet Deleted:. --- Deleted: Inweedmwn7, xis nor ... otherise Subd. 2. Every action taken by the common council fixing salaries and appropriating money for the payment thereof, every determination to issue bonds of the city or in any way to contract indebtedness, every provision for the sale of any real estate of the city, and every levy of taxes or special assessments, shall be by ordinance or resolution in writing. SECTION 6.01. (Style). The style of all ordinances shall be: "The common council of the City of Rochester do ordain." SECTION 6.02. (Enactment). Every ordinance resolution and findings of ..... Deleted: and fact conclusions of law and order passed by the common council shall be signed_- - Deleted:, wherein sobon is taken on by the president of the common council and shall be attested by the city clerk. The any of the matters mentiond in Section 6.00 clerk shall also attach the corporate seal. On the next day after the passage thereof the same shall be transmitted by the city clerk to the mayor for his approval. SECTION 6.03. (Approval, veto). If the mayor approves the same, he shall append his signature, with the date of his approval thereto. He shall then return it to the city clerk within five (5) days, excluding Sundays, of its transmission to him. If the mayor declines to approve the same he shall within said five (5) days, excluding Sundays, return it to the city clerk with a statement of his objections thereto, to be presented to the common council at its next meeting thereafter. SECTION 6.04. (Override of veto). Upon the return of an ordinance,----- Deleted, or resolution or findings of fact conclusions of law and order to the common councit Deleted;, without the mayor's approval, or upon the receipt of a written notice of veto of a motion from the mayor, the question shall again be put upon the passage of the same, notwithstanding the objections of the mayor, and if upon such vote, which lEditor's Note: under Section 1.02, subd. 2, an ordinance establishing ward boundaries is not subject to the Mayor's veto. 33 11, shall be taken by a call for the ayes and nayes, five -sevenths (5/7) of all the members of the common council shall vote in favor of such ordinance, -resolution, - ---- Deleted'. U1 findings of fact conclusions of law and ordecor motion, the. same shall be -declared enacted, and shall have the same force and effect as if approved by the mayor. SECTION 6.05. (Failure to return . If any ordinance resolution or findings --.- Delete& or of fact conclusions of law and order so submitted to the mayor shall not be returned by him to the city clerk within five (5) days (Sundays excepted) after presentation thereof to him, the same shall be deemed to be approved by him, and he shall deliver the same to the city clerk on demand. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Clerk ITEM DESCRIPTION: Repeal RCO 131.05 subd. 1, 2, 3 - Registration of Bicycles PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr RCO Chapter 131.05 requires that all bicycles in the City of Rochester be registered with the state of Minnesota. As of August 2005, the State no longer required bicycles to be registered and no longer maintains a statewide bicycle registration system. Therefore, RCO 131.05, subd. 1, 2 and 3 should be repealed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance to repeal RCO 131.05 subd. 1, 2 and 3 for the registration of bicycles in the City of Rochester. THIS ITEM CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. AN ORDINANCE REMOVING SUBD. 1, 2, AND 3 WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 21, 2005. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA EM DESCRIPTION: TRANSFER OF WINE LEO'S PIZZA PALACE If 90V940 1:RC, .2 % MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT Emily and Harland Morehart, Jr. have submitted applications for the transfer of the Wine and On Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor licenses for PPE, Inc. DBA Leos Pizza Palace located at 2280 Superior Dr NW. The former owners were Mitch Glenn and Nick Stier. The new name of the restaurant will be Leo's Home -Town Pizza Palace. The transfer would be contingent on the required fees, insurance certificates, any fees due the City of Rochester and all departmental approvals. A confidential investigative report has been returned satisfactorily. The transfer is to take place April 17, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the transfer of the Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Leo's Pizza Palace from Mitch Glenn and Nick Stier to Emily and Harland Morehart. Jr. :OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/ CONSENT AGENDA ,'EM DESCRIPTION: CITY CLERK CITY ACTIVITIES ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — TEMPORARY Junior Achievement of the Upper Midwest 33416'b St SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Raffle 7/4/06 AT Silver Lake Park 7"i St & West Silver Lake Dr NE Sunset Terrace PTA 1707 19a' Ave NW Rochester, MN. 55901 Raffle 5/19/06 Trout Unlimited 4034 Huntington Ln NW Rochester, Mn.. 55901 Raffle 4/8/06 AT Radisson Centerplace Hotel 150 South Broadway GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT Rochester Amateur Sports Commission 30 Civic Center Dr SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 NEW PREMISE AT: West Fire Grill 2043 Superior Dr NW ZOUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. Second by. to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 APRIL 4, 2006 a' ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR — TEMPORARY Masque Youth Theatre and School 14 4' St SW Rochester, Mn, 55902 Fundraiser 4/21/06 HEATING CONTRACTOR Dick's Refrigeration 348 East Hemenway Lane Edgerton, Wi. 53534 United Heating and Cooling 3905 18' Ave SW PO Box 713 Rochester, Mn. 55902 MASTER INSTALLER Mark Steward 327 Indian Trail Rockton 1161072 Richard Steward 348 East Hemenway Lane Edgerton, Wi. 53534 William E Meyer 3905 18`s Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 SOUND AMPLIFICATION MN State Harley Owner's Group % Scott Gerr 814 71' Ave SW Faribault, Mn. 55021 Olmsted County Fairgrounds 6/16/06 to 6/17/06 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM Juvenile Diabetes Foundation % Tom O'Leary 805 I" Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Roll and Stroll Fundraiser 5/21/06 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM Soldiers Field LICENSES, NONDS AND MISCELLANEOU CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 3 4,1 APRIL 3, 2006 MISCELLANEOUS MN State Harley Owner's Group % Scott Gerr 814 7' Ave SW Faribault, Mn. 55021 Motorcycle Parade 6/17/06 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM City Limits of Rochester March of Dimes 32 Woodlake Dr SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Walk America 4/29/06 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM Start and Finish Elks Lodge 917 15"' Ave SE Southeast Minnesota Youth Orchestra (SENYO) %Jerry Wille 1500 7 h Ave NE Rochester, Mn. 55906 5K Run/Walk 4/15/06 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM Soldiers Field — Zumbm Trail Linda Gentling 2221 Baihly Ct SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 MacAttack Run/Walk 6/25/06 Start & Finish RCTC Ray Murray 355 Hastings Lane NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Jessica Murray Memorial Run/Walk 8/5/06 Silver Lake Park American Legion Auxiliary %Donna Byer 2841 17" Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Annual Poppy Day Sales 5/5/06 to 5/6/06 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agenda Approval of Accounts Payable ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of Accounts payable of Total disbursements $11,112,775.49 $5,280,990.91 $16,393,766.40 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second to: MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 IS Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/ AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda Finance Department EM DESCRIPTION: Advertise Request for Proposal for Life Insurance ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Jennifer King City staff requests the City Council to approve advertising a Request for Proposal for life insurance provided to City employees as well as supplemental life insurance which employees can purchase voluntarily. Life insurance is currently provided by Minnesota Life Insurance Company. Minnesota State Statute § 471.6161 requires that group insurance be solicited through requests for proposal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the City Clerk to advertise the Request for Proposal for life insurance as indicated above. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: consent ITEM DE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Human Resources Memorandum of Understanding — LELS Participation in the MSRS Health Care Savings Plan MEETING DATE 4/3/06 �C ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: The City and LELS Local #194 have reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding LELS membership participation in the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) Health Care Savings Plan (HSCP). Upon retirement or termination, an officer may convert 40% of unused sick leave with ten years of continuous service 40% of accrued and unused vacation • 100% of vacation saved (if any) for deposit in the MSRS Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) 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: W Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., and the City of Rochester. The parties have discussed the Health Care Savings Plan and have reached the understanding below. 1. The City will establish a Health Care Savings Plan with the Minnesota State Retirement System for the members of LELS Local #194. 2. Employees will be allowed to convert 40% of their unused sick leave balance for deposit in the Health Care Savings Plan pursuant to Article 13 of the labor agreement. 3. Employees shall be allowed to convert 100% of their "vacation saved" for deposit in the Health Care Savings Plan. 4. Employees shall be allowed to convert 40% of their accrued and unused vacation for deposit in the Health Care Savings Plan. This Memorandum represents the complete understanding of the parties regarding the Health Care Savings Plan. For the City of Rochester: For Law Enforcement Labor Services: date: date: A SECTION: Consent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Human Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: Safety Grant Contract with the State of Minnesota MEETING DATE: 413/06 b-5 PREPARED BY: Linda Gilsrud The Mayo Civic Center is required to install a Fall Protection System for the safety of employees involved with rigging that requires the employees to work at heights more than 6' off the floor. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has a grant program for safety hazard abatement. The Safety Grant Program awards employers in the State of Minnesota a dollar for dollar match up to $10,000. An application was submitted to the State of Minnesota on March 6, 2006 and approval was received on March 20, 2006 for a $5,000 grant. Council Action Requested: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the State of Minnesota Grant Contract. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parkland Dedication Parks Hart Farm South Storm Sewer and DATE: 4/ Grading Work I D Stotz Arcon Development Inc, with Park Department and Public Works concurrence, installed and landscaped (filled, graded, seeded and installed erosion control) approximately 500' of storm sewer in what will be known as Hart Farm Park In addition to significantly improving the appearance of the park, the improvements created approximately 1.5 acres of useable park land that otherwise would have been used as an open swale for surface water conveyance. The work done by Arcon was above and beyond their required obligations to meet the minimum land dedication standards for the park. Arcon has requested that parkland dedication credits in the amount of their costs for the improvements ($33,579.93) be extended by the City for Arcon's use in meeting future dedication obligations for the unplatted portions of Hart Farm and Hatt Farm Subdivision. Staff (Park and Public Works) have reviewed Arcon's documentation of costs and concur that the costs for the work are consistant with similar work done on City administered projects in 2003-2004-2005. Park Department staff recommends that Arcon be extended credits in the amount of $33,579.93. Council Action Requested: Resolution extending parkland dedications in the amount of $33,579.93 to Arcon Development Inc for the improvements that were made to Hart Farm Park. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by -.-to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 04-03-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING O_ n ITEM DESCRIPTION: Orderly Annexation #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities. The PREPARED BY: applicant is proposing to annex approximately 18,000 square feet of land located along the Theresa Fogarty, north side of Marion Road SE (CSAH 36) and south of 20t' Street SE, described as Lot 3, Senior Planner Block 1, Christ Lutheran Church Subdivision located within Marion Township. March 27, 2006 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated March 27, 2006. As part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement, property taxes payable on annexed land shall continue to be paid to the Town of Marion for the entire year in which the annexation becomes effective. If the annexation becomes effective on or before August 1 of a levy year, based on the date specified in the order from the Minnesota Municipal Board, the City may levy on the annexed areas beginning with that levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after August 1 of a levy year, the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. Thereafter property taxes on the annexed land shall be paid to the City. The Township Taxes due on this property are $0. Land is owned by municipal agency, therefore is exempt from property taxes. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to be adopted and transmitted to the Department of Administration - Municipal Boundary Adjustments. 2. The signed resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area #2) should be transmitted to the Department of Administration - Municipal Boundary Adjustments by the City Clerk (attached is a filing fee for the application in the amount of $25.00). The resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution shall also be sent to the Town of Marion and the Olmsted County AuditorlTreasurer. Attachments 1. Staff report, dated March 27, 2006. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk: Filing Fee (RPU will submit to City Clerk) 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2006, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: rpu sue pled'fe, ive deliver w enruutye ergy°pa er DATE: March 24, 2006 TO: Mitzi Baker, Consolidated Planning Department FROM: Doug Rovang, Senior Civil Engineer i) U-10qv-' RE: Request for Annexation Municipal Well #39 Site S.E. Rochester Public Utilities hereby requests annexation of City property located at 2910 20 ST SE (Lot 3, Block 1, Christ Lutheran Church Subdivision, PIN 63.18.11.067820, Marion Township). Municipal Well #39 is being constructed on this property to serve the southeast portion of the City. We believe it appropriate that the well be located within the City of Rochester_ Please let us know if any additional information is needed. c: Neil Stiller, RPU Walt Lorber, RPU Larry Koshire, RPU Dean Erdman, Christ Lutheran Church Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 S< / I 0 rr ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC Y M 1, OF www.olmstBdcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: March 27, 2006 , • hey ILffl RE: Orderly Annexation #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 18,000 square feet of land located along the north side of Marion Road SE (CSAH 36) and south of 201h Street SE, described as Lot 3, Block 1, Christ Lutheran Church Subdivision located within Marion Township. Plannina Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Rochester Public Utilities Mr. Doug Rovang, Senior Civil Engineer 4000 East River Road NE Rochester, MN 55906-2813 Existing Land Use: This property is currently platted land located in the Christ Lutheran Church Subdivision. Future Land Use: Rochester Public Utilities proposes to construct Municipal Well #39 that will serve the southeast portion of the City. Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 18,000 square feet. Existing Zoning: Though this property is not currently within the City limits, it is within the Orderly Annexation Agreement area with Marion Township for which the City of Rochester has extraterritorial land use and zoning controls. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester Zoning Map. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester Zoning Map. Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Adjacency to the Municipal The area proposed for annexation is permitted, according to Limits: the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation between the City of Rochester and the Townboard of Marion (Area #2), BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 • WELVSEPTIC 507/2B5-B345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYE Page 2 Annexation #06-02 RPU — Well Site #39 March 27, 2006 Adjacency to the Municipal Paragraph 7 (c) a landowner seeks to develop a residential, Limits (continued): Commercial, industrial, or governmental use on land which is platted or subdivided or which is proposed to be platted or subdivided for development at a density of more than one unit per 40 acres. In such instance, review by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be required prior to the City acting upon said petition. Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd.13), a municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric utility service may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant. Townboard Review: Townboard review is not required for this annexation. i Report Attachments: 1. Annexation / Location Map Staff Recommendation: Section 7, Paragraph (c) of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area # 2) between the City of Rochester and Townboard of Marion allows a landowner seeks to develop a residential commercial, industrial, or governmental use on land which is platted or subdivided or which is proposed to be platted or subdivided for development at a density of more than one unit per 40 acres. In such instance, review by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be required prior to the City acting upon said petition. Staff recommends that the City adopt a resolution annexing the property. Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date. 41031W AGENDA SECTION I ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Rochester Public Utilities Consent Agenda ' ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on March 28, 2006 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: - to approve a resolution to approve an 8.5% increase in electric rates effective April 4, 2006 to the following rate classes: Residential Service (RES) Large General Service (LGS) Residential Service -Dual Fuel (RES-DF) Large Industrial Service (LIS) Residential -High Efficiency HVAC (RES-HEF) Intemtphble Service (INTR) General Service (GS) City Street Lighting (CSL) General Service -High Efficiency Traffic Signals (TS) General Service Time -Of -Use (GS-TOU) Highway Lighting (HL) Medium General Service (MGS) Security Lighting (SL) Medium General Service -High Efficiency Civil Defense Sirens (CDS) Medium General Service Time -Of -Use (MGS-TOU) to approve a resolution to approve the revisions to the Purchased Power Adjustment Clause and method of calculation under the new title of "Power Supply Adjustment." to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement change order to PO #10219 with Power Generation Services Inc. in the amount of $368,194 to provide services and materials for additional work that is required to the SLP Unit 4 turbine generator overhaul as defined in the attachments. The total revised purchase order agreement will be for $751,635. The Board also requests that the Common Council approve the transfer of $251,635 from the Air Quality Control System line item in the 2006 RPU budget to the Unit 4 turbine generator overhaul line item. GENERAL MANAGER: . �i�tyj K(Ia'�*"'� / COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: FOR BOARD ACTION Agendaltem# 10. Meeting Date: 3/28/06 SUBJECT: 2006 Electric Revenue Adjustment PREPARED BY: Curt Kraft, Director of Corporate Services ITEM DESCRIPTION: At the February Utility Board meeting, staff was directed to notice the public of a increase in electric rates due to the impact of a 16.9% increase in our cost of purchase power from RPU's wholesale supplier the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA), which represents 60 % of our operating costs. The Board's preliminary consensus was that a 8.5 % increase was needed to offset the major cost increase of purchase power while maintaining an appropriate cash reserve levels. Staff recommends that the Board proceed with a recommendation to the City Council for increasing electric rates by 8.5% effective April 4t', 2006 on all the current rate schedules. An 8.5% increase would increase the typical residential bill by approximately $ 5 per month. Staff would also recommend that the customer charge for a residential customer be adjusted from $ 9 to $ 10, and the general service customer charge be adjusted from $17 to $ 20 while maintaining an overall increase of 8.5% in these rate classes. The adjustment to this rate component moves us closer to what our cost -of -service model indicates we should be. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Approve and recommend to the City Council a 8.5% electric rate increase to all customer classes effective April 4th 2006. 2. Approve a resolution to approve the following rate schedules effective April 40', 2006. Residential Service (RES) Residential Service -Dual Fuel (RES-DF) Residential -High Efficiency HVAC (RES-HEF) General Service (GS) General Service -High Efficiency General Service Time -Of -Use (GS-TOU) Medium General Service (MGS) Medium General Service -High Efficiency Medium General Service Time -Of --Use (MGS-TOU) Large General Service (LGS) Large Industrial Service (LIS) Interruptible Service (INTR) City Street Lighting (CSL) Traffic Signals (TS) Highway Lighting (HI.) Security Lighting (SL) Civil Defense Sirens (CDS) ,�✓J/ �/ r.! /�c - Geheral Manager 3 3-3 - ate FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item# 11. Meeting Date: 3/28/06 SUBJECT: Revision to Purchased Power Adjustment Clause and Method of Calculation (renamed 'Power Supply Adjustment") PREPARED BY: Bryan Blom, Interim Manager of Finance & Accounting ITEM DESCRIPTION: RPU's current Purchase Power Adjustment (PPA) method was originally put in place when RPU was a full -requirements member of SMMPA. While changes to the PPA method allow for other power supply sources to be included, it is not optimally designed for this which makes the calculation results cumbersome to audit and verify. Also, the current method lags three months between the end of the three- month evaluation period, when a PPA charge is potentially detem-uned, and the start of the three-month collection period. We have developed a new method (named the Power Supply Adjustment Clause or PSA) to calculate the required adjustment. It more easily includes power supply costs from all sources. We had Stanley Consultants review the methodology and calculation model and revised it based on their recommendations. The basic calculation is to compare the planned power supply costs/kwh to the actual power supply costs/kwh. RPU's rates are based on recovery of the planned power supply costs. Whenever actual power supply costs/kwh exceed planned costs, it means rates were not adequate to recover true power supply costs. In that case a PSA charge is necessary in an upcoming quarter. If the opposite is the case, it indicates that rates over -collected power supply costs from customers and that a credit situation exists. While credits will not pass through via customer billings, they will be caned forward indefinitely to offset potential future charges. As to the lag, there will be just a one month delay from the end of the three-month evaluation period, when a charge is potentially determined, and the start of the three-month collection period. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is requested to approve the attached Power Supply Adjustment and approve the change of the related reference in the Electric Utility rate tariffs from the Purchase Power Adjustment Clause (PPAC) to the Power Supply Adjustment (PSA). Ge ' ral Manager bate FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 14 Meeting Date: 3128/06 SUBJECT: Change Order to Purchase Order #10219 Power Generation Services SLP Unit 4 Turbine Generator Overhaul PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wally Schlink, Director of Power Resources At the January, 2006 Utility Board meeting the Board approved a purchase order agreement with Power Generation Services (PGS) for the materials and services required to overhaul SLP Unit 4 turbine generator unit. Subsequently PO 410219 was issued in the approved amount of $383,441 to PGS to perform the work. The work scope was identified as Workscope I with a defined scope and firm price; and Workscope II which was an anticipated work scope with prices quoted for the work that RPU staff projected they would find when the unit was disassembled, inspected and tested. The unit was removed from service and the outage began on March 3, 2006 and as of this writing the unit has been completely disassembled, grit blasted, non-destructive tested and inspected. The damage that was found exceeded the level of damage that was expected and in the case of some rotating components, will require complete replacement. The work that is required can be divided into 2 categories, structural and efficiency restoration. The structural work is required before the unit can safely be returned to service and consists of replacement of 3 stages of turbine buckets, restoration of high pressure nozzle blades, replacement of erosion shield on the 2 last stages of the turbine and various component replacements related to the valves, bearings and bushings. The efficiency restoration consists of restoring the physical configuration of several diaphragms, replacing gland seal packing, replacing spill strips and restoring the surface finish of the steam path components. The overhaul takes place every 6 years and the payback for the efficiency restoration portion of the work is approximately 2 years. The original Workscope I package was priced at $186,700; the structural work that is required is priced at $320,760 and the efficiency restoration work is priced at $244,175 for a total of $751,635. The original amount approved by the Board was $383,441 so the request is for a change order of $368,194 bringing the total approved amount to $751,635. The 2006 approved budget for this project is $500,000. To make up the shortfall, staff is requesting the transfer of $251,635 from the 2006 approved project identified as the Air Quality Control System which will make this expenditure revenue neutral in 2006 and will not impact the adjusted 2006 budget. 3 6 neral Manager Date 11 FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 14 Meeting Date: 3128106 Attached is a report on the turbine condition which includes structural repairs and the efficiency repairs and paybacks as well as pictures of the significant damage. Also attached is a matrix detailing the specific individual repairs and the costs on an individual basis. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board request that the Common Council approve a purchase order agreement change order to PO #10219 with Power Generation Services Inc. in the amount of $368,194 to provide services and materials for additional work that is required to the SLP Unit 4 Turbine Generator Overhaul as defined in the attachments. The total revised purchase order agreement will be for $751,635. Staff also requests that the Board requests that the Common Council approve the transfer of $251,635 from the Air Quality Control System line item in the 2006 budget to the Unit 4 turbine generator overhaul line item. General Manager Date R 2006 - SLP Unit No. 4 Turbine Generator Overhaul Cost Matrix Item ! Quote Number Description Quote Firm Scope Grit Blasting $ 10,300 Firm Scope NDE $ 7,300 Firm Scope Generator Testing $ 14,700 Firm Scope Steam Path Audit $ 15,000 Firm Scope Technical Assistance $ 52,750 Firm Scope Craft Support $ 86,650 1 Steam Path Audit $ - 2 2nd Stage Buckets $ 53,130 3 3rd Stage Buckets $ 55,110 4 7th Stage Buckets $ 62,300 5 Buckets 1A, 1B, 5-6, 8-15 $ 3,770 6 Erosion Shields - 17 $ 36,500 7 Erosion Shields - 16 $ 26,800 8 LS Balance Turbine Rotor $ 3,500 9 HP Nozzle Plate $ 9,650 10 Intermediate Blade Ring $ 8,350 11 2nd -Stage Diaphragm $ 10,600 12 3rd Stage Diaphragm $ 10,750 13 4th Stage Diaphragm $ 9,050 14 6th Stage Dia hra m $ 10,750 15 10th Stage Diaphragm $ 16,850 16 11th Stage Diaphragm $ 18,050 17 12th Stage Dia hra m $ 18,050 18 13th Stage Diaphragm $ 47,150 19 8 Stages of Diaphragms $ 20,800 20 HP Gland Seal Packing $ 21,750 hra m S ill Stri s 2-15 $ 11,825all S ill Stri s2-16 $ 21,750 Valve Bushin $ 5,300 W Valve Rivets $ 3,650 R Valve Bushin $ 1,000 Bearin Rebabbit $ 5,000 Seal Rings $ 10,ODO estimate T-2 Oil Deflector $ 2,500 estimate CV Stems & Pins - 6 each $ 15,000 estimate CV Upper Bushings - 5 each $ 10,000 estimate CV Lower Bushings - 3 each $ 6,000 estimate Shipping $ 10,000 estimate OT $ 20,000 TOTAL $ /59,635 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/312006 4GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 1 CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b- 1q ITEM DESCRIPTION: TH 52 / 55`.. Street Ramp Improvement Cost Share Agreement PREPARED BY: L R. Freese C'.1[ MnDOT has requested 50% City cost participation in a project to widen the northbound off -ramp at 55`h Street NW to provide a dual left movement for northbound to westbound traffic at the ramp / 55`h Street intersection. The project will require minor modifications to 55`h Street and the signal system. MnDOT indicates that the need for the improvement is largely the result of increased traffic volumes created by local development projects since the interchange was constructed 15 years ago. The preliminary construction estimate for the proposed improvement is $286,000 plus 8% engineering and contract administration. MnDOT indicates the City share to be $154,000. The final cost will be based on actual bid prices. MnDOT plans to receive bids for the project in July and complete the improvements by November 2006. The City is not required to participate or contribute funding to this MnDOT project. The interchange ramps and overpass connecting the northbound and southbound ramps is MnDOT's responsibility to maintain and repair. However, in May 2005, MnDOT and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding a new interchange at 65th Street NW and TH 52. The MOU is a non- binding agreement. A provision in the MOU required the City to participate in funding 50% of the proposed improvement to the northbound off -ramp at 55th Street NW. This cost participation by the City was linked to MnDOT's approval and the City's construction of an interchange at 65 h Street NW. MnDOT has not authorized or in any way given the City approval to construct an interchange on TH 52 at 651h Street NW. It may be another 9-12 months before MnDOT renders a final decision on whether or not the City will be authorized to construct an interchange on TH 52 at 65th Street NW. At a meeting with MnDOT regarding conditions of approval for Prairie Crossing West GDP held on February 22, 2006, Council President Hanson and City Administrator Kvenvold indicated to MnDOT their support for the City's cost participation in MnDOT's proposed project. In exchange for their support they requested that MnDOT make the 65th Street Operational Study (Interchange Justification Report) a higher priority in their work program for 2006 and to expedite their review of the study materials, findings and recommendations necessary for MnDOT to reach a final decision on the 65th Street Interchange. The City's share of capacity improvements to the TH 52 / 55th Street Interchange was enumerated as a transportation project in the recently approved $16M Sales Tax extension. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Cost Share Agreement with MnDOT for the construction of an additional northbound to westbound left turn lane to the northbound off -ramp on TH 52 at 55th Street NW. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t�1 DATE: 4-3-06 1GENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. D - ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement, Traffic Signal at South PR PAREJBY Broadway and 3'd Street S, J6021 D. KraIn February 2005 the City retained SRF Consulting Group to perform a traffic study on the B (TH 63) corridor downtown to identify improvements both for safety (especially pedestrians) and congestion. The draft final report recommends short-term (2006) and long-term (2015) improvements. The most significant short term improvement recommended is a traffic signal at Broadway and 3rd St S. There is very heavy pedestrian traffic crossing Broadway at 41h St S and at 2ntl St S. Much of the pedestrian traffic is between Mayo's downtown campus and the Fullerton parking lot (south of 4th St SE at 1"Ave SE). The pedestrians crossing Broadway at 4th St S and 2"d St S conflict with the east -west vehicle traffic making right or left turns. Providing a signalized crossing at 3'd St would provide a safer location for pedestrians to cross Broadway, where there would be significantly fewer conflicts with turning vehicles. Reducing the number of pedestrians crossing Broadway at 40 St and 2"d St would also reduce congestion and delay for vehicles at these intersections. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. from Minneapolis has provided a proposal for professional services to prepare a Signal Justification Report and professional design services for the traffic signal project in the amount of $16,400, billed on an hourly basis. A Signal Justification Report is required to obtain formal MnDOT approval of this traffic signal on the Trunk Highway system, and approval for the City to use state -aid funds for the project. MnDOT staff have been involved with the Broadway corridor traffic study, and have provided initial favorable reviews of the recommendations. Design of the traffic signal would proceed upon approval of the Signal Justification Report. The project is included in the 2006 City CI P, p. 44, item 6, J6006, with 50% city funding from municipal state -aid, and 50% funding from the state. The S Bdwy & Td St traffic signal project has been assigned J6021 to track specific project costs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution approving entering into a professional services agreement with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in an amount of $16,400 for a Signal Justification Report and professional design services for a traffic signal at S Broadway Ave (TH 63) and 3`d Street S, J6021. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 01 , " 1■'r mill ai, ■= REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/03/06 1GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services to Design Sanitary Sewage Flow Monitoring PREPARED BY: Project J 2179 ellner The city currently has 9 sanitary sewage flow monitoring sites located at selected location within the sewage collection system. As addition trunk sewers are constructed or the truck sewer system is modified, opportunities to add additional monitoring sites are included in the trunk sewer planning and design process. The additions to the trunk sewers constructed during 2005 and 2006 have allowed the installation of 4 new sewage flow rate monitoring sites. Whenever the flow rate monitoring can be included in the design of the truck sewer, the cost of the monitoring facilities are lower and the quality of the monitoring data are better. The sewage flow monitoring facilities for the 4 locations have been included in the sewer projects; however the electronic and communication interfaces with the central data collection and storage computer located at the Water Reclamation Plant were not included and need to be constructed to complete the sewage flow rate monitoring, recording and data storage system. WHKS & Co. provided the design services for the 9 sewage flow rate monitoring sites currently in service, and although these 4 new sites will differ from the existing 9 site owing to the differences in the primary flow monitoring devices, many of the aspects of the sites will still be the same. The design objective is, in part, to maintain as much interchangeability as practical. Therefore WHKS is uniquely qualified to conduct the design for the 4 new sanitary sewage flow monitoring sites. In response to staff request WHKS has submitted a proposal to provide the design services on an hourly basis not to exceed $12,820. COUNCIL ACTION Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an engineering service agreement with WHKS & Co. in the amount of $12,820.00 for the detailed design four sanitary sewage flow rate monitoring stations. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING --t DATE: 04/03/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Club Phase II — J5217 ITEM NO. D -42 0�- PREPARED BY: NI/` M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Platinum Development Group, Inc. (Owner) & Griffin Construction Co, LLP (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5217 consisting of 'Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5217, "Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Contract for Environmental and Design Services for CIP project to "Construct 201h Street S.E. from C.R. 1 �3 4/3/06 ITEM NO. ? N `, ..7 PREPARED BY: D. Nelson i The Construction of 20'h Street S.E. from CR 1 to CR 36 is identified in the Citys 2006 -2011 Capital Improvement Program (item #30, page 36) for construction in 2008. Construction of this 5,300 foot long segment of 201h Street SE would complete a 4 mile east -west major urban arterial route from TH 63 to CSAH 11. The route would parallel TH 14 and TH52 on the south side of Rochester. It would enhance the overall system connectivity and would serve to reduce traffic demands on Pinewood Road and TH 14, especially the intersections of TH 14 at Marion Road, and TH 14 at 11'h Avenue SE. MnDOT has programmed the reconstruction of TH 14 from TH 63 to CSAH 36 in 2011. The completion of the 20'h Street SE connection prior to 2011 would provide a much needed and used construction bvoass/detour durino the TH 14 reconstruction. The City is scheduled to receive $1,420,000 in Federal SAFETEA-LU funds (FY2009 / 2010) to assist in the construction of this roadway and bridge system. The procurement of federal and state funds involves an extended level of effort in the preparation of Environmental reports, project reports, plans and specifications. In order for the City to deliver this project in FY2008 / 2009 timeframe, the Public Works Department recommends the execution of professional engineering services. This is a proposal by Earth Tech to provide engineering services for the following local improvement project: "Construct 200' Street S.E. from C.R. 1 to C.R. 36" Project No. J-2208 Construction Cost Est. $5.0 million Earth Tech accomplished the AUAR environmental report for the Southeast area as a part of the Water Quality Protection Program, thus is familiar with the area, the project, and the reporting requirements. The negotiated professional services include Tasks 1-6: Environmental Review / Report, Roadway Pre -Design, Bridge Design, Surface Water Management, Soils/subsurface Investigation, and Selected Alternative Technical Memo. The total should not exceed $393,930. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an Engineering Service Agreement with Earth Tech for the environmental review and design preparation of the project to "Construct 20th Street S.E. from CR 1 to CR 36" in an amount not to exceed $393,930. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING _1� DATE: 04/03/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with the PREPARED BY: Pedestrian Tunnel Extension for the Dan Abraham Healthy Living M. Baker Center— J5220 91 Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Mayo Clinic Rochester (Owner) & Fraser Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5220 consisting of "Public Improvements Associated with the Pedestrian Tunnel Extension for the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center, Including Street Reconstruction and Utility Relocation & Sanitary Sewer Siphon Reconstruction in West Center Street Between 5thAve NW & 6th Ave NW". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City i Owner Contract for J5220, 'Public Improvements Associated with the Pedestrian Tunnel Extension for the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center, Including Street Reconstruction and Utility Relocation & Sanitary Sewer Siphon Reconstruction in West Center Street Between 5t"Ave NW & 61b Ave NW". COUNCIL ACTION: Motionbv: Secondbv: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM 1�0. '� CONSENT AGENDA Public Works j6 5 i ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Rochester — Dan Abraham PREPARED BY: Healthy Living Center M. Nigbur Mayo Clinic Rochester (Mayo) is constructing the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center at the southeast corner of West Center Street and 61h Avenue SW (Block 7, Wm. McCullough Addition). Mayo has requested a Revocable Permit for the construction of an overhang into the right of way of 6'h Avenue SW to accommodate the indoor exercise track being constructed as part of this project. Said overhang will extend to 2 feet behind the face of curb at its furthest point into said right of way. The bottom of said overhang shall be a minimum of 26.0 feet above the existing sidewalk surface. Mayo will also be placing the following in the right of way adjacent to the above described property: • an underground tunnel (subway) in the right of way of West Center Street • an irrigation system to serve all planted areas and lawn areas • extension of utilities through 1 n Street SW • a tie -back system with two tie -backs for the proposed building. All of the improvements will be installed and maintained at Mayo Clinic Rochester's expense. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The owners have executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and liability protection for the City. WF..ST CENTFR STREET i 0 a�� rrrrr r �' ; �►�►���1►{-1 -�j+ 4 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit with Mayo Clinic Rochester to allow for the construction of an overhang into the right of way of 6" Avenue SW to accommodate the indoor exercise track being constructed as part of the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center. COUNCIL ACTION: motion Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' 1. DATE: 04/03/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Weatherstone PREPARED BY: West Subdivision —J5204 M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Weatherstone of Rochester LLC (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City - Owner Contract J5204 consisting of `Public Improvements to Serve Weatherstone West Subdivision". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5204, "Public Improvements to Serve Weatherstone West Subdivision". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 81 04/03/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Serve West 80 PREPARED BY: Development —J5126 M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: West 80 Development LLC (Owner) & Fraser Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City - Owner Contract J5126 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve West 80 Development". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5126, "Public Improvements to Serve West 80 Development". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement— James P. McGovern and PREPARED BY: Frances P. McGovern (M&B#05-19) d M. Baker Staff would offer the following Contribution & Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: James P. McGovern & Frances P. McGovern are the Owners of real property generally described as part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 24, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for Metes & Bounds Subdivision application (M&B#05-19), the Owners have requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address their obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontages of the Property abutting 161" Ave NE & East Circle Drive NE. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owners and City, and abutting Property Owners, An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owners. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with James P. McGovern and Frances P. McGovern, part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 24, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second Ell REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT! CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Joseph H. Postier & Wendy A. Postier (M&B#05-20) Ss 4/3/06 ITEM NO. 4 b—a 1 PREPARED BY: %I M. Baker Staff would offer the following Contribution & Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Joseph H. Postier and Wendy A. Postier are the Owners of real property described as Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 1, Rose harbor Second Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for Metes & Bounds Subdivision application (M&B#05-20), the Owners have requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address their obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Property abutting Eastwood Rd SE. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owners and City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owners. Eastwood Rd SE Post r P pert for M B# 20 ROSE IGH SGR SE i�00O ORS ��SQ RO COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Joseph H. Postier and Wendy A. Postier, for Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 1, Rose harbor Second Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: _ _ _ to: AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: Tel / 413/06 CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works I _ :�;Iu ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement— Sunstone Hotels LLC PREPARED BY: (SDP#05-49 for Textile Care Facility) M. Baker Staff would offer the following Contribution & Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Sunstone Hotels LLC is the Owner of real property described as All of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Park Second Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota, AND all of Lot 3, Block 1, of said Wood Lake Park Second Subdivision, excepting that part replatted as part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Park First Replat, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for Site Development Plan application (SDP#05-49) for the Textile Care Facilities building addition, the Owner has requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address its obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Property abutting Wood Lake Dr SE. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owner and City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owner. Sunstone Hotels LL SDP#04-49 for the Textile Care Facility COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Sunstone Hotels LLC, for All of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Park Second Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota, AND all of Lot 3, Block 1, of said Wood Lake Park Second Subdivision, excepting that part replatted as part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Park First Replat, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Senst Properties, LLP, Vendor PREPARED BY: of Contract for Deed and LeRoy G. Hall and Ann F. Hall, Vendee M. Baker of said Contract for Deed (SDP#05-61 for Bandel Heights Business Park) 11` Staff would offer the following Contribution & Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Senst Properties, LLP, is the Vendor of a Contract for Deed recorded as Document #A-1022702 in the office of the County Recorder, Olmsted County, Minnesota, on or about May 25, 2004, and LeRoy G. Hall and Ann F. Hall are Vendees of said Contract for Deed for real property generally described as part of the East '/2 of the Northwest '/,, Section 9, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for Site Development Plan application (SDP#05-61) for Bandel Heights Business Park, the Vendor & Vendee have requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address their obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Property abutting Bandel Rd NW. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owners and City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owners. Property Subj to Agreement COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: HM ELORNW Fps OEM 9000 r..r Oak Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Senst Properties, LLP, as Vendor of a Contract for Deed recorded as Document #A-1022702 in the office of the County Recorder, Olmsted County, Minnesota, on or about May 25, 2004, and LeRoy G. Hall and Ann F. Hall as Vendees of said Contract for Deed for real property generally described as part of the East ''/z of the Northwest '14, Section 9, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 1--3 _ 3 a' arsros ITEM DESCRIPTION: reuesvnan raauues rgreement— rarnnersnip ry PREPARED BY: (SDP#05-52 for Home Design Studio) L M. Baker V Staff would offer the following Contribution & Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Partnership 10 is the Owner of real property described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northview Third Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for Site Development Plan application (SDP#05-52) for the Home Design Studio building, the Owner has requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address its obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Property abutting West Circle Drive NW. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owner and City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owner. Ong COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Partnership 10 for Lot 1, Block 1, Northview Third Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: AGENDA i rEM CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC WORKS I 'C1 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CONDITION SURVEY / PREPARED BY: THIRD STREET AND CIVIC CENTER PARKING RAMPS A KNAUER 9. Proposals were received from four firms to conduct condition surveys at Third Street and Civic Center parking ramps. These condition surveys are conducted for each parking ramp on a 4year cycle. The survey includes inspection and testing of the structural elements, electrical/mechanical and general building. This year both Third Street and Civic Center Ramp are due for inspection. The survey findings are summarized into a report that will be used to develop restoration projects at each facility. Staff is recommending a contract with Buildings Consulting Group (BCG). All of the proposing firms were qualified. The City has contracted with three of the proposing firms for condition surveys in the past. BCG proposes to do the work for $15,550. It is interesting to note that BCG will also be teaming with AGA and HGA who were originally involved in the design of the Third Street Ramp. The condition surveys are an important part of protecting the investment and prolonging the life of the City's parking ramps. These projects are identified in the City's 2006 Capital Improvement Program. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution entering into a contract with Buildings Consulting Group Inc. of, 2817 Anthony Lane South, Suite 201, Minneapolis, MN 55418-2490 in the amounts of $8,400 and $7,150 to perform a condition survey of Third Street (J2583) and Civic Center (J2578) Parking Ramps respectively. . OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0( DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement to Create Official Street Map Connecting 65 Street PREPARED BY: and 75th Street NW R. Freese MnDOT has raised concerns about the West Frontage Road alignment included in Official Street Map Number 14 approved by the City of Rochester. MnDOT's concern is that the design in effect fails to provide for a direction connection and a design speed to accommodate 40 mph travel between 75`h and 65th Streets, thereby encouraging motorists to use US 52 for the one -mile long trip between those two streets. To address this concern, the City proposes to develop another Official Street Map providing for a more direct route serving as a "backage" road. The backage road concept is consistent with the Selected Alternative as evaluated in the approved Environmental Assessment for the 75'~ Street NW interchange. The City cannot adopt an official street map for areas outside its boundaries. As the Zoning Authority for the area outside the City limits, Cascade Township would have lead responsibility in enforcing an official map, whether it was adopted by the Township or the County. Phil Wheeler and I have discussed this issue with Lenny Laures of Cascade Township, and he has agreed to take the matter to the Cascade Town Board on April 3, 2006 with the recommendation that the County would adopt the Official Street Map, Rochester and Cascade Township would enforce the official map through their respective zoning ordinances, and Rochester and Cascade Township would administer access controls consistent with the access management requirements applying to the future road as new development or interim development are approved or otherwise authorized to occur in the area. The City will be responsible for the total cost to prepare and record the Official Street Map. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Pass a motion agreeing to participate in the official street map process with Olmsted County and cascade Township, with the understanding that expenses related to map preparation would be paid by the City, and contingent upon approval of the needed actions by the Cascade Town Board. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Q 1 DATE: 04/03/2006 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO: Consent Agenda Water Reclamation Plant 7-b "3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Upgrade(J4390) PREPARED BY:t/ Change Order No. 3 Lyle J. Zimmerp��` m n Bor-Son Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Upgrade Project and there have been several changes required with the work. Most of the changes are related to relatively small change to mechanical, electrical and instrumentation and control portions of the work. The total changes on this project amount to less than 2% which is lower than expected for a project involving remodeling work in an existing facility. The following list gives a brief description of items included in Change Order No. 3. 1. Reroute exist drain system sump piping to new lift station $ 16,872.00 2. Electrical modification for the GBT wetwell pumps and two air handling units. S 3,091.00 3. Install sleeve for level sensor on Solids Storage Tank No. 2 $ 993.00 4. Relocate existing primary scum pipe and relocate new Loadout Pump to provide better access for maintenance. Add one new plug valve. $ 27,625.00 5. Add single from Loadout Flow Control Valve to LAP-C $ 943.00 6. Relocate the hot water supply and returns pipes and cathodic protection test stations at the gas compressor room modifications to avoid conflicts. $ 11,376.00 7. Modifications to the Odor Control Systems at the Solids Storage Control Building No. 2 to standardize with the rest of the plant. $ 26,498.00 8. Install new 4" PVC conduit from Medium Voltage Switch Gear (MVI-5) to replace leaking conduit. 9. Reroute floor drain piping in the Maintenance Building and Existing Pumping Station since the exisiting wetwell is being eliminated. 10. Provide additional wiring between the Solids Control Storage Building and the Energy Building to provide for future storage tanks. 11. Demolish electrical conduits and other electrical equipment and seal penatration at abandoned Reactor Clarifier. 12. Modify the foundation details for the Influent Pumping Station to reflect the intent of the contract documents. $ 10,571.00 $ 18,138.00 $ 19,422.00 S 1,410.00 13. Change equipment tag requirements. $ 14. Minor electrical and mechanical changes in Solids Control Building No.2. $ 15. Change bubbler piping from copper to stainless steel and modify details. $ 16. Add isolation valves as requested by the City in Non -potable Water System in Gallery E. $ 1,884.00 17. Provide ductile iron piping changes at Gallery E and tunnel not shown on the drawings. $ 3,073.00 18. Add additional instrumentation and control to modified LAP C to reconnect existing equipment. $ 10,557.00 19. Added piping at EQ Basin to allow completely draining the basin. $ 5,072.00 20. Add piping to the new Thickened Digested Sludge pipe in the South Gallery to allow use of Storage Tanks 7 and 8 with that pipe. $ 4,452.00 3,716.00 0.00 622.00 2,586.00 21. Provide a manhole to allow access to the new Gravity Belt wetwell. 22. Coordinate equipment tag numbering with contract documents. 23. Change screening channel stop log locations and details as required. Total Change Order No. 3 No time extension for contract completion was requested with these changes. Original Contract Amount Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Change Order No.3 Total Change Orders Revised Contract Amount Council Action Reauested: $ 177,927.00 $ 190,337.00 $ 173,435.00 $ 3,454.00 $ 622.00 $ 558.00 $173,435.00 $32,000,000.00 $ 541,699.00 $32,541,699.00 It is requested that Change Order No. 3 for the 2004 Plant Upgrade Project be approved to increase the contract amount by $173,435.00. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `)-,jtO DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDA SECTION: / Ce''n ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. _� ,j I?uhlishoarings s /Jt%4T� EM DESCRIPTION: Providing Final Approval To The Issuance Of Revenue Bonds, Series PREPARED BY: 2006, in the Amount of $125,000,000 On Behalf of Mayo Foundation Dale Martinson On February 22nd, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing and provided preliminary approval to the issuance of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $125,000,000 (the "Series 2006 Bonds") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165 (the "Act"), to finance on behalf of the Mayo Corporation and its affiliates the acquisition, construction and improvement of its health care facilities in the City (the "Project"). Drafts of the bond documents relating to the Series 2006 Bonds have now been presented to the City. The City's bond counsel has reviewed the documents, made various changes to protect the City's interest, and approved the final form. We are therefore recommending the Council provide final approval to the issuance. It is important to note that these bonds, if approved, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City and each bond, including interest when due, will be payable solely from the revenues pledged by Mayo Foundation for repayment. This debt would also not apply to the City's legal debt limit. To protect potential investors, Mayo has agreed to either have the bonds rated by a major rating agency, or require they be sold to "sophisticated investors" in increments of not less than $100,000. Recommendation: Approve the resolution giving final approval to the issuance of up to $125 million in revenue bonds on behalf of Mayo Foundation and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all documents necessary to complete the transaction. OUNCIL ACTION: Moro" by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 04/03/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract —Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne PREPARED BY: Club Phase II — J5217 tLAM. Baker Background: A City -Owner Contract has been prepared by the City and executed by the Owner & Contractor for this project. It has been determined by the City that approximately 250 feet of additional Storm Sewer is required extending from the driving range across City parkland through the City access road. The City has discussed the needed additional work with the developer and it has been agreed that said Storm Sewer will be added to the Construction & Grading plans and included in the City -Owner Contract for J5217, and that the City will reimburse the Developer for the agreed upon estimated costs of the additional Storm Sewer work. Revised Construction Plans and Grading Plans are in the process of being prepared by the Developer's consultant. In addition, a revised Contract will be prepared to address the City's reimbursement to the developer for the additional Storm Sewer work. Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Platinum Development Group, Inc. (Owner) & Griffin Construction Co, LLP (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5217 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II". T.H. 14 9pe. M, o "M e9gso r�wr� 06 0 a COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5217, "Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Phase II", conditioned on Final Revised Construction & Grading Plan approvals, and execution by the Owner & Contractor of a revised City -Owner Contract that includes the additional Storm Sewer work. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 04/03/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-39 ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2006 Season Supply of Bituminous Paving Materials PREPARED BY- R. Freese (nl I am recommending that the Council reject the bids received on March 14, 2006 for the 2006 Season Supply of Bituminous Paving Materials. Both bids exceeded the amount of available funding. My recommendation is also based on the fact that over the past several years we have not purchased any where near the amount of material that we have bid, but yet we base our decision for award of the contract based on the extension of the unit prices times the estimated quantity and then the cumulative total of those bid items. This bid format was not a fair or accurate representation of the City's anticipated needs for 2006, For example, in 2005: Bid Item Bid Quantity Purchased Quantity LVWE45030 FOB Plant 6,000 Tons 8,685.97 Tons LVWE35030 Paver Laid 10,000 Tons 2,084.81 Tons MVWE35035 Paver Laid 10,000 Tons 14,996.77 Tons MVWE45035 Paver Laid 10,000 Tons 791.29 Tons TOTALS 36,000 Tons 26,558.84 Tons In 2006 we have approximately $950,000 available for resurfacing and $100,000 for curb repairs. Our Bid Document should be reflective of this amount of funding. I would suggest the following changes for the revised bid document: Bid Item Original Bid Quantity Revised Bid Quantity LVWE45030 FOB Plant 6,000 Tons 8,000 Tons LVWE35030 Paver Laid 10,000 Tons 2,000 Tons MVWE35035 Paver Laid 10,000 Tons 18,000 Tons MVWE45035 Paver Laid 10,000 Tons 1,000 Tons TOTALS 36,000 Tons 29,000 Tons COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Reject bids received on March 14, 2006 for the 2006 Season Supply for Bituminous Paving Materials and authorize the City Clerk to readvertise for the 2006 Season Supply for Bituminous Paving Materials based on the revised quantities. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: surd by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `1/ AGENDA SECTION: CONINTUED PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING DATE: 04-03-06 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The PREPARED By: applicant is proposing to annex approximately 9.95 acres of land located along the south Theresa Fogarty, side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive in part of the E 1/2 of the Senior Planner Northwest 1/4 of Section 30 of Haverhill Townshio. March 27, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on March 8, 2006. The Commission found that the property is adjacent to the City limits and services are presently available within the Northeast High Level Water System Area, which is currently available approximately 300' west of this property on the south side of Viola Road NE. The City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this annexation request on March 6, 2006 as a Consent Agenda Item. Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve the consent items. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated February 16, 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 $148.09. 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 #06-01 as approved by the City Council. Attachments 1. Staff report, dated February 16, 2006. G Z' 2. Copy of the minutes of the March 8, 2006 CPZC meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk: Filing Fee Attached 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2006, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: ANNEXATIO' ' "AAP PART OF E 1/2 Or :VM 1/4, SEC. 30, T107N, R13W OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0 200 400 BOO nmm%=mIIIiiiii . . DENOTES CITY LIMITS AS OF JAN. 20( SCALE IN FEET N z 5 6 ) e 79 6 e L� LIJ (l� sy , 1 •� 9N R.� .� e.. 4- 3 z zi e3 77 CENTURY FF 16 ,Y 39 OUROI",l�W: _ 6 HIlH ,I 4 •j } 43 ::"-HCICIL i 11 lO 9 6 66 L n 16 : le 6 Xv 31 6:1 ♦ 1 e .: � s o T a z z �Q"�~� ,,k�•� 6 3 � I Z� 6 , 3 xa�'_ �h• Z. h 6•. E. le 16 ie e N !f A LAr s to 4 6 z 3 6 3 3 f N Tf c P A 30 6 JwT`O s /7 B e ] F e e z1 s `111 10 10 11 Iz 13 14 17 10 e 16 F' , ,1i iC li I H LL H PROJECT NUMBER 9405 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS SURVEY, PLAN OR ENGINEERS- ARCHITECTS 9405ennet. erg REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY SURVEYORS • PLANNERS DATE OF SURVEY 01 /10/06 LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAFTED BY MJH 717 THIRD AVE. S.E. PETER G. OETLIKER LICENSE EXPIRES 6130" ROCHESIER, MN SURVEYED BY PGO 507-288-6464 SURVEYED FOR FAX: 507-258-5058 41AR7 vcA ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C G Y M T♦ OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner DATE: February 16, 2006 aw��n®p•tt� RE: Annexation Petition #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 9.95 acres of land located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive in part of the E 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 30 of Haverhill Township. CP&ZC Meeting Date: February 22, 2006 Planning Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Think Federal Credit Union 5200 Members Parkway NW Rochester, MN 55903-5949 Arch itect/Enginear; Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Existing Land Use: This property consists of pasture land with one homestead dwelling. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County zoning map. Future Zoning: The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment request to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district and will be considered by the City Council at their March 20, 2006 meeting. The zoning district established on this property shall be concurrent with the zoning district amendment request #06-01 as approved by the City Council at their March 20, 2006 meeting. Land Use Plan: The applicant has requested a land use plan amendment request to "commercial" designation and will be considered by the City Council at their March 20, 2006 meeting. The land use designation established on this property shall be concurrent with the land use amendment request 406-01 as approved by the City Council at their March 20, 2006 meeting. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HPA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 RCi FAx 507/287-2275 "r nne, en.ui raven Page 2 Annexation #06-01 Think Federal Credit Union February 16, 2006 Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its western, Limits: northern and eastern boundaries. Sewer & Water: This area is within the Northeast High Level Water System Area, which is currently available approximately 300' west of this property on the south side of Viola Road NE. 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 March 6, 2006. The City Clerk has sent the certified 30 day notice. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map / Location Map 2. Referral Comments (lletter) Staff Recommendation: This property is adjacent to the City limits and services are presently available within the Northeast High Level Water System Area, which is currently available approximately 300' west of this property on the south side of Viola Road NE. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2 (3). r. TV, Ale PIldie, AVe QIaVel January 31, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Annexation Petition #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union to annex 9.95 acres of land located along the south side of Viola Rd. and the west side of East Circle Dr. NE. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow: The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. This area is within the Northeast High Level Water System Area, which is currently available approximately 330' west of this property on the south side of Viola Rd. NE. 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, .�J 0644A 1`'�W'�"�'� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Think Federal Credit Union Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 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, March 8, 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; Mr. Vince Barry; Mr. Robert Haeussinger; Mr. John McGuine; and Mr. Gerald Pestka Members Absent: Ms. Lisa Wiesner Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi A. Baker and Ms. Jennifer Garness Other City Staff Present: ---Mr. Burke welcomed John McGuine and Gerald Pestka to the Commission. -- SET ORDER OF AGENDA: Mr. Wallace moved to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Haeussinger made a motion to approve the following consent items — continuing Type II CUP #06-05. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. • February 8, 2006 minutes • Annexation Petition #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is proposing to annex approximately 9.95 acres of land located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive in part of the East Y of the Northwest Y. of Section 30 of Haverhill Township. Continued to April 12, 2006 — Type II Conditional Use Permit #06-05 by Midwest Wireless to install a telecommunications facility consisting of a monopole up to a height of 180 feet and a 12'x20' equipments shelter. The site is located at the Northern Hills Golf Course which is located along the west side of West Circle Drive and south of the Douglas Trail. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baker asked the Commission to continue CUP #06-05 to specifically April 12, 2006. Mr. Ohly moved to continue Type II Conditional Use Permit #06-05 by Midwest Wireless to April 12, 2006. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �oS MEETING DATE: 4-3-06 Air=rvuw W-U t I PUBLIC ORIGINATING ITEM HEARINGS PLAXINP�G I j ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Circle Drive and Viola Road (CSAH 2). The petition is to change the Land Use designation from `low density residential" to "commercial". The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. March 28, 2006 Please see the attached memo dated March 28, 20006. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission considered this item at the March 8, 2006 meeting. Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner Mr. Wallace moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #6-01 with the finding that the application met the criteria. Mr. Hauessenger seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Ms. Rivas voting nay. /"n��nnil drlinn Alnnifn.J• 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan. 2. The Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting their decision. Distribution: k 1. City Administrator 1. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 2. 3. Planning Department File This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m, on Monday April 3, 2006 in the Council / Board Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building COUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC Y F T V OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: March 28, 2006 w.o» IIAIw NaAhN�!� RE: UPDATED INFORMATION - Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Circle Drive and Viola Road (CSAH 2). The petition is to change the Land Use designation from `low density residential" to "commercial". The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. The revised Traffic Study (TS) for Think assumes a total of 57,000 s.f. of commercial development that includes a mix of retail, restaurant, office and drive-thru bank. The TS estimates 3,434 ACT, with 283 AM peak hour, and 464 PM peak hour trips. In terms of Fioor Area Ratio (FAR), the TS proposes approximately 15%, while the B-1 district would permit 50% as a Type I (staff level approval). The FAR proposed by Think, and supported by the existing transportation infrastructure with proposed improvements, is similar to the FAR that could be constructed on 2.61 acres of land zoned B-1 (at .50 FAR). The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan is silent on the methodology for determining the 2-mile service radius and calculating projected households within the 2-mile radius. Modifying the methodology using the external boundaries of the existing and proposed B-1 zoning, there are approximately 14,315 projected households in the 2-mile service area. The low overall FAR proposed for the project and supported by the Traffic Study, would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan guidelines for designating this property for "commercial' uses. Using the re -calculated projected households, and ignoring other existing service centers in the 2-mile radius already providing service to households, the Land Use Plan criteria are generally met for this proposal. If the Council wishes to use this approach, the following findings should be considered. If the Council approves the Land Use Plan Amendment, the Zoning District Amendment (#06-01) could also be supported. Community shopping centers of 15 to 25 acres in area and including some stores (such as variety stores or small department stores) selling longer term shopping goods, such as appliances or apparel, are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics. a. Located at the intersection of an arterial with similar or higher level streets. Viola Road is recognized as a Major Urban Arterial on the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, and CSAH 22/East Circle Drive is recognized as a Major Regional Arterial. This property is located at the intersection of an arterial and similar or higher level road. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-B224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/2B7-2275 nrvc erT,nni 1n1�. nvcn Page 2 March 26, 2006 b. Having relatively level terrain. The property has varied terrain. The northern portion/nearest the intersection is relatively level. The southern portion of the property is rolling. The property drops approximately 22 feet from the center to the southern property line. C. With a projected service area of roughly 10,000 households within a radius of two miles. The total existing housing units combined with projected households documented in General Development Plans (GDP), vacant platted lots, and parcels with no GDP's that have development potential within two miles is approximately 14,315. d. Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. The General Development Plan for this property proposes two vehicular accesses to the property. The primary access would be f{om Viola Road NE, with a second access to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant for the project assumes a N access to CSAH 22. The Circle Drive Access Management Plan (adopted by the City Council and County Board), however, recommends that this access be a right-in/right-out only. Spacing is insufficient for a N access, according to the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Development of this property, as proposed, would require off -site improvements, including construction of turn lanes and extension of the median island on Viola Road. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate turn lanes. At the time of development, pedestrian facilities will need to be constructed along the frontage of the property and accommodations must be made for connection to the Quarry Hill trail to the south. There is an established pedestrian system in the area already. This site is anticipated to have good pedestrian, vehicular and transit access, with on and off -site improvements. e. Having at least enough land area to serve the fully developed service area at the rate of 1.5 acres per 1,000 households. The existing B-1 to the north includes approximately 13.38 acres of land. The 'Think" proposal includes approximately 8.73 acres of land. Together, the area includes 22.11 acres. With a projected number of households being approximately 14,315, there would be approximately 1.57 acres per 1,000 households. The proposal is generally consistent with this criterion. P, ROLrIESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAmrMENT ,O4,pOCHESTE$.A�7NN�S 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 ,�,. '••. o_ C O U N T Y 4 F www.olmstedcounty.mm/planning �,'.•,, ,, ' ;'�� '/JGQ,C,Ga OR9 TED•A U GU5T•5• P TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: February 16, 2006 RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Circle Drive and Viola Road (CSAH 2). The petition is to change the Land Use designation from `low density residential" to "commercial' . The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Think Federal Credit Union 5200 Members parkway NW Rochester, MN 55903 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. Existing Land Use: The westerly portion of the property is occupied with a home, and two outbuildings. The remainder of the site has been used to pasture horses. Proposed Use: The Applicant is proposing to designate the property for "commercial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, to re -zone the property to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district, and to develop the site commercially. Adjacent Land Use and With the exception of the Century Hills Commercial Park Zoning: Subdivision, located north across Viola Road, all other lands adjacent to and across Viola Road and East Circle Drive are BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESswG/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNINGMNING 507/285-8232 • wELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 �� FAx 507/287-2275 Page 2 LUPA 00-05 February 16, 2006 designated for "low density residential" uses and zoned either R-1 (Low Density Residential) in the City, or A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) in the County if they are not yet annexed to the City. The Century Hills Commercial Park Subdivision is zoned B-1 (Restricted Commercial). Transportation Access: Two accesses are proposed to this property. The primary access would be from Viola Road, across from Viola Heights Drive NE, which would be a full opening. The second access is proposed to East Circle Drive, which will be limited to a right-in/right-out. Wetlands: Hydric soils may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant will need to determine if wetlands exist and the location. Referral Comments: i 1. See comments attached to Amendment to GDP 269 Think Plaza Northeast. Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Land Use Plan Map 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Criteria & Stan Suggested Findings: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan includes "locational criteria" for different land use categories and sub -categories. Within the "commercial" category, there are several sub- categories, including "neighborhood shopping centers" and "community shopping centers". If considering this site as isolated, and not adjacent to other "commercial" property, the land use category relevant to analyzing this proposal would be "neighborhood shopping centers", which includes small centers four to eight acres in area. Since there is a B-1 (Restricted Commercial) zoning district to the north of Viola Road, across from this property, it is more relevant to evaluate this proposal as a continuum of the existing commercial. The existing B-1 to the north includes approximately 13. 38 acres of land. The "Think" proposal includes approximately 8.73 acres of land. Together, the area includes 22.11 acres. Considering the "commercial" sub -categories in the Land Use Plan, it appears that the "community shopping center" sub -category is the relevant category for evaluating this proposal. The "community shopping center" sub -category is described as "15 to 25 acres in area and including some stores (such as variety stores or small department stores) selling longer term shopping goods, such as appliances or apparel" and which includes the locational criteria as identified on the next page. Analysis of this proposal is complicated by the fact that the adopted Land Use Plan, which was originally adopted in 1979, includes a neighborhood analysis that does not reflect the current conditions of the "neighborhood" in Chapter IV Neighborhood Analysis. Since completion of the Plan, East Circle Drive was constructed and the following neighborhoods developed: Emerald Hills, Century Hills, Northern Heights East, Glendale, Stonehedge, Century High School, B-1 development north of Viola Road, and Parkwood Hills. Consideration to change the Plan for the Think proposal prompts the need to analyze the "big picture". In doing so, it appears the land use designation that is most suitable for this property is not "commercial' or "low density residential", but is the "medium density residential" category. This report includes findings for the "commercial" land use designation as petitioned by the applicant, but also includes findings for the %I Page 3 LUPA 00-06 February 16, 2006 .'medium density' designation for the Commission and Council's consideration in the decision making process. It should be noted that the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan (RUSALUP) recognizes that the Plan designations have been made based not only on locational factors but also on projected demand for various uses, and that a site may be suitable for more than use category, but that it may be designated on the plan based on projected land area needs. Community shopping centers of 15 to 25 acres in area and including some stores (such as variety stores or small department stores) selling longer term shopping goods, such as appliances or apparel, are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics: a. Located at the intersection of an arterial with similar or higher level streets. Viola Road is recognized as a Major Urban Arterial on the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, and CSAH 22/East Circle Drive is recognized as a Major Regional Arterial. This property is located at the intersection of an arterial and similar or higher level road. b. Having relatively level terrain. The property has varied terrain. The northern portion/nearest the intersection is relatively level. The southern portion of the property is rolling. The property drops approximately 22 feet from the center to the southern property line. c. With a projected service area of roughly 10,000 households within a radius of two miles. The total existing housing units combined with projected households documented in General Development Plans, and including vacant platted lots, within two miles is approximately 9,893. The area within a two mile radius of this site has some unique constraints that will limit the ability of this "service area"to support additional "commercial" land use designation and commercial zoning. in analyzing the service area, it is apparent that there are multiple service centers in the 2 mile radius, including uses at/near the intersection of 37m Street/North Broadway and uses along Broadway from 48°i Street NE south to 7h Street N. Furthermore, the area within the two mile service area includes unique constraints that limit the potential for developing densities supportive of additional land being designated for "commercial" uses. There are large areas in the 2 mile radius that will remain open space long term, or will be developed such that additional residential units are not anticipated. These areas include Quarry Hill Park, State owned land managed by the MN DNR, the Federal Medical Center, County Human Services Campus, University Center Rochester. Additionally, the two mile radius encompass land with rolling and steep terrain, rural subdivisions in the County served with individual sewage treatment systems and private wells and areas outside the Urban Service Limits for the City of Rochester. d. Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. The General Development Plan for this property proposes two vehicular accesses to the property. The primary access would be from Viola Road NE, with a second access to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant for the project assumes a 314 access to CSAH 22. The Circle Drive Access Management Plan (adopted by the City Council and County Board), however, recommends that this access be a right-in/right-out only. Spacing is insufficient for a N access, according to the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Page 4 LUPA 00-06 February 16, 2006 Development of this property, as proposed, would require off -site improvements, including construction of turn lanes and extension of the median island on Viola Road. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate turn lanes. At the time of development, pedestrian facilities will need to be constructed along the frontage of the property and accommodations must be made for connection to the Quarry Hill trail to the south. There is an established pedestrian system in the area already. This site is anticipated to have good pedestrian, vehicular and transit access, with on and off -site improvements. e. Having at least enough land area to serve the fully developed service area at the rate of 1.5 acres per 1,000 households. The existing B-1 to the north includes approximately 13. 38 acres of land. The 'Think" proposal includes approximately 8.73 acres of land. Together, the area includes 22.11 acres. With a projected number of households being approximately 9,893, there would be approximately 2.22 acres per 1,000 households. Comments under criteria "C"above are relevant to this criterion as well and suggest that consideration should be given to the ability of the households in the 2 mile radius to support additional "commercial" land use designation (and zoning) on this property or in the vicinity. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan (RUSALUP) recognizes that the Plan designations have been made based not only on locational factors but also on projected demand for various uses, and that a site may be suitable for more than use category, but that it may be designated on the plan based on projected land area needs Medium -density residential uses are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics: a. Having level to fairly rolling terrain, outside flood prone or poorly drained areas, or areas with steep slopes. The property has varied terrain. The northern portion/nearest the intersection is relatively level. The southern portion of the property is rolling. The property drops approximately 22 feet from the center to the southern property line. The property is rolling and outside of flood prone areas. b. In close proximity to commercial areas, employment centers, recreation areas, or other facilities that serve smaller households. The property is located in close proximity to an existing commercial area — the 13+ acres of B-1 zoned land located to the north; employers very near to this site include the public school system and Mayo Clinic, with multiple additional employers in the area including Olmsted County, Federal Medical Center, Olmsted Community Hospital, University Center Rochester and a multitude others; there are recreation areas in close proximity including Quarry Hill Nature Center, the Century High School and National Volleyball Center, and nearby neighborhood parks. c. Having good access by means of collector, arterial, and expressway streets and transit systems to employment centers, commercial areas, and community facilities. 0 Page 5 LUPA 00-06 February 16, 2006 Viola Road is recognized as a Major Urban Arterial on the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, and CSAH 22/East Circle Drive is recognized as a Major Regional Arterial. The property does meet this criterion. East Circle Drive, as a Major Regional Arterial, provides good access to employment centers, commercial areas and community facilities outside of the immediate neighborhood. The property is also adjacent to an existing bus route, providing service to this neighborhood to the downtown (Route16). As required with all development, pedestrian facilities will need to be incorporated into the development of this property. This site has, and/or will have, good access (public transit, vehicular and pedestrian) to employment centers, commercial areas and community facilities. d. Suffered from the adverse influences of commercial, industrial, and other incompatible activities. This property is not adjacent to industrial or other incompatible activities". Consideration would need to be given to internal site design and layout that takes advantage of the amenities of this site and which softens the intersection of Viola Road and CSAH 22. Staff Recommendation: Considering the policies and principals in the Land Use Plan, implementation of good Planning practice, and the discussion and findings above, staff recommends denial of the request to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 9 acres of land located south of Viola Road, west of East Circle Drive. The existing 13+ acres of land zoned B-1 to the north of this property provides ample commercially zoned land for the service area. Denial of this petition does not eliminate the possibility of establishing non-residential uses on the property. The Land Use Plan policies AND the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) recognize that mixing non-residential uses in Residentiai zoning districts can be desirable and compatible, and that properties located at intersections of higher order roadways, such as this property, warrant development of non-residential uses. The LDM provides several avenues for establishing non residential uses, as identified in the zoning district tables, and through the Mixed Use Development provisions (Sec. 62.720 et. sec.). Examples of non-residential uses in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District include: the Mayo Clinic NE, at Stonehedge Drive and East Circle Drive; Home Federal Bank at 55'" Street and West Circle Drive, and Edina Realty at Fox Valley Drive and Salem Road. If the applicant were agreeable to amend their petition to request the "medium density' land use designation and R-3 (Medium Density) Residential zoning, the Commission and Council could make findings to support such an amendment, and could act on that since the notification was for a more intense request and the analysis and findings would support such an action. Ultimately, the Council would need to direct staff to prepare findings for a re -zoning to R-3 and bring those back for consideration/adoption. Alternatively, this application could be denied (along with the Zoning District Amendment) and the property would remain designated for "low density residential" uses, and would be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) upon annexation to the City. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY \1� 2006 Olmsted Planning Department rus Drive SE MN 55904 RE: Neighborhood Meeting Summary Think Plaza Northeast REC VED-ED FE t Y 2 t�5 YAGGY 21OChE_TER_ c_�,,�r_ COLBY P�. _'.NNINa n�Ty_-'1T ASSOCIATES Annexation, Zone Change, Land Use Plan Amendment, and General Development Plan Requests z Dear Mitzi: A neighborhood meeting was held February 9, 2006 at Our Savior Lutheran Church, 2124 Viola Road NE, regarding the proposed Think Plaza Northeast applications for Annexation, B-1 Zone Change request, Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), and General Development Plan. Approximately 30 to 40 individuals were in attendance (please see attached sign -in sheets, not everyone signed in). The conceptual layout, zone change area, future use of the property, and traffic were discussed, as well as individual neighbors concerns. The major concern that was voiced by a number of neighbors, primarily related to added traffic to the existing traffic problems in the morning and late afternoon caused by the traffic movements to and from Century High School. The second major issue related to what uses are allowed in a B-1 Restricted Commercial Zoning. It was explained to the neighbors that a Traffic Study was completed and submitted to the City of Rochester and Olmsted County officials for review. This study had not been approved and changes may be required. The types of uses allowed in a B-1 Zoning were read to the neighbors from the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The neighbors were told the development would be limited at this time to the Think Federal Credit Union branch office with 18 maximum employees and approximately 5,000 square feet. This limitation is caused by lack of capacity in the existing sanitary sewer. Once the Silver Creek Sanitary Sewer Trunk line is constructed to the property from the south, the remaining portion of the development can occur. Other issues of concern mentioned, were related to walk -ability incorporated in the site design and area, not wanting to look at a commercial development, the city allowing anything with no planning, and the belief that commercial development should be limited to Downtown. If you have any questions or concerns, please call. Sincerely, YAGY40 GOLBY�TES Wade Neubauer, EIT WN:bd YCA #9405 LD2 Attachments ® cc: Steve Spohn EDEIPEERS RRCRITECTS IRROSCRPI RRCRIT[ CTS SRRI)E16RS PfARRERS Rochester Office 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 559N 507-288-6464 507-288.5058 Fax ■ MP15/51 Paul Office 65 L681-9040 Hastings Office: 651-437-2909 Olasoa cite Office: 641-424-6344 Delafield Office: 262-646.6855 ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SNRYEYDAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS PROJECT PREPARED BY CHECKED BY SHEET NO. PROJECT # JE JE OF -�Z (C t+ar.N1� 23S 1 2r.i72s S I cJsk,lJcwd ►, Z O LI U�'zc 14 V ✓ I- A/ 5�7 - 2 $`/ C.N�4,.esi 4,. - , Miv � S5 V, ob �acl�ef�u I AJ Ac>a-qe51 /qa 9- ,� yw ol0. f - m �S90 r-1 o r-�Ia ��2(� z� i'a 4- d �c C 'j-o ovo, w 6A- l vag- f vi �C7c i K10n,aVA -J /low 11.i W 61L or, fj i3 i✓ Mrl 7�f� ✓�5 �� ~ram Ly e H a ki rmhaK 1g15 v-oiia H t5 e,,Z6�tLiu�'�i 5z9-ot & 9 �5 A16 25d-C1170 ENGINEERS PROJECT # t`� ARCHITECTS PROJECT SURVEYORS PREPARED BY LANDSCAPE CHECKED BY DATE ARCHITECTS SHEET NO. PLANNERS OF V1�1 s lq lL� V tb�a I�}s �h S0? - Z8' 0�17 0 nnN ssa ob_ _-_ CD z 3 -- -- --- - Yam' �,W'svn 2-73G I /Cf'L� Z89 - eZ� 1?6S C 1,nlVGf�e I�d.(�(E Say-2S�'_tz8y - $a 2- 5ue �Q S �Qa�I �l0 ^-1%idj /1�E� .Z Al JEJ&Yu r—p1 ZL°z u, -Aj i I uw�. APPLICATION MATERIALS RECEIVED I �tl � I JAW r _ c.:C3 I ROCHESrER-Q.`+ISiEJ I YCA #9405 LD2 01/25/06 Think Plaza Northeast Land Use Plan Amendments The Think Plaza Northeast property owners propose a Land Use Plan Amendment for approximately 8.72 acres of B-1 Restricted Commercial District. Please see the attached General Development Plan (GDP), Zone Change documents, and other supporting documents for additional location and area information. Commercial The Commercial Land Use Plan Amendment request is for approximately 8.72 acres. This area is being proposed as a B-1 Restricted Commercial area. As the Land Use Plan does not have a commercial center section that includes the size that is being proposed, we have used the Neighborhood Shopping Center characteristics for analysis, as this commercial site is intended to reflective of a neighborhood commercial area. The Location Criteria, in the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area, have the following guidelines (Land Use Plan text in italics): B.I. Neighborhood shopping centers, defined as small centers (four to eight acres in area) including stores catering to the daily or weekly convenience shopping needs and personal services needs of a neighborhood, are most suitable in the areas with the following characteristics: a. Located at the intersection of a collector street and/or higher level streets. The proposed commercial site is at the intersection of CSAH 2 (Viola Road — Major Urban Arterial) and CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive — Strategic Urban Arterial) . b. Having relatively flat terrain. The slopes on this site range from less than 1 % to 20% with the majority of the site less than a 10% slope. The City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual considers moderate slopes in the range of 22% to 30% and this site is under this threshold. There are no steep slopes on this site. c. Having good vehicular and pedestrian access. The proposed commercial site is at the intersection of CSAH 2 (Viola Road) and CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive). The proposed access to this site along Viola Road is directly across from Viola Heights Drive N.E. There are existing sidewalks along both sides of Viola Heights Drive and along the west side of Viola Road. This development would propose sidewalks that would allow pedestrian access from this intersection. The proposed access to this site along East Circle Drive is directly across from a median that has been closed by the county due to traffic using it as a "U-tum" movement. Proposal at this time for this access would be a right in — right out movement but the owner would like a''/4 intersection considered by the county which would allow a left turn in from north bound traffic on East Circle Drive. d. With a projected service area population of at least 1,500 households with a radius of one-half to one mile. For this study there are no State, City, or School District property included in the area for estimated units. There are approximately 2,500 residential units, either existing or in undeveloped private property, within one mile of this commercial site. e. Having at least enough land area to serve the fully developed neighborhood at the rate of 2.5 acres of land per], 000 neighborhood households. The commercial area is approximately 8.72 acres. With 2,500 units this would amount to approximately 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 households. 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 households would equate to 3,488 households for the 8.72 acres proposed. RECEIVED JAN 7 6 200S Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 CONTINUED ITEMS: AND Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff reports, dated February 16, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that there are a possible 1,813 extra dwelling units that are not currently being shown in the Land Use Plan analysis. These properties are undeveloped at this time. Ms. Baker stated that the Commission and Council, at some point, may need to discuss how much commercial is "too much" in a community. Ms. Baker reiterated that staff was not supporting the land designation to "commercial". She also explained that, if the Commission agreed that "commercial" is a good designation for the property, they would need to take that into account when acting on the zone change request that is being heard concurrently and findings would need to be specified by the Commission. Ms. Baker pointed out revisions that would need to be done on the general development plan before final approval. Mr. Burke asked if an agreement would be needed for the roadway with the property owner (which is not the applicant), with regard to access to Circle Drive. Ms. Baker stated that there is a staff -recommended condition regarding providing evidence of such agreement. The property owner (Mr. Hougland) has been at the predevelopment meetings and has verbally indicated that he would work with the applicant on this. The applicant's representative, Wade DuMond from Yaggy Colby Associates (717 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that there were a few representatives with Think Federal Credit union to answer any questions the Commission had. There is a traffic report that will be resubmitted to County and City next week. It had to be revised due to conflict with staff on how to prepare it. \� Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Mr. DuMond made the following comments: Sanitary sewer is a constraint on the site — it only has the capacity for the Think building and no other commercial uses (extension of services may not occur for another five years) Comments regarding Land Use Criteria: o The Land Use Plan is not an ordinance, but criteria that are more like goals. Therefore, he doesn't believe they need to meet all the goals. o He showed a concept plan of what it could look like. o He stated that there is good visibility from the site due to West Circle Drive being built up and Viola Road being on a hill. o The steepest area is 14 percent — 4 percent slope across the site. The Land Use Plan states that a moderate slope is 22 to 30 percent. o There is a lot of traffic going by the site. o The property is on fairly level terrain. There is only a 4 percent slope across the site. o He counted more than 10,000 households. They looked at a number of units in Valhalla that you cannot tell clearly how many units there are. This is the same issue with regard to Buena Vista condos. Olympic Village has a lot of duplexes. o The County Engineer has to approve the permits. The traffic report shows that their plans work, which will be submitted to the County Engineer. o They have found out about some pedestrian concerns with the neighbors. They will be addressing these concerns in their plan. He stated that there is a plan for a signal at Northern Valley Drive. o There are about 1,200 acres in a 2 mile radius around the site that consists of cemeteries, state land, quarry hill, Century High School, and Silver Lake. He stated that these should be counted. Considering Valhalla, Buena Vista, and Olympic Village, they counted 14,000 units. To get to the 1.5 acres per household, they would need an additional 700 units (only 5 percent difference). Mr. DuMond stated that he didn't think R-3 zoning was a good fit due to the heavy traffic intersection and noise for an apartment. Also, traffic would be looking down on the apartments. Mr. DuMond stated that he thought they have provided staff with a letter from Mr. Hougland. He will provide that to them. Mr. Copeland has agreed to give the applicant access through his property. Mr. DuMond showed the adjacent properties zoning districts on the aerial map. Mr. Only asked what type of building he would expect to see in an R-3 zoning district. Mr. DuMond responded 280 units. Mr. Haeussinger asked if criteria C and E are his main points in approving the development. Mr. DuMond stated that there has been a lot of discussion with Mr. Wheeler to change the criteria. Yaggy Colby Associates does not agree with the criteria as stated now. He stated that he has heard from many individuals that they want more commercial nearer to them than 1.6 miles to Broadway. Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Ms. Rivas asked if the Qwest buildings would remain on the site. Mr. DuMond responded yes. Mr. DuMond stated that the trail design has not been formalized. Think does want to make the site pedestrian friendly. Mr. DuMond stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff -recommended conditions of the GDP. They will get the revisions to staff. The applicant's representative, Mr. Paul Horgan, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant wanted the B-1 versus the R-3 zoning district so that they can increase their productivity. He stated that he didn't believe that the R-3 zoning would be developed. Mr. Horgan stated that they met with neighbors on February 9, 2006 and March 7, 2006. He stated that they made efforts to listen to those opposed to the plan. He stated that there were more people that spoke in favor of the proposal than against. The first meeting was a question of whether or not they wanted development and the second meeting was more of a "when and how". Mr. Horgan stated that the development philosophy involved a lot of green space (more than 12 percent). He also stated that the architectural style would be high. Mr. Horgan stated that the applicant was willing to commit to limiting development to 35,000 square feet. He explained that B-1 zoning district does allow more, but they only plan on using 35,000 square feet due to their development philosophy. Mr. Horgan stated that, as a good corporate citizen entity, they would care about ensuring pedestrian facilities and working with the neighborhood. They want to contribute to the community. Mr. Burke asked what types of uses they foresaw in the other commercial buildings. Mr. Horgan responded coffee shop, ice cream parlor, dry cleaning, etc. cleaning, etc. Mr. Burke asked if the construction would be similar to the current Think Credit Union in design. Mr. Horgan responded yes. It would be attractive on all sides of the building. Mr. DuMond discussed the traffic patterns in the area. Mr. Todd Wade (1807 Viola Heights Drive NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. He stated that he didn't think that the majority of the people were in favor of the proposal at the neighborhood meetings. The developers in attendance liked it. There was a small attendance as many people didn't know about it. He made the following comments: There are the following within a 2 mile radius: 0 6 banks 0 5 coffee shots 0 5 gas stations 0 ' Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March S, 2006 0 2 grocery stores 0 2 ice cream stores 0 13 strip malls Mr. Wade stated that the residential neighborhood should have been provided the ability to give input. He expressed concern what could happen to downtown business when creating all these types of commercial uses outside the main core. He stated that the area was unique due to having a high school and other businesses with heavy traffic in one neighborhood. He expressed already rising difficulties in walking in the area. He asked that the properly remain R- 1. Ms. Diane Wilaby (1926 Viola Heights Lane, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission She stated that she did not support R-3 development. She asked that it stay R-1. She indicated that she has lived in her home for 13 years and knew the property would develop. After hearing Think's representatives, they could be a good neighbor. However, she had reservations with the B-1 zoning district. She asked the Commission that, if they were to approve the B-1 zoning district, they put conditions of approval to hold them to their commitments of a high amount of green space and low square footage. Mr. Jim Woodbury (1732 Northern Viola Lane NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. He also expressed concern with the B-1 zoning district. He explained that modest commercial development could be done in other zoning. He agreed with Mr. Wade's statements about the neighborhood meeting. The applicant told them what was going to occur rather than asking for input. He asked that, whatever zoning is approved, the Commission put on sufficient restrictions so that they are held to their promises they had made at the meeting tonight. Mr. Randy Staver (2707 Century Lane NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. He stated that the Commission should look at quantitative versus qualitative. He stated that the project exceeded the qualitative perspective. He stated that he believed the proposal would blend in with the surrounding development. He explained that the B-1 zoning district is one of the most restrictive categories and should provide a measure of comfort to the neighborhood. He indicated that, while the R-3 zoning district may be more restrictive, the zoning is not amenable to the project. He thought that light commercial activity would be an appropriate buffer between the residential area and the roadway. He did not think that there were already sufficient service centers in the area. Mr. Staver stated that he could not find anything in the criteria that would require the Commission to reject the proposed project. He felt that the analysis was complicated by applying an outdated Land Use Plan (1979). Mr. Terrance Harms (1929 Northern Viola Lane NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. He expressed concern with regard to the type and amount of traffic the bank would bring. He did express concern that staff was using a 1979 Land Use Plan. He expressed frustration with the property across from the proposed development (zoned B-1) is not being developed nicely. Ms. Diane Wilaby (1926 Viola Lane NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. She stated that her biggest concern was with regard to traffic, as her home is the second house from the corner. She stated that the neighbor on the actual corner of the street has had some very close calls to death by shoveling his sidewalks in winter. Considering the amount of Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 accidents that happen outside his home, he has a web site dedicated to all the crashes that occur at that intersection. Mr. Burke stated that the neighborhood should contact City Public Works since they are the road authority. Ms. Wilaby stated that a pedestrian only light would be preferable to nothing to make it safe to cross the roadway. Ms. Cecilia Dingledy (1807 Viola Heights Lane NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. She stated that she agreed with Ms. Baker's staff report. She read sections from the report that indicated that the proposed development was not consistent with the Land Use Plan. She expressed concern whether the proposed development would actually be an enhancement to the neighborhood. She further expressed concern regarding traffic and additional accidents on Viola Road. Ms. Baker made the following comments: • Staff counted the apartment units and townhomes. She explained that they have access to property records to get exact data. • There are different alternatives for Think to put a bank on the property rather than zoning it B-1 (ex. R-3). She explained that the alternatives were explained to the applicant prior to them making application. • Even though Think is voluntarily stating that they would limit their square footage, there is nothing to guarantee that they will not develop the site differently or sell it. Conditions of approval cannot be placed on a zone change. She expressed concern with a condition limiting square footage on the general development plan if it is not tied to the traffic capacity limits. • The planning staffs purpose was not to create difficulties and be bureaucratic. Staff is just suggesting that there are different routes that can be taken to develop on the property. Ms. Rivas stated that there are other routes to get the development accomplished. She asked what the applicant would have to do if the property were rezoned to the R-3 zoning district. Ms. Baker responded that the Ordinance has "mixed use development" standards that the applicant could pursue. She explained that they could do the development in the R-1 and R-3 zoning district. Discussion ensued regarding other possible development procedures (ex. restricted development conditional use permit) and how the uses would vary. Ms. Rivas asked if an ATM would be allowed on site. Ms. Baker responded that she was unsure how ATMs were regulated. Mr. DuMond explained that other general development plans have been limited by conditions. He stated that he did not see the difference in placing a condition of approval on the general development plan regarding square footage as it has been for traffic. �U Page 7 City Planting and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Mr. DuMond stated that, if the property were zoned B-1, they could use approximately 190,000 square feet. This wouldn't even have a negative impact on traffic as they would meet all the standards with the improvements being proposed. Mr. DuMond stated that they did research the R-3 mixed use development. However, he explained the difficulties of planning it and explained that was the reason it really hasn't been used over the years. Mr. Burke asked Mr. Horgan if we would object to being restricted to only using the 35,000 square feet. Mr. Horgan responded no. He explained that there would need to be trust. He reiterated that he thought the meeting with the neighborhood was more of a "yes" or "no" development and about "how' and "when". He stated that 35,000 square feet made sense with their developing philosophy on the property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Ms. Rivas expressed reservation with approving the B-1 zoning district due to blank check zoning. She stated that the R-3 zoning district could be more appropriate due to more restrictions. Mr. Barry concurred with Ms. Rivas. Ms. Rivas suggested a condition of approval on the general development plan that the applicant be committed to limiting development to 35,000 square feet. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 PUBLIC HEARINGS: MEETING 91 / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4-3-06 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. - 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of Senior Planner the intersection of East Circle Drive and Viola Road (CSAH 2). The petition is to change the zoning map from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to B-1 (Restricted Commercial). The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. IJ oTE : Gam_ mwxA LUPfi March 28, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2006, to consider this petition. Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #06-01 to be consistent with the recommendation on Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Ms. Rivas and Mr. Barry voting nay. 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. Distribution:)4. 1Z 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 3, 2005 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: a Existing & Proposed Area .mooning 0 m R-1 R-1 Q C n 13 CD m n y n x N N Viola Road/CSAH 2 B-1 A-4 - \ i/ Currontly In County ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 " Rochester, MN 55904-4744 0 0 0 K T♦ „ www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: February 16, 2006 RE: Zoning District Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union. The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Circle Drive and Viola Road (CSAH 2). The petition is to change the zoning map from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to B-1 (Restricted Commercial). The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. Plannina Department Review: Petitioner: Think Federal Credit Union 5200 Members parkway NW Rochester, MN 55903 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. Requested Action: The Applicant is proposing to designate the property for "commercial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, to re -zone the property to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district, and to develop the site commercially. Existing Land Use: The westerly portion of the property is occupied with a home, and two outbuildings, The remainder of the site has been used to pasture horses. Proposed Land Use: The Applicant is proposing to designate the property for "commercial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, to re -zone the property to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district, and to develop the site commercially. Adjacent Land Use and With the exception of the Century Hills Commercial Park BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 5071285.8345 FAX 5071287-2275 Page 2 03 February 16, 2006 Zoning: Subdivision, located north across Viola Road, all other lands adjacent to and across Viola Road and East Circle Drive are designated for "low density residential" uses and zoned either R-1 (Low Density Residential) in the City, or A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) in the County if they are not yet annexed to the City. The Century Hills Commercial Park Subdivision is zoned B-1 (Restricted Commercial). Transportation Access: Two accesses are proposed to this property. The primary access would be from Viola Road, across from Viola Heights Drive NE, which would be a full opening. The second access is proposed to East Circle Drive, which will be limited to a right-in/right-out. Wetlands: Hydric soils may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant will need to determine if wetlands exist and the location. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on February 9, 2006, A summary of the meeting is attached. Referral Comments: 1. See comments attached to Amendment to GDP 269 Think Plaza Northeast. Report Attachments: 1. Area Zoning Map &Proposed Zone Change Map 2. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis for Zoning District Amendment. Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. Proposed 8-1: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 and General Development Plan #269 Think Plaza NE are being considered concurrent with this application. Page 3 February 16, 2006 The property is in the process of being annexed to the City. Zoning of the property should be consistent with action on Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01. If the Land Use Plan amendment and zone change were denied, the property would default to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district, which would be consistent with the current Plan designation for this property as "low density residential". 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Proposed B-1: Though uses in the B-1 district maybe generally compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, the neighborhood already has 13+ acres of land zoned B-1 across Viola Road to the north. The principals and policies in the Land Use Plan suggest that additional B-1 zoning at this location could result in saturating this intersection with commercial zoning that is not supported by the service area. Furthermore, the Land Use Plan policies suggest that the rolling terrain is more suitable for "residential' land use designations, than "commercial' on the Plan. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Proposed B-1: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 and General Development Plan #269 Think Plaza NE are being considered concurrent with this application. Re -zoning the property to the B-1 District would not be spot zoning and should be considered only it action on Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 is to approve commercial"designation of this property on the Plan. Staff Recommendation., Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 and General Development Plan 9269 Think Plaza NE are being considered concurrent with this application. Action on this zoning district amendment should be consistent with the action on Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0� DATE: 4-3-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITE " O. ■ PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan (GDP) #269 by Think Federal Credit Union PREPARED BY: to be known as Think Plaza Northeast. The GDP proposes development of approximately Mitzi A. Baker, 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Circle Drive Senior Planner and Viola Road (CASH 2) with uses that are permitted in the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) zoning district. The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. : � cP� March 29, 2006 0J07-E The Planning Commission recommended adding Staff expressed concern with that condition since facility limitation for the development. a condition, limiting the development to 35,000 square feet of floor area. it was not directly related to the Traffic Study, or to an adequate public Following the Planning Commission meeting, a REVISED General Development Plan (GDP) was submitted which identifies a proposed floor area limit of approximately 35,000 square feet. Section 61.217 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) addresses amendments to GDP's. Now that the Plan identifies a development intensity, this Section limits the flexibility in modifying that intensity as the property develops. According to Section 61.217 the GDP would need to go through a formal amendment, with public hearings, in order to increase that intensity by more than 5 percent. Considering the REVISED GDP now identifies a proposed intensity, and that the LDM would require a formal amendment to the GDP to be filed to increase that intensity by more than 5%, staff recommends that the condition added by the Planning Commission (#11) be deleted. The LDM will dictate that a Type III, Phase II (public hearings required) amendment to the GDP would need to be filed prior to increasing the total floor area beyond 36,750 square feet. The GDP was also revised to identify off -site improvements and future right-of-way dedication. Please note that the revised Traffic Study (TS) for Think assumes a total of 57,000 s.f. of commercial development that includes a mix of retail, restaurant, office and drive-thru bank. The TS estimates 3,434 ADT, with 283 AM peak hour, and 464 PM peak hour trips. In terms of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the TS proposes approximately 15%, while the B-1 district would permit 50% as a Type I (staff level approval). The FAR proposed by Think, and supported by the existing transportation infrastructure with proposed improvements, is similar to the FAR that could be constructed on 2.61 acres of land zoned B-1 (at .50 FAR). City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2006: Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan (GDP) #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be known as Think Plaza Northeast, with the staff -recommended findings and conditions, adding a condition to state "The development shall be limited to 35,000 square feet of floor area". Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Ms. Rivas and Mr. Barry voting nay. ! See conditions on next page % COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: Page1011 RCA March 29, 2006 CONDITIONS: 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Access, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: ownership, maintenance & access via the proposed private road, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Construction of a 10 ft wide bituminous pedestrian path is required at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontages of the Property, concurrent with development. 3. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. 4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 5. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontages of East Circle Dr & Viola Rd NE with the exception of the proposed private road access to Viola Rd NE location across from Viola Heights Dr NE, and the right -in, right -out access to East Circle Dr NE. 6. The applicant shall consult with RPU Environmental and Regulatory Affairs on the design and maintenance plans for storm water retention ponds in the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), and design and maintain the facilities to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Municipal Well 32. 7. Water mains must be networked properly to provide adequate flows for fire protection and water quality and must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities. 8. Development of this property shall be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities. 9. Access to CSAH 22/East Circle Drive will be limited to a right-in/right-out. Access permits shall be secured from Olmsted County Public Works. 10. Hydric soils may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant is responsible for determining if Wetland exists and the location. 11. The development shall be limited to 35,000 square feet of floor area, Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to approve the General Development Plan it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval. VIOUNNW113153HDOU 15V3HINON VZVld ANIHI NVId IN3VNdOl3Ag(] IVN3N39 JL zz 'ON Nk" >> N pit M�4 i WHY 01 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLAANNLNG DEPARTMENT oF,RD�KESTER.A,�NNE 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100" Rochester, MN 55904-4744 c: rZ c c U.' OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning Q17 oRno TE -..... ... wv Bq D•AUGUBT•, TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: February 16, 2006 RE: General Development Plan (GDP) #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be known as Think Plaza Northeast. The GDP proposes development of approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Circle Drive and Viola Road (CASH 2) with uses that are permitted in the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) zoning district. The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. Plannina Department Review., Petitioner: Think Federal Credit Union 5200 Members parkway NW Rochester, MN 55903 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of Viola Road and along the west side of East Circle Drive and is in the process to being annexed. Proposed Use: The Applicant is proposing to designate the property for "commercial" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, to re -zone the property to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district, and to develop the site commercially. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan currently designates this property for "low density residential" types of uses. An amendment to the Plan is being considered concurrent with this application (LUPA #06-01), along with a re -zoning request. Zoning: With the exception of the Century Hills Commercial Park Subdivision, located north across Viola Road, all BUILDING CODE 507/2B5-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 ..,"., PLANNING20NING 507/2B5-8232 • WELUSEPTIC S07/285-8345 FAx 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 1 J� General Development Plan February 16, 2006 other lands adjacent to and across Viola Road and East Circle Drive are designated for "low density residential' uses and zoned either R-1 (Low Density Residential) in the City, or A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) in the County if they are not yet annexed to the City. The Century Hills Commercial Park Subdivision is zoned B-1 (Restricted Commercial). Transportation Access: The General Development Plan for this property proposes two vehicular accesses to the property. The primary access would be from Viola Road NE, with a second access to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant for the project assumes a 3/4 access to CSAH 22. The Circle Drive Access Management Plan, however, recommends that this access be a right-in/right-out only. Spacing is insufficient for a 3/4 access, according to the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Development of this property, as proposed, would require off -site improvements, including construction of turn lanes and extension of the median island on Viola Road. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate turn lanes. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along all public roadways, and will include a combination of concrete sidewalk and bituminous pedestrian paths. Drainage: The property has varied terrain. The northern portion/nearest the intersection is relatively level. The southern portion of the property is rolling. The property drops approximately 22 feet from the center to the southern property line. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Utilities: There is limited sanitary sewer capacity to serve this site, and development will need to be limited/phased until additional capacity is available. There are inadequate on and off -site public facilities to accommodate the development of the property, which will need to be resolved prior to development and/or will require phasing development to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, has identified this property as being in the "Drinking Water Supply Management Area"(DWSMA) for RPU Well 32. Storm water retention ponds in this area will need to be properly managed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Well 32. Page 3 \ General Development Plan February 16, 2006 Wetlands: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Water main must be extended to adjacent property per RPU's requirements. Hydric soils may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant will need to determine if wetlands exist and the location. 1. Rochester Public Works 2. Muhammad Khan, Senior Transportation Planner 3. Olmsted County Public Works 4. RPU Water 5. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs 6. John Harford, Wetlands LGU 7. Planning Department GIS/Addressing Staff 8. Rochester Fire Department 1. Copy of General Development Plan 2. Referral Comments 3. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan. Following are the criteria and staff suggested findings. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. An amendment to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan (RUSALUP) and Zoning District Amendment (LUPA 06-01; ZC 06-01) are being considered concearent with this application. The GDP includes nearly 9 acres of land. The applicant is proposing to have the entire GDP area designated for "commercial" uses on the RUSALUP, and to zone the property B-1 (Restricted Commercial). Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. At this time, a lot layout has not been identified for the development. This detail will need to be evaluated further at the time of platting and site development plan proposals. The General Development Plan identifies a proposed private roadway that would dissect the site. This General Development Plan proposes two vehicular accesses to the property. The primary access would be from Viola Road NE, with a second access to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant for the project assumes a'/a access to CSAH 22. The Circle Drive Access Management Plan, however, recommends that this Page 4 General Development Plan February 16, 2006 access be a right-inlright-out only. Spacing is insufficient for a j/ access, according to the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Development of this property, as proposed, would require off -site improvements, including construction of turn lanes and extension of the median island on Viola Road. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate rum lanes. This GDP should be revised to identify on and off -site improvements necessary to support the development, including modifications to the public right-of-way and reservation of additional right-of- way necessary to accommodate the improvements. The attached referral report prepared by Muhammad Khan, Senior Transportation Planner, and dated February 9, 2006, is incorporated herein. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans This proposal does not include or identify a residential component. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The above response to Criterion B, above, is incorporated as a response to this Criterion. 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 safety 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, 0 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. On and off site improvements will be needed to accommodate full build out of the proposed development. There are currently inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate the development of this Property, including sanitary sewer, water, access and storm water management facilities. The attached referral report prepared by Muhammad Khan, Senior Transportation Planner, and dated February 9, 2006, is incorporated herein. h� Page 5 \ General Development Plan February 16, 2006 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. There is limited sanitary sewer capacity to serve this site, and development will need to be limited/phased until additional capacity is available. There are inadequate on and off -site public facilities to accommodate the development of the property, which will need to be resolved prior to development and/or will require phasing development to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, has identified this property as being in the "Drinking Water Supply Management Area "(DWSMA) for RPU Well 32. Storm water retention ponds in this area will need to be properly managed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Well 32. Water main must be extended to adjacent property per RPU's requirements. 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 Plan should be revised to identify future pedestrian facilities along the public road frontage as well as accommodation for extension of a trail that would connect with the trail in Quarry Hill Park The Long Range Bikeway Plan identifies a future off -road path to be developed to connect facilities at the intersection of Viola Road/East Circle Drive with the existing trail system in Quarry Hill Park 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 property has varied terrain. The northern portion nearest the intersection is relatively level. The southern portion of the property is rolling. The property drops approximately 22 feet from the center to the southern property line. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, has identified this property as being in the "Drinking Water Supply Management Area "(DWSMA) for RPU Well 32. Storm water retention ponds in this area will need to be properly managed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Well 32. Page 6 143 General Development Plan February 16, 2006 Hydric soils may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant will need to determine if wetlands exist and the location. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking place. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, has identified this property as being in the "Drinking Water Supply Management Area "(DWSMA) for RPU Well 32. Storm water retention ponds in this area will need to be properly managed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Well 32. This GDP application does not specifically address how development of this site will be managed to minimize or avoid impacts to protect groundwater recharge andlor Well 32. Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. At this time, a lot layout has not been identified for the development. This detail will need to be evaluated further at the time of planing and site development plan proposals. The General Development Plan identifies a proposed private roadway that would dissect the site. The General Development Plan for this property proposes two vehicular accesses to the property. The primary access would be from Viola Road NE, with a second access to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant for the project assumes a'/. access to CSAH 22. The Circle Drive Access Management Plan, however, recommends that this access be a right-in/right-out only. Spacing is insufficient fora 314 access, according to the ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Development of this property, as proposed, would require off -site improvements, including construction of turn lanes and extension of the median island on Viola Road. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate turn lanes. This GDP should be revised to identify on and off -site improvements necessary to support the development, including modifications to the public right-of-way and reservation of additional right-of- way necessary to accommodate the improvements. Though uses in the B-1 district may be generally compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, the neighborhood already has 13+ acres of land zoned B-1 across Viola Road to the north. The principals and policies in the Land Use Plan suggest that additional B-1 zoning at this location could result in saturating this intersection with commercial zoning that is not supported by the service area. Furthermore, the Land Use Plan policies suggest that the rolling terrain is more suitable for "residential" land use designations, than "commercial" on the Plan. Page 7 I General Development Plan February 16, 2006 The Land Use Plan policies AND the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM), do however, recognize that mixing non-residential uses in the Residential zoning districts can be desirable and compatible when the types of uses and intensities are limited, and that properties located at intersections of higher order roadways, such as this property, warrant development of non-residential uses. The LDM provides several avenues for establishing non residential uses, as identified in the zoning district tables, and through the Mixed Use Development provisions (Sec. 62.720 et. seq.). Examples of non-residential uses in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District include: the Mayo Clinic NE, at Stonehedge Drive and East Circle Drive; Home Federal Bank at 55t8 Street and West Circle Drive, and Edina Realty at Fox Valley Drive and Salem Road. The attached referral report prepared by Muhammad Khan, Senior Transportation Planner, and dated February 9, 2006, is incorporated herein. Summary & Recommendation: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 and Zoning District Amendment #06-01 are being considered concurrent with this GDP application. The decisions on these two applications could require that the Traffic Study be revised by the consultant, and re -analyzed by staff since traffic patterns and movements could be different from what was already studied. Whether action on the Land Use Plan Amendment or Zoning District Amendment is to approve or deny, this GDP will need to be revised. The following revisions should be prepared, and re- submitted and circulated to referral agencies for consideration prior to any final action on the GDP: The Plan must be revised to identify: ➢ Off -site improvements necessary to support development of the property, including but not limited to, modifications to the public roadways which may include turn lanes, extension of the raised median in Viola Road and storm water management, pedestrian facilities. 9 Reservation of additional right-of-way required to accommodate improvements (i.e. turn lanes, pedestrian facilities). Pedestrian trail connection to the Quarry Hill Park trail shall be accommodated through this site and identified on the General Development Plan. After the revised Plan is submitted and circulated for review, additional comments or conditions may be recommended. At this time, the following conditions should be considered, in addition to the recommendation that the Plan be revised as outlined above: 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Access, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: ownership, Page 8 General Development Plan February 16, 2006 maintenance & access via the proposed private road, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Construction of a 10 ft wide bituminous pedestrian path is required at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontages of the Property, concurrent with development. 3. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. 4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. , 5. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontages of East Circle Or & Viola Rd NE with the exception of the proposed private road access to Viola Rd NE location across from Viola Heights Dr NE, and the right -in, right -out access to East Circle Dr NE. 6. The applicant shall consult with RPU Environmental and Regulatory Affairs on the design and maintenance plans for storm water retention ponds in the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), and design and maintain the facilities to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Municipal Well32, 7. Water mains must be networked property to provide adequate flows for fire protection and water quality and must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities. 8. Development of this property shall be phased to provide concurrence with adequate public facilities. 9. Access to CSAH 22/East Circle Drive will be limited to a right-In/right-out. Access permits shalt be secured from Olmsted County Public Works. 10. Hydric soils may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant is responsible for determining if Wetland exist and the location. ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC Rochester, MN 55904 m WORKS 201 4 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FROM: Mark E. Baker FAX — 507-281-6216 DATE: 2/10/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development Plan 4269, for the proposed Think Plaza Northeast development. The following are Public Works comments: There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Access, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: ownership, maintenance & access via the proposed private road, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Construction of a 10 8 wide bituminous pedestrian path is required at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontages of the Property, concurrent with development. 3. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. 4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. C:\Documents and SettingsVlajgarn\Local Settings7emporary Internet Files\OLK611GDP269 Think Federal Credit Union GDP (Wheelock Property).doc � ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4In Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX - 507-281-6215 5. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontages of East Circle Dr & Viola Rd NE with the exception of the proposed private road access to Viola Rd NE location across from Viola Heights Dr NE, and the right -in, right -out access to East Circle Dr NE. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will include but are not limited: •:• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD ti Water Availability Charge (WAC) — TBD ❖ Contribution for Traffic Signal - TBD ❖ Storm Water Management — TBD through the Grading Plan review process ❖ Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer C:\Documents and Settings\plajgarMLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK61\GDP269 Think Federal Credit Union GDP (Wheelock Property).doc Ikq To: Development Review Staff, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department From: Muhammad F Khan, Senior Transportation Planner Date: 2/9/2006 Re: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN # 269, Think Plaza BACKGROUND The property is located along the south side of Viola Road west of East Circle Drive in the southwest quadrant of the East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and Viola Road (CSAH 2) intersection. The proposed development will be reviewed under the City of Rochester Land Development Manual for consistency with the policies and guidelines found in the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan', which has been adopted by the City of Rochester as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The review will address each of the key issue areas found in the adopted Transportation Plan that could influence decisions regarding the appropriateness of the General Development Plan and its design. The ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan recognizes Viola Road west of CSAH 22 as a Major Urban Arterial and east of CSAH 22 as a Major Regional Arterial. The street design classification map shows Viola Road west of CSAH 22 as a 4 lane divided urban street with curb and gutter, extending potentially south to the Northern Valley Drive intersection. East Circle Drive is classified as Strategic Urban Arterial and designated as four lane divided Expressway with shoulders and surface drainage . The projected daily traffic as per the ROCOG travel demand model for 2035 is significantly less than the recent traffic growth rate observed for the period 2000-2004, which on East Circle Drive was approximately 7% and on Viola Road approximately 15%. Projected 2035 daily traffic levels are 11,000 on Viola Road and 24,000 on East Circle Drive. The Long Range Bikeway Plan recognizes the existing bike path along Viola Road but does not call for development of a parallel path on the south side. However, some type of pedestrian facilities consistent with city policy would be anticipated on the south side of Viola Road. The Future Bikeway Map also indicates a future off -road path to be developed to connect facilities at the intersection of Viola Road / East Circle Drive with the existing trail system of Quarry Hill Park, as shown in the illustration to the right. Discussions with the developer should be ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, August 2005: The Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Transportation Plan provides a comprehensive look at anticipated system development in Olmsted County for the next 25-30 years. The Plan is organized around four primary transportation networks: Road & Bridge Network, Non -Motorized Travel Network, Public Transit Services and Commercial Freight and Passengers Transportation. February 9, 2006 conducted to determine an appropriate location for accommodating this future trail connection as part of the development planning for the site. REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT 1. System Planning, Traffic Management and Access Management In reviewing the proposed GDP, we need to assess whether proposed connections of streets and driveways to the major street system reflect consideration of the policies on access connections included in the Long Range Transportation Plan and other adopted Traffic and Access Management Plans. The primary access to the site is planned from Viola Road by constructing a fourth leg at the Viola ° ,n Road/Viola Heights intersection. A secondary access is "* also proposed in the GDP off East Circle Drive NE. This secondary access is proposed to be 1/3 access , permitting right -in, right -out traffic and left turns into the site. The GDP shows a private road that will connect the two access points within the proposed development. Street connection and spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan discuss permitted access connections and connection limitations. An important principle of the connection management policies is to avoid if possible the connection of roadways or driveways that have significantly different functions and operating characteristics. For example the connection of private driveways to high mobility arterial or expressway (East Circle Drive) is generally discouraged in the policies of the plan. The Circle Drive Traffic and Access Management Plan recommended the Payne/Hoaglan Access to be Right -In Right -Out operation with the median recommended to be closed. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Yaggy-Colby Associates for the applicant which provides further information on the key traffic issues and includes recommended mitigation alternatives to address the adverse traffic impact as result of the proposed development. The divided Roadway Median Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan (Table 4-12b) recommends minimum of 118 mile (660 ft) spacing for Right-In/Right-Out on an Expressway. The secondary access point shown in the GDP is on the East Circle Drive approximately 810 feet from the center of Viola Road which provides adequate spacing for a Right-In/Right-Out Access. The guidelines in the Long Range Plan recommend /. mile spacing between intersections if a'/a access is to be considered, and a minimum of Yz mile spacing for full intersections. The Traffic Study proposes a 3/4 access off East Circle Drive. The 3/4 access is recommended by the consultant due to the unique location of the site and existing surrounding street system. The study suggests that additional access connections are not feasible on East Circle Drive or Viola Road other than the proposed access points. "The study emphasized that elimination of 3/d 14\/ February 9, 2006 Access on the East Circle Drive is not advisable since it does not substantially help to reduce the delay at the primary access on Viola Road ,2. To address the deficient LOS at the Viola Road/Viola Heights Drive, a mitigation alternative is recommended in the Traffic Study. The Study suggests that "if the intersection was modified to include east and west left turn lanes along with raised median on Viola Road, the left turn movements will operate satisfactorily beyond year 2017. These geometric improvements would require widening of Viola Road approximately 20' in order to provide these improvements. It should be noted that this improvement would be consistent with the Street Design Classification proposed in the Long Range Plan, and also with the general guidelines for the provisions of turn lanes found in the Long Range Plan. Table 4-9 of the Long Range Transportation Plan suggests that turn lanes should be provided on major arterials whenever four lanes are planned or the projected volume is expected to exceed >5000 ADT. The design of the divided median and turn lanes should be determined in consultation with the Road Controlling Authority (Olmsted County Public Works Department). 2. Non -Motorized Transportation Improvements The general development plan needs to provide accommodation for pedestrian and path facilities consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the city's policy on pedestrian facilities. Planning for the future route of a path to provide a connection between the Viola Road / Circle Drive intersection and the existing path which ends at Parkwood Hills Drive in Quarry Hill Park south of the site needs to be completed. An alignment and necessary easements or future right of way for this future path/trail should be finalized during the GDP approval process. 3. Determination of Right Of Way (ROW) Needs The 2035 ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan recommends a basic mid -block right of way (ROW) for each major street corridor based on the Street Design Classification of the corridor and projected ADT. A key factor in determining the ROW is whether an urban section with curb & gutter is anticipated, or a rural section with a swale/ditch is anticipated. Moreover, determination of whether a corridor is planned to be divided or undivided will impact right of way requirements since that will determine whether a median needs to provided. The Long Range Transportation Plan also recognizes three other factors that may contribute to a need to require additional right of way width. These are: 1. Slope / Terrain — From 10 to 50 feet of additional right of way may be required due to terrain conditions. The Road Authority will need to identify this factor and may require additional ROW to deal with difficult slope/terrain conditions. 2. Bikeways: Where bike paths or trails are identified on the Bikeway Map, an additional 5 feet of right of way should be provided for each path (10' if path required on both sides of corridor). This account for the fact that the base mid -block right of way assumes only a 5' pedestrian sidewalk is required under base conditions. Traffic Study for Think Plaza Northeast Rochester, MN 2005 February 9, 2006 3. If turn lanes are required, additional right of way may be needed to accommodate those improvements as well. ROW adjustment for turn lanes is referred to as Intersection Transition Right of Way, which is illustrated on page 5, and specific guidelines for the width and length of the transition area are included in the Long Range Plan. Table 1 shows the various factors that should be considered in determining whether additional right of way will be needed to accommodate planned improvements to the major streets abutting the site. Table 1: Guidelines for Right of Way Needs at the Intersection of CSAH 22 and CSAH 2 Design Factor Viola Road / CSAH 2 East Circle Drive / CSAH 22 Design Classification 4 lane divided urban street 4lane divided rural expressway Base Right of Way 115 feet if surface drainage is 180 feet with a landscaped.or Requirement to be maintained grassed median is used *Could be reduced to 90 feet if plan is to reconstruct with curb and gutter on both sides Terrain Adjustment Needs to be determined by Needs to be determined by Public Works Dept Public Works Dept Bikeway Adjustment Necessary easement for Need to negotiate location and pedestrian facility / no easement/right of way for off - additional right of way based road path on Long Range Plan for a path Turn Lanes Turn Lanes (left and right) (Right) Turn lane required / 15 required / 15 feet feet Intersection Transition 480 feet 660 feet Distance \53 February 9, 2006 Example of how Mid -Block and Intersection Transition Area Rizht of GVav Requirements At CSAH 22 and CS AH 2 Intersection ROW Requirements Applied Afid--Block ROW Requirements applied thru this area Intersection Transition ROPY Requirements applied thru this area to both Expressway & Major Arterial AId-Black ROW Requirements applied 180' Minor Collector Intersection 1807 48 0 F ! 223' ' o. r4:l: L:i 223' i :0 Major Arterial :0 Intersection -N r-• 'Z 0 Ln ri 6 February9, 2006 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The Circle Drive Traffic and Access Management Plan recommended the Payne/Hoaglan Access to be Right -In Right -Out operation with the median recommended to be closed in the 2025 build - out scenario. The divided Roadway Median Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan (Table 4-12b) recommends minimum of 1/8 mile (660 ft) spacing for Right-In/Right-Out on an Expressway. The secondary access point shown in the GDP off the East Circle Drive is approximately 810 feet from the center of Viola Road, which would meet the requirement for a RI/RO access point. The required spacing guideline in the Long Range Plan for a 1/a access point along a divided expressway facility is 1/< mile (1320 feet). The applicant's Traffic Impact Study recommends a 1/a access at the proposed access location even though inadequate spacing is present due to operational considerations at the proposed Viola Road access. Those operations, however, could be improved by intersection reconstruction involving installation of a raised median with a protected left turn lane. The County Highway Engineer will need to consider the applicant's request for a 1/a access based on design factors including sight distance adequacy, the ability to provide adequate turn lane storage, and the level of service that would be provided by an unsignalized inbound left turn operation. Approving a 1/< access to serve the west side of the corridor will likely result in defacto approval at this time for similar operation to serve the site on the east side of East Circle Drive unless there are demonstrated differences between a southbound left turn serving the property on the east side as compared to the proposed northbound left turn serving the west side. This resurrects the safety question which existed at this median crossover prior to the installation of the posts to eliminate any use of the median, which was the use of the crossover for U-tum movements by students at Century High School as a way to avoid waiting in the signalized left turn lane at the intersection of Viola Road and Circle Drive. There was a demonstrated accident problem created by this crossover which was only eliminated by closure of the crossover. Opening this crossover once again, particularly if the developer on the east side requests equal access to the west side, will likely lead to this problem resurfacing once again. 2. The General Development Plan (GDP) needs to provide an accommodation for a future bike wail south providing a connection to the Quarry Hill trail system. 3. For general planning and right of way reservation purpose, the Long Range Transportation Plan provides a guideline for the provision of additional ROW needs as per Table 1 and Figure 1, whicl- includes additional to accommodate turn lanes and median width. The Long Range Transportation Plan recommends that turn lanes should be provided when the projected volume on a major arterial corridor is >5000 ADT. Therefore, left and right turn lanes should be planned for at the Viola Road/Viola Heights intersection, and a right turn lane at the East Circle Drive intersection. Additional right of way should be provided for these facilities.. The length of the divided median and turn lanes should be determined in consultation with the Road Controlling Authorities (Olmsted County Public Works Department). �( PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE - SUITE 200 ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 www.olmstedpublicworks.com 507.285.8231 February 2, 2006 Jennifer Garness Planning Department Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed General Development Plan #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be known as Think Plaza Northeast and has the following comments: • An access permit is required from Olmsted County Highway Division for a commercial access. • Access to CSAH 22 will be a right in/right out. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS/bw c: Think Federal Credit Union Yaggy Colby Associates nryix°°�" T:IPWDATAIENGINDOC1Planning Zoning LetterslPLANZONE.DOC PAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER rpu - Wr �1 ra! 70, me de(lprr January 31, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-01 and Zoning District Amendment #06-01 by Think Federal Credit Union to amend the LUP and zoning district on 8.73 acres of land from "low density residential" to "commercial' R-1 to B-1 located along the south side of Viola Rd. and the west side of East Circle Dr. NE. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced amendment is complete and our comments follow: 1. Preliminary Computer Hydraulic Water Modeling results indicate flows for fire protection will be in the low to mid 2000's GPM in this area with a "dead end" system. This system could possibly be looped in the future through the property to the south and west, which would significantly increase the available flows. 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, 0644A P Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Think Federal Credit Union Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 rpm x'e pleeege, we Geri vrr January 31, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be known as Think Plaza Northeast. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: Anticipated static water pressures within this area will range from 55 to 70 PSI depending on final grades. 2. The water main must be extended to adjacent properties per our requirements. 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, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety Think Federal Credit Union Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telenhnne 507-7Rn-1S40 &rsimile 5n7-9Rn-1542 N 111 rpu we /r(tdgt, wt dtliYtt DATE: February 9, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Cook Environmental & Regulatory Affairs SUBJECT: General Development Plan,#269 — Think Federal Credit Union. RPU's Field Services Division has completed a review of the above -referenced General Development Plan. Several areas of concern are as follows: • The proposed development is located in the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) for RPU Well 32(Figure 1). • The soils in the vicinity of Well 32 have a moderate permeability level (Figure 2). • Proposed development will be near the Decorah edge. The following recommendations are made to help protect groundwater quality and reduce the risk of contamination of public water supply wells: 1. Storm water retention ponds should be properly managed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Municipal Well 32. 2. Minimize alteration of any springs, seeps, wetlands or areas with hydric soils that maybe found on the property. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 E v m m D IL 2 7 C LL a' o � 8 a m � 8 = � e e gg u oil r 4, �4k rpu wr plraW, wr del, r Glossary of Terms WHP Program — Wellhead Protection Program - designed to help preserve and protect the quality of our local drinking water supply. TOT — Time of Travel - a distance and time measurement used to determine how long it would take for a contaminant reach drinking water supply. ERZ —Emergency Response Zone - based on a one (1) year TOT. Any contaminants spilled within the ERZ could start showing up at the well in less than one (1) year. WHPA — Wellhead Protection Area — based on a 50 year TOT. Any contaminants spilled within the ERZ could start showing up in the well in less than 50 years. SWCA — Surface Water Contribution Area — Some wells do not have a confuting geological layer about them so it is easier for surface water to reach the well. The SWCA extends the WHPA to include surface water runoff if necessary. A DWSMA — Drinking Water Supply Management Area — The DWSMA is the complete protection area combining the ERZ, WHPA, and SWCA, tying them to the nearest property/roadway boundaries. Aquitard — A layer of low permeability soil or bedrock that provides protection to the underlying aquifer. PCS — Potential Contaminant Source — Any business or individual that generates, stores, recycles or transports materials or substances that could contaminate ground water. Examples — gas stations, automotive quick lube facilities, dry cleaners, printing companies, chemical companies, paint manufacturers, photo processing labs, landfills, recycling centers, sewage treatment plants, sewage lines, septic tanks, feedlots, manure storage, fertilizer/pesticide storage/mixing, grain storage, road salt storage, auto body shop, machine/metal shop, plating facilities, scrap yard, asphalt plants, electronics manufacturing, firmiture manufacturing/refinishing, paper mill, pipeline, plastics manufacturer, fire training facility, golf course, hospital, laboratory, incinerator, storm water retention ponds. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: General Development Plan (GDP) #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be known as Think Plaza Northeas ❑ 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 may exist on the southern edge of this property. The applicant will need to determine if wetland exist and the location. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative l cr Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: January 31, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Yaggy Colby Associates RE: THINK PLAZA NORTHEAST GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN # 269 A review of the GDP has turned up the following ROADWAY or ADDRESS related issues: NOTE: C.S.A.H. NO.2 (VIOLA RD) and C.S.A.H. NO.22 (EAST CIRCLE DRV.) are illustrated incorrectly and should be illustrated as VIOLA RD NE (C.S.A.H. NO. 2) and EAST CIRCLE DR NE (C.S.A.H. NO.22). The hand Ic reach for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: February 9, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: General Development Plan (GDP) #269 by Think Federal Credit Union to be know as Think Plaza Northeast. The GDP proposes development of approximately 8.73 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of east Circle Drive and Vila Road with uses that are permitted it eh B-1 zoning district. 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. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. 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) Think Federal Credit Union Yaggy Colby APPLICATION MATERIALS 01/25/06 YCA #9405 LD2 THINK PLAZA NORTHEAST GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Think Plaza Northeast is located in NE Rochester in the southwest comer of the intersection between CSAH 2 (Viola Road) and CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive). The property to the south is not annexed and is undeveloped. The Think property is approximately 8.72 acres. The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with Appendix $ 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 site topography is fairly flat for the northern portion and falls off into three drainage ditches along the southern portion with elevations ranging from 1200 to 1226. Cover over the bedrock is expected to be less than 10 feet. Soil borings will be completed during the engineering phases to determine subsurface conditions and the bedrock depth in the areas of construction. Steeper areas with higher erosion potential are being avoided as much as possible as indicated by the street alignments. The Ohnsted County soil survey shows no hydric soils on the property. There appears that no wetlands exist on the property. A wetland investigation will be conducted and reviewed by planning staff. Decorah shale is not present on the site. Some blasting may be required for the installation of utilities. b) Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. The storm drainage does not appear to cause problems that will result in the increase of normal storm drainage costs except some attention to stabilization of the existing drainage ditches may have to be addressed. c) Identification of potential off -site drainage problems. There has been some positive talks with the property owner to the south, Mr. Hoaglan, on constructing a storm water detention pond on his property at the bottom of the center drainage ditch where it abuts Parkwood Hills Park. There are some Hydric Soils / Wetlands located in this area that may have to be delineated and replaced. Participation in the city's storm water management plan may occur on a portion of the site. There should be no problems with off-si dra# gCE1N ED created by this development. JAN 2 6 2�Js5 r. �4 l Think Plaza Northeast General Development Plan Page 2 d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. Sanitary sewer and water service are available from lines that were stubbed under Viola Road NE in front of Our Savior's Church to the south and west of the site. The Sanitary sewer line downstream is near capacity. Rochester Public Works will temporarily allow this development to serve off of this line but will limit the development until the Silver Creek Sanitary Sewer Trunk -line is constructed. e) Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant. The areas of steeper slopes will be avoided where possible. The majority of these areas are shown along the south portion of this development. Where development encroaches into the steeper slopes, erosion control measures will be incorporated into the grading plan during final design. j7 A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. The first phase of construction will include the private street, utilities, parking lot, and a Think Federal Credit Union branch building. The parking lot and building will be located in the northern portion of the site. The following phases will be developed when the Silver Creek Sanitary Sewer Trunk -line is available and market conditions allow. RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2JQ5 ROC��57cii • �:. k,I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 DATE: 4-3-06 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO & S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #05-15 by DeWitt Construction. The PREPARED BY: applicant is proposing to re -zone Lots 5, 6, and 7 Rose Harbor Third from the R-1 (Mixed Brent Svenby, Single Family) to the R-2 (Low density residential) district. The properties are located Senior Planner south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hillcrest Court SE. March 22, 2006 This item was tabled at the December 12, 2005 meeting at the request of the applicant. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:. The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 9, 2005 to consider this zone change. The commission reviewed a GDP for the property. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report dated November 2, 2005 and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zone Change #05.15 by DeWitz Construction with the staff - recommended findings. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated November 2, 2005 Council Action Needed: The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning for the property Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated November 2, 2005 ! /, 2. Minutes of the November 9, 2005 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description 3. Planning Department File A Annlin—f: This ifem will he--irlered—rneflme offer 7•nn nm nn AAnnr.,, Anril n 9nnF in rho r:mincil/Ftnnrrl I� Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: ZON CHANGE EXrIIBIT 37823 r5/1 �3782437826 3 46 7! 37822 H HAR'BY3 SU 37821 1 Zone Change R-1 to R-2 +1- 1 Acre LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 5,6, AND 7, ROSE HARBOR THIRD SUBDIVISION, ROCHESTER MN 0 100 zoo SCALE 1 = 100' NORTH Dawn: Dambucbw W4 11M ,w. Rw RacMrtar, MR MWI yr mn w u ROSE HARBOR THIRD LOTS 5,6, AND 7 ROCHESTER, MN RECEIVED OCT 1 1 2005 ROCHESTER- OLMSTED DI 'NN NG DEPARTMENT 1 "=100, JDP 10.07.05 37� 37 23 AT ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Co,,... OF www.oimstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Punning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: November 2, 2005 RE: Zoning District Amendment #05-15 by DeWitt Construction. The applicant is proposing to re -zone Lots 5, 6, and 7 Rose Harbor Third from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-2 (Low density residential) district. The properties are located along Ithe south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Hillcrest Court SE. Plannina Department Review: Petitioner: Dewitz Construction 604 11th Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Hillcrest Court SE. Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to rezone Lots 5, 6, and 7 Rose Harbor Third from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-2 (Low density residential) district. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped. Proposed Land Use: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this area for "low density residential" types of uses. The General Development Plan identifies the 3 lots being resubdivided into 6 lots which would be developed with single family attached dwellings. Adjacent Land Use and North: Across Eastwood Road SE is the Eastwood Zoning: Golf Course which recently had a general development plan approved which reconfigures and redevelops the golf course. The portion of the golf course directly across from the proposed GDP was rezoned to R-3 (medium density residential) zoning district. BUILDING CODE 5071265-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 �FAX 507/287-2275 �n Page 2 November 2, 2005 South: Undeveloped land that is zoned R-1 (mixed single family) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The property is not yet annexed; however, it is within the Marion Township Orderly Annexation Agreement area. West: Undeveloped land that is zoned R-1 (mixed single family) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The property is not yet annexed; however, it is within the Marion Township Orderly Annexation Agreement area East: Single family dwelling located within the R-1 (mixed single family) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Transportation Access: Access to the property is from Eastwood Road SE. The recently adopted Long Range Plan 2035 shows Eastwood Road SE as an upgrade planned Secondary Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification Designation of 2+ Median LTL. This roadway will need to be reconstructed in the future to the standards of 2+ Median LTL. The 2+ Median TLT is a roadway with 2 through lanes and the provision of separate median left turn lanes at intersecting public streets. The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies Eastwood Road SE for a future "Class I" single bike facility which means a bike path on one side of the roadway. A right-of-way of 40 feet will need to be dedicated for Eastwood Road SE when platted to accommodate the necessary improvements. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. According to the Soils Survey, hydric soils do not exist on the property. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 27, 2005. A summary, of the meeting is attached. Report Attachments: 1. Area Zoning Map 2. Referral Comments- None 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis for Zoninq 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: \ Page 3 November 2, 2005 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. Uses within the R-2 zoning district would be consistent with the current land use designation "low density residential". Rezoning this property would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. The re -zoning would also help to furthergaals and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the supply of housing. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Uses within the R-2 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. According to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance, the R-2 zoning district is intended to maintain areas developed with a mixture of residential dwelling types that are of an overall low density b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot orseveral small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Proposed R-2: The amendment to the R-2 zoning district would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designation for this property as "low density residential", and would not be considered spot zoning. Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval to rezone Lots 5, 6, and 7 Rose Harbor Third from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to R-2 (Low Density Residential) on the City of Rochester zoning map. �4 MINUTES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR . ROSE HARBOR THIRD ON OCT. 27, 2005, 6:30 PM EASTWOOD GOLF COURSE ROCHESTER, MN In Attendance: See attached attendance list. Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and to answer any questions and document any concerns or issues that may need to be further investigated. General Discussion: The meeting was a very informal discussion in regards to the development of the property. Joshua Johnson and Jeffrey Preuss gave a brief description of what was proposed and opened the floor up to questions and discussion. Also presented and reviewed by the neighbors was the following support data: 1. Boards: a. GDP of the proposed project b. Building Elevations Questions and Answers: Q. What type of homes are you building? A. Dewitz is building 3 structures. Each structure will have two units, of which are being sold to qualified homebuyers. Q. What is the timeline for this project? A. Construction could begin as soon as December 12, 2005. Weather plays a big role on when construction will begin. Q. What is the price range of these homes? A. The homes are projected to be sold in the $130-140K price range. One unit may be reserved for a Hurricane victim. Some other general discussion took place concerning some crime that has taken place in an adjacent subdivision. The over-all reaction to the project was very favorable. RECEIVED OCT 3 t 2005 ROCHESTER-OLMSTEO M cGhie Betts., Inc. R o c h e s t e r M i n n e s o t a 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail. mbi@mcghiebetts.com Epual Opppnunily Employer Attendance Roll j NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING PROJECT: Dewitz Property Rochester, Minnesota DATE: October 27, 2005 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: Eastwood Golf Course Rochester, Minnesota NAME BUSINESS REPRESENTING ADDRESS PHONE NO/ FAX NC E-MAIL ADDRESS ,.. � MZEUss M'P1 iI 4-e ��h � s� 2611- 3 �/y 2.. 300s?bst-0ao 5E 60S 34c-jaoy3 1/T 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. OCT ?W5 13, ROCHES PLANNIN R•OLMSTED 14. Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Mr. Brent nby presented the staff report, dated November 3, 20Z.He ission. The staff report is file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Departmen Mr. Ray Blessner, hitect for bdp Architects, addressed the Comed that he has met with the engi rs and that a final grading plan should be one week. With no one else wishing i6,,be heard, Mr. Haeussinger clgAd the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to recomm pprovaVof o0 ArbtuM Special District Project, tl G. TLI�L' Ql^ :_I / -AM t f�Y��....N:-�L.. ..L..R General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction, to be known as Rose Harbor Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated November 2, 2005, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Rivas asked how the driveway would function. Mr. Svenby responded that they are conceptual drawings at this time. Mr. Bob DeWitz, of DeWitz Construction (604 111" Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901), addressed the Commission. He stated that Jeanie DeWitz would discuss what occurred at the neighborhood meeting that was held. 0 Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Ms. Jeanie DeWitz addressed the Commission. She stated that one individual attended the neighborhood meeting and only expressed concern about the quality of people that could move into the neighborhood. Mr. Bob DeWitz expressed concern about dedicating 7 feet in width of additional right-of-way of the existing lots for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. He explained that there is a 25 foot drop off in the back and that a 10 foot sidewalk would be within 15 feet of the existing homes. He stated that the sidewalk should be located on the other side of the street. Mr. DeWitz expressed concern with giving up 7 feet in width in front of the lots without getting something in return. He does not agree with staff -recommended condition 1 and 2, as listed in the staff report. Ms. Julie DeWitz showed diagrams of proposed driveways. She explained that they proposed a turn -a -round for the residents to back out into instead of backing out into the street. Discussion ensued regarding driveway cuts. Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Svenby of the possibility of taking the 7 foot right-of-way off the other side of the roadway. Mr. Svenby explained that the adopted Thoroughfare Plan shows that a total of 80 feet of right- of-way is needed for Eastwood Road, 40 feet on each side of the centerline. The Hundred Acre Woods Development, located to the west, dedicated 60 feet instead of 40 feet. Mr. Svenby stated that the general development plan submitted to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department clearly shows that the applicant intended to dedicate the additional 7 feet of right-of-way. Mr. DeWitz stated that it should not have been submitted that way. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant would have to dedicate the 7 feet if they were not going through the general development plan process. Mr. Svenby responded that the right-of-way being requested is to provide for adequate public facilities. The general development shown in the staff report was submitted by the applicant to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. He explained that, if the applicant had submitted a plan that did not show the dedication, staffs recommendation would not have been favorable to the request. Ms. Wiesner asked why a 10 foot bituminous path was being requested. Mr. Svenby responded that it is shown along the south side of Eastwood Road SE in the recently adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Bob DeWitz and Ms. Julie DeWitz argued that the bituminous path should not be located on their property. They suggested that, if the additional right-of-way is needed, the City should purchase the home from them. Ms. Rivas asked who owned the home Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Mr. DeWitz responded that he owned the home. He explained that, since the City allowed R-3 across the street, he wasn't able to sell the home. Therefore, he rents it out at this time. Ms. Rivas asked if the Commission could forward the request with a recommendation that the issue be negotiated in a Development Agreement. Ms. Wiesner stated that there is a discrepancy of the proposed plan already showing the 7 feet of right-of-way. She stated that the applicant should discuss the problem with McGhie and Betts, since they submitted the plans for him. She asked Mr. DeWitz if he wanted to discuss this with McGhie and Betts first prior to the item being forwarded to the City Council. Mr. DeWitz asked that the Commission move the request forward to the City Council. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner stated that she did not agree with staff -recommended condition 1. She believed it should be on the other side of the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding the continuation of the bituminous path. Ms. Rivas asked if setbacks would be met if the applicant agreed with the additional 7 foot in right-of-way being dedicated. Mr. Svenby explained that setback requirements are not reviewed at the general development plan process. Mr. Burke questioned what justified a difference in requiring the dedication (ex. size of property). Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission could change the condition to read "At the time of re - subdividing the existing lots, the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right-of- way or easement, to be determined by the City Council for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP." Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zone Change #05-15 by DeWitz Construction with the staff -recommended findings. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #265 by DeWitt Construction, to be known as Rose. Harbor Third with the staff -recommended findings and conditions, changiAgLLconditran'number 2 as suggested b MrpSvenby Mr. Burke seconded the motion T ►€ mot�6i carved 6 0 4i �m rk a CONDITIONS: - 1. .The GDP shall be revised fo'identify a,10 foot wide bituminous path along the south side of Eastwood Road SE. 2. At the time of re -subdividing the existing lots, the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right-of-way or easement, to be determined bythe City Council for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP. 41 Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Public 5.. Pedestrk ................. entEre fro Fatuities cost of C '1 irement for this development shall be in the Ion requirement is only for the increase Mr. Svenby stated thlikkLhe pond should have been included in the initi3Kh to change from Industrial to the CommeIV41 zoning district. Therefore, staff reques that the Commission extend the initiation to inclu the pond site. Zoning District Amendment #05-14 to In a pond Ms Wiesner seconded the Zoning. .imp I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' DATE: 4-3-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING Er ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #265 AND Variance #06-06 by DeWitz PREPARED BY: Construction, to be known as Rose Harbor Third. The applicant proposes to subdivide Mitzi A. Baker, these lots to facilitate development of single family attached dwellings. The properties are Senior Planner located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hillcrest Court SE. March 30, 2006 This application was previously tabled, in part due to disagreement with the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way for Eastwood Road. On March 17, 2006, the applicant filed a REVISED General Development Plan, along with a request for a Variance to the front yard setbacks. The revised GDP does identify the additional 7' of right-of-way required for Eastwood Road, but does not identify the future pedestrian facilities required along the frontage. Additionally, the driveway spacing identified on the REVISED GDP does not meet spacing standards in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Spacing is proposed to be reduced to as little as 20 feet, when the LDM requires a minimum of 60', and the Long Range Transportation Plan spacing guidelines recommend more. The applicant could re -design the development with shared driveways, meeting the spacing standards of the LDM. Concurrent with this REVISED GDP, and as permitted by Section 61.301 of the LDM, a Variance application is being considered to reduce the required Front Yard setback. It is our understanding that the applicant will agree to dedicate the additional 7' of right-of-way shown on the GDP, if the Variance to the front yard setback is approved — to reduce the required setback by 7 feet. The staff report for the Variance is attached as an addendum to the GDP report. Please note that the findings do not support approval of the Variance. Staff recommends modifications to the conditions, as shown with underlined and strikethrough text, as shown. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On November 9, 2005 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this General Development Plan. The Commission also reviewed a zone change petition on the property. The applicant's, Bob Dewitz, Jeanie DeWitz and Julie Dewitz of Dewitz Construction all addressed the Commission. They explained the project. Mr. DeWitz stated that they don't agree to dedicate the additional right-of-way for Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP. See the attached minutes on the CPZC meeting. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction, to be known as Rose Harbor Third with the staff -recommended findings and conditions, changing condition number 2 as suggested by Mr. Svenby. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. 1. The GDP shall be revised to identify a 10 font "Wide bit.,miRe„s path the required pedestrian facilities along the south side of Eastwood Road SE. 2. At the time of re -subdividing the existing lots, the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right-of-way or easement, to be determined by the City Council for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP. 3. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development of each lot. 4. At the time of re -subdividing, controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE accept for the driveway openings approved by the Public Works Department. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Page 2\RY RCA March 30, 2006 5. Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing sari path in the future. ryH+4'�tii L4er tl[P All driveway approaches shall meet standard City approach desig,istandards. 7. The public parkland dedication requirement for this development shall be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Dedication requirement is only for the increase number of dwelling units (3). 8. At the time of platting, access locations shall be modified to meet the minimum 60' spacing standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. f Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated November 2, 2005. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, you should instruct the Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Variance Report dated 2. Staff Report dated November 2, 2005 3. Minutes of the November 9, 2005 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. X _ / �( _._ _ __ . _._._.,._v ,.__._._..._._._.__.--- ._...T_. 11__ UCR PKY SE R GDP #265 d ZC 5.15 NeighborhoodMeeting: 750 ft. Notification Area of Lots 5, 6 and 7 Rose Harbor Third THW 4 THWY 14 Imo- THWY 14 THWY 14 1 _ 7 Proposed Zone Change from R-1 ro R-2 PI Ns: 63.07.11.037827; 63.07.11.037826 63.07.11.037825 Neighborhood Assoc: None Ward 4 (Pat Carr) 10/10/05 N W+E S l OYns1BE CaM,`Y M n.�o�'ge barmwslaq a arm9 aa•YinJ M B6vepentlee MO buk ximin m�a m.o. aiease natty Be Gi5 gH,Mn.RmMI�-0I +wl Canny PYimvq �pNm ZIMC� Of. M RttfnWf, W 559M(5O7)3B5232. Tl- CC \c Ll g M 6£,? ION W I 00 0 l h- 7' ADDITIONAL1 ROW pppb I ` Y) �I 0 0 o _ B Q w - I 7' ADDITIONAL ROW e eel LjiTiu u W ��S N J m Q s.zz.lou W W w'osl W 1103�m ]pp f ]r �1]� 131 i! V ` Witt , I �e l� v ^1 DDDy` �313 M_692Z.ION 1D ISMO-1-1IH 0 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY Of TO: City Council FROM DATE: www.olmstedcounty.com/planning D 40UIUIT, Brent Svenby, Senior Planner March 22, 2006 w�tl� pW1F,;A �v;J RE: Variance #06-06 to the front yard setback requirements and to section 64.143 regarding the driveway spacing standards. The properties are located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hillcrest Court SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Variance Request: DeWitz Construction Inc. 604 110 Avenue NW, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirement of the R-2 (low density residential) zoning district. In the R-2 zoning district the front yard setback is 25 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 18 feet, thus a variance of 7 feet for the lots included in the GDP. The applicant's reason for the variance is "This accommodates the City's request for 7 feet of additional R-O-W. The existing terrain would not allow the homes to be setback from this newR-O-W line" According to Section 62.232 — R-2 Site Appearance Standards of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: The Required Front Yard for a single family attached dwelling is 25 feet. The applicant requests: 1) a variance of 7 feet to the minimum required front yard setback. The Planning staff suggested findings are: There do not appear to be exceptional circumstances or BUILDING PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 TL FAX 507/287-2275 11 v Page 2 Addendum March 29, 2006 the same zoning district. The applicant created the exceptional circumstance by placing fill on the lots. Additional fill could be placed on the lots creating a more suitable building area or a house plan could be designed to work with the topography created by the applicant. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be necessary to allow for the applicant reasonable use of the property. The applicant could bring in additional fill for the property or a house could be designed to fit with the exiting topography of the lots. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance would not appear to be visually detrimental to the adjacent property owners. Currently there are no homes located to the west and to the north is a golf course. There is a home located to the east which appears to be setback approximately 25 feet from the existing right-of-way. However, the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to Section 62.232 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial. These findings do not support approval of the Variance. EXCERPT FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: Subdivision 1. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: A. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; B. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; C. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and VOPage 3 Addendum March 29, 2006 D. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 4. In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. c6 RociiESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT oF.RocxEsrER.M�Nn� 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 u; couxrr or www.olmstedcounty.com/planning �'•, ' TED•AUGUS'r'S' TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: November 3, 2005 RE: General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction, to be known as Rose Harbor Third., The applicant proposes to subdivide these lots to facilitate development of single family attached dwellings. The properties are located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Hillcrest Court SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Dewitz Construction 604 111" Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Hillcrest Court SE. Requested Action: The GDP proposes that eventually the 3 lots would be re -subdivided into 6 lots for single family attached dwellings. Existing Land Use: The lots are currently undeveloped. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). The applicant has petitioned to rezone the property to the R-2 (Low Density residential) zoning district. The reason for the rezoning request is because the applicant wants to construct single family attached dwellings on the property. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities (10 foot wide bituminous path) will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing said path in the future. Drainage: The property generally drains to the south. No storm water management facilities are proposed for the development Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property being developed. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 �j FAX 507/287-2275 iF, nrPnarn iMT 14EIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 01 Page 2 General Development Plan #265 November 3, 2005 Transportation Access to the property is from Eastwood Road SE. The recently Access: adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows Eastwood Road SE as an upgrade planned Secondary Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification Designation of 2+ Median LTL. This roadway will need to be reconstructed in the future to the standards of 2+ Median LTL. The 2+ Median TLT is a roadway with 2 through lanes and the provision of separate median left turn lanes at intersecting public streets. The Rochester Urban Area Bikeway Maps identifies Eastwood Road SE for a future "Class I" single bike facility which means a bike path on one side of the roadway. A right-of-way of 40 feet will need to be dedicated for Eastwood Road SE when re -subdivided to accommodate the necessary improvements. Public Utilities: The property is within the Rose Harbor High Level water System Area, which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. Each unit will need to have individual water services per the requirements of RPU Water Division. Sanitary Sewer is along Eastwood Road SE and would be available to serve the lots. The minimum fire flow for this development shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 PSI. Wetlands: According to the Soil Survey, hydric soils do not exist on the property. Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that parkland dedication for this development be in the form of cash in lieu of land. The dedication would only be required for the increase number of dwelling units (3). Tree/Brush Disposal: The applicant may use burning on -site as a method of removing trees and brush 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. I ('(A� Page 3 General Development Plan #265 November 3, 2005 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. Land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the "low density residential" land use designation for the property on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. A Zoning District amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP application. 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. This GDP proposes low density residential development, which is consistent with the land use designation for the property. Adjacent land uses consist of single-family homes and undeveloped parcels that have been platted for residential homes. The proposed development is and would be compatible with the existing and future uses of the adjacent properties. In order to develop the property with single family attached dwellings the property would need to be rezoned to the R-2 zoning district, which the applicant has requested. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This development will help to further the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan and also those found within Chapter 3 of the Mousing Plan. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The development will be served by shared access locations off of Eastwood Road SE. According to the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Program, the reconstruction of Eastwood Road SE is scheduled for the year 2008. The scheduling of the reconstruction could change to a different year depending on funding. r Page 4 General Development Plan #265 November 3, 2005 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. The development will be served by shared access locations off of Eastwood Road SE. According to the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Program, the reconstruction of Eastwood Road SE is scheduled for the year2008. The scheduling of the reconstruction could change to a different year depending on funding. The recently adopted ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 shows Eastwood Road SE as an upgrade planned Secondary Urban Arterial on the Functional Designation Map and has been assigned a Street Design Classification Designation of 2+ Median LTL. This roadway will need to be reconstructed in the future to the standards of 2+ Median LTL. The 2+ Median TLT is a roadway with 2 through lanes and the provision of separate median left turn lanes at intersecting public streets. 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 Cityjs 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 concurrenty has been evidenced. The property is within the Rose Harbor High Level water System Area, which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. Each unit will need to have individual water services per the requirements of RPU Water Division. Sanitary Sewer is along Eastwood Road SE and would be available to serve the lots. The minimum fire flow for this development shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 PSI. rV `1 Page 5 General Development Plan #265 November 3, 2005 3. The adequacy of service standards development. other public facilities shall be based on the level of in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for Pedestrian facilities (10 foot wide bituminous path) will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing said path in the future. The property generally drains to the south. No storm water management facilities are proposed on the individual lots. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property being developed. , 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 property generally drains to the south. No storm water management facilities are proposed for the existing lots. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property being developed. Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking place. 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 Galena Group consisting of the Cummingsville Formation which has a typical thickness of 65 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 contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The lot and block layout appear to be consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100; however, the lots (Lots 5-7, Rose Harbor Third) will need to be resubdivided to create the six lots indicated on the GDP. The overall density appears to be generally consistent with the land use proposed for this property. 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: r Page 6 L� General Development Plan #265 November 3, 2005 1. The GDP shall be revised to identify a 10 foot wide bituminous path along the south side of Eastwood Road SE. 2. At the time of re -subdividing the existing lots the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right of way for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP. 3. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development of each lot. 4. At the time of re -subdividing, controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE accept for the driveway openings approved by the Public Works Department. S. Pedestrian facilities (10 foot wide bituminous path) will be required along the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. The applicant shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City which addresses the Owner's obligation for the cost of constructing said path in the future. 6. All driveway approaches shall meet standard City approach design standards. 7. The public parkland dedication requirement for this development shall be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Dedication requirement is only for the increase number of dwelling units (3). a� � ROCHESTER M4k TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 10/27/05 REVISED APPLICATION 3/27/06 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 General Development Plan #265, for the proposed Rose Harbor Third GDP. The following are Public Works comments on this request from 10/27/05. Revised comments based on the current application are indicated in BOLD, and 1. Pedestrian Facilities , ^ ten "^` feet wide bitufninaus path, is are required along the entire frontage of this Property. The GDP should show the future pedestrian facility path, and the execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement should be required of the Owner to address its obligations for the cost of constructing said facilities eeas6-ueted said path in the f-Htufo. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for this development. 3. The driveway's approaches for this development shall meet standard City approach design standards. 4. Public Works has no objection to approval of the requested design modification, to allow the proposed driveway spacing as shown on the revised GDP. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property for Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection, Services, and Storm Sewer have previously been paid for the J9749 City Project. Remaining charges for development include the following: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2,098.99 per acre Water Availability Charge (WAQ @ $2,099.99 per acre Transportation Improvement District Contribution - TBD C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C\GDP265 Rose Harbor 3rd GDP REVISED 3-06.doc Bch ffi RecRa«of q ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, FiIY DEPARTMENT March 21, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: GDP #265 Rose Harbor Third Parkland dedication for the proposed development to be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Dedication will be required only for the increase number of dwelling units (three units). O:TARK DEDICATIONMMSE 28951ROSE HARBOUR GDP.DOC �U�A rpu mr plydje, wr deewer March 21, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction to be known as Rose Harbor Third, Zone Change #05-15 to amend the zoning on Lots 5-7 Rose Harbor Third from R-1 to R-2, Design Modification #06-01 for driveways onto Eastwood Rd. SE which do not meet the spacing standards and Variance #06-06 to the front yard setback requirement. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: This property is within the Rose Harbor High Level Water System Area, which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Rd. SE. 2. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. 3. Individual water services must be run to each dwelling unit per our requirements with the curb boxes located in green spaces if possible and within the public ROW. All curb boxes that end up in a pavement area require a curb box cover per City detail plate #01-08. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yoursouQ^..L "-JA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety McGhie & Betts, Inc. DeWitz Contruction Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 TRANSPORTATION STAFF Iiiktt��eklCY�t[iPIS Jurisdiction March 2006 City GDP # 265, ZC The property is located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE, east Rose # 05-15 of Hillcrest Court SE. The applicant is requesting design modification Harbor 3 to the requirements of driveways spacing standards onto Eastwood Road SE. The proposed development has been reviewed under the City of Rochester Land Development Manual for consistency with the policies and guidelines found in the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, which has been adopted by the City of Rochester as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The review will address spacing standards requirements as per the Long Range Transportation Plan and ways to mitigate adverse 'affects if the design modification is allowed. The existing daily traffic on Eastwood Road is more than 4000 and projected to be 5,700 in 2035 as per the ROCOG travel demand model. The Long Range Bikeway Plan recommended a dual bike path along Eastwood Road. The ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan recognizes Eastwood Road as Primary Urban Collector and the street design classification map shows this road as 2+ median (left turn lane) with curb and gutter. The base ROW of this type of road is 115 feet if the surface drainage is to be maintained and 90 feet for urban style curb and gutter. 5 feet ROW for bikeway adjustment would be needed on both sides of Eastwood Road, The Local Street and Driveway Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan (Table 4-12c) recommends minimum of 1320 feet local street spacing on Primary Urban Collector in an Urban Influence Area and 330 feet in an all urban street spacing. The Plan recommends 125 feet for driveway spacing where speed limit is less than 35 MPH and 200 feet where speed limit is going to be between 35-40 MPH. Driveway spacing is recommended to be 330 feet if the speed limit is more than 45 MPH. Jq1 i A TRANSPORTATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 2006 Jurisdiction I Application I Comments 1. In summary the driveway access points as proposed in the GDP are approximately between 25.60 feet apart which would not meet the spacing requirements of the Long Range Transportation Plan. Shared access points as shown in Figure 1 is recommended. Fgum t i- I R1 'Se_'�=9 g. — VFW Cfh�OPvi11i M1w City City April, 2006 ROCHESTER MZz� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 10/27/05 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 General Development Plan #265, for the proposed Rose Harbor Third GDP. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. Pedestrian Facilities, a ten (10) foot wide bituminous path, is required along the entire frontage of this Property. The GDP should show the future pedestrian path, and the execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement should be required of the Owner to address its obligations for the cost of constructed said path in the future. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for this development. 3. The driveway's approaches for this development shall meet standard City approach design standards. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property for Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection, Services, and Storm Sewer have previously been paid for the 79749 City Project. Remaining charges for development include the following: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2,098.99 per acre Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2,098.99 per acre %• Transportation Improvement District Contribution - TBh C:1Documents and Settings%plajgam\Local SetbngslTemporary Internet Fi1es10LK611GDP265 Rose Harbor 3rd GDP 10- 05.doc 0 The hand to reach for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: October TO: Jennifer Gayness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction , to be known as Rose Harbor Third and Zone Change#05-15. i 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. The minimum fire flow for this residential development area shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 psi. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. 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) DeWitz Construction McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only) rp;; r __ we A"edyr, we df(wer October 13, 2005 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 Pk ' REFERENCE: General Development Plan #265 by DeWitz Construction to be known as Rose Harbor Third and Zone Change #05-15 to amend the zoning on Lots 5-7 Rose Harbor Third from R-1 to R-2. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: This property is within the Rose Harbor High Level Water System Area, which is available along the entire frontage of Eastwood Rd. SE. 2. Static water pressures will range from the low to mid 50's PSI within this area. 3. Individual water services must be run to each dwelling unit per our requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-OA W Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety McGhie & Betts, Inc. DeWitz Contraction Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 0 DISPOSAL OF TREES AND BRUSH In November 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The text of the amendment is as follows: 61.200 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES: The requirements of Sections 61.200 through 61.584 identify approvals that will be required to authorize any subdivision activity which is defined as a subdivision by statute or City ordinance. Any person seeking approval of subdivision activity, development activity or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the subdivision activity. In order to apply this provision, you will need to indicate at the bottom of the page plans for disposal of trees, slash, and brush. Please sign and date the form. You must submit this information to the Planning Department prior to applying for a burning permit from the Fire Department. If plans change prior to obtaining a burning permit, you will need to notify the Planning Department. Within this development as proposed through the development application, trees, slash, and brush will be disposed by: ZBurning on site ❑ Chipping on site ❑ Salvaging and removing from the property ❑ Other; describe in detail: Signature of Applic t of Development Proposal I01140 S5' Date i P; RECEIVED OCT 1 12005 c:\documents and settings\kristic\local settings\temporary internet files\olk3\1920-85.doc r Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Mr. Brent'SVnby presented the staff report, dated November 3, 2005, to the C ission. The staff report is file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ray Blessner, hitect for bdp Architects, addressed the Commis ' He stated that he has met with the engi rs and that a final grading plan should be s mitted within one week. With no one else wishing a heard, Mr. Haeussinger cl d the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to recomm gppr4vai,of Arbo um Special District Pfoject Development PlanFfna{ Pan) #0 „ by Thln F ralCredit Union withthe staff- recommended find{ngs and condtbon s secondd' Ocrnotlon. The'motion carried CONDITIONS g e e-t 1. Separate grad ng and dre yl law apprgYa011. lor to any; construction on the.site 5tonn Wafer man n nt mist 6e provi and a storm water management fee will apply for aIF im toys surface areas of this ect that do not drain to an. 2 The,ap$licant_s rnd �ede is r�arxfatofiis areulred ngle frontages of the P.raparty spealflc t e�eveto ontAgrob brit R 9P ..'rr �,gix...'ling., _ p r 3 The vra s s3em shai{ [goped and p blid basbents�d cated Pe e X *a 4 new City-l. Ownert tract lrnila qut�pror tatheycbrfs ruction of any,pu c infrastructure }aiiaT inelUadrtie"appo�%ed pl�rrforhe priority -Ow contract far bssfc construction in T irrj Plaza, . �. ry Q,r Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated November 2, 2005, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Rivas asked how the driveway would function. Mr. Svenby responded that they are conceptual drawings at this time. Mr. Bob DeWitz, of DeWitt Construction (604 11'h Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901), addressed the Commission. He stated that Jeanie DeWitt would discuss what occurred at the neighborhood meeting that was held. Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Ms. Jeanie DeWitz addressed the Commission. She stated that one individual attended the neighborhood meeting and only expressed concern about the quality of people that could move into the neighborhood. Mr. Bob DeWitt expressed concern about dedicating 7 feet in width of additional right-of-way of the existing lots for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE. He explained that there is a 25 foot drop off in the back and that a 10 foot sidewalk would be within 15 feet of the existing homes. He stated that the sidewalk should be located on the other side of the street. Mr. DeWitz expressed concern with giving up 7 feet in width in front of the lots without getting something in return. He does not agree with staff -recommended condition 1 and 2, as listed in the staff report. Ms. Julie DeWitz showed diagrams of proposed, driveways. She explained that they proposed a turn -a -round for the residents to back out into instead of backing out into the street. Discussion ensued regarding driveway cuts Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Svenby of the possibility of taking the 7 foot right-of-way off the other side of the roadway. Mr. Svenby explained that the adopted Thoroughfare Plan shows that a total of 80 feet of right- of-way is needed for Eastwood Road, 40 feet on each side of the centerline. The Hundred Acre Woods Development, located to the west, dedicated 60 feet instead of 40 feet. Mr. Svenby stated that the general development plan submitted to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department clearly shows that the applicant intended to dedicate the additional 7 feet of right-of-way. Mr. DeWitz stated that it should not have been submitted that way. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant would have to dedicate the 7 feet if they were not going through the general development plan process. Mr. Svenby responded that the right-of-way being requested is to provide for adequate public facilities. The general development shown in the staff report was submitted by the applicant to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. He explained that, if the applicant had submitted a plan that did not show the dedication, staffs recommendation would not have been favorable to the request. Ms. Wiesner asked why a 10 foot bituminous path was being requested. Mr. Svenby responded that it is shown along the south side of Eastwood Road SE in the recently adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Bob DeWitz and Ms. Julie DeWitz argued that the bituminous path should not be located on their property. They suggested that, if the additional right-of-way is needed, the City should purchase the home from them. Ms. Rivas asked who owned the home Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 Mr. DeWitt responded that he owned the home. He explained that, since the City allowed R-3 across the street, he wasn't able to sell the home. Therefore, he rents it out at this time. Ms. Rivas asked if the Commission could forward the request with a recommendation that the issue be negotiated in a Development Agreement. Ms. Wiesner stated that there is a discrepancy of the proposed plan already showing the 7 feet of right-of-way. She stated that the applicant should discuss the problem with McGhie and Betts, since they submitted the plans for him. She asked Mr. DeWitz if he wanted to discuss this with McGhie and Betts first prior to the item being forwarded to the City Council. Mr. DeWitz asked that the Commission move the request forward to the City Council. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Haeussinger closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner stated that she did not agree with staff -recommended condition 1. She believed it should be on the other side of the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding the continuation of the bituminous path. Ms. Rivas asked if setbacks would be met if the applicant agreed with the additional 7 foot in right-of-way being dedicated. Mr. Svenby explained that setback requirements are not reviewed at the general development plan process. Mr. Burke questioned what justified a difference in requiring the dedication (ex. size of property). Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission could change the condition to read "At the time of re - subdividing the existing lots, the applicant shall dedicate the 7 feet in width of additional right-of- way or easement, to be determined by the City Council for the entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE as shown on the GDP." Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zone Change #05A5 by DeWitz Construction with the staff -recommended findings. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. and C CONDITIONS: 1. The GDP shall be revii south side of Eastwoo 2. At the time of re-subdi feet in width of additio 6-0 a 10 foot H pment Plan #265 by DeWitt taff-recommended findings d by Mr. Svenby. Mr. Burke Bituminous path along the )plicant shall dedicate the 7 own on the GDP. V Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 9, 2005 3 Grading and Dtainage PlarrapprovalJs reglt , WIW�HO' to iielieiopment of each lot. `�� '�' .�,.�_-g off" ii'Yr$ 4- *r a 4 At the time"offs sutlivtdmg, controller) accessshali be 7edicated'alongthe entire frontage of Eastwood Road SE accept for the di]yeway openings approved by the Public Works Departmerl4 5. Pedestrian'facilities (10 footwiIdio bitummous Path) wtl) be iequlred along the: entire, frontage of Eastwood f%ad Se The appticanf shaltexecute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement ninth Ihe:City which`addresses tha l)vvner's obitgation for the cost of constructing said pant , N. �3 6 AI_ i tlriveway approach es sahm ail meet atantl�arc3 City approach desiartstaadards 7. The pubhcl.parkland riedfcatiorr requiremerttfor#hIs develope lrtthe form of`cash li lieu of land - 6" 1"cation tedwrement is only for the'increase_` number of dwelling Mr. Svenby stated th he pond should have been included in the Industrial to the Commeftial zoning district. Therefore, staff reque extend the initiation to incldSqjhe pond site. �d AND 06n to change from that the Commission REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �01 DATE: 4-3-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEWLNO. PUBLIC HEARINGS I PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: REVISED Type III, Phase li Conditional Use Permit #05-16 by Franklin PREPARED BY: P. Kottschade, North American Realty. The applicant is requesting approval for a Brent Svenby, Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for earthwork on the property that results in Planner changing grades on the property by more than 10' to accommodate development. The property is located east of TH 52, along the north side of 371h Street NW and is within Maplewood Square. March 21, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On march 8, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit #05-17 and Variance(s) #05-17. The Commission is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Substantial Land Alteration which will allow the existing hill on the property get cutback towards the right-of-way. The Commission approved the variances requested so no action is necessary on them. Mr. McGuine moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase 11 Conditional Use Permit request #05-16 by Franklin P. Kottschade with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. 1. Prior to excavation, the applicant shall. • Provide the City with a financial security consistent with Section 62.1109 1,1 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual; • Receive approval of a grading, drainage and erosion control plans, meeting City standards; • Approval from the appropriate road authority for any grading proposed within the right of way. 2. A storm water management fee is applicable for any increase in impervious surface. The fee will be determined at the time a development is proposed for the property. 3. The owner is responsible for the cost of any public utilities that need to be relocated because of the proposed grading activity. Such relocation should be aligned to fit the future development of the property to minimize future system interruptions and provide proper networking of the system. 4. A 20 foot minimum public utility easement must be dedicated for the relocated public utilities, if utilities need to be relocated. 5. The grading of the site can not negatively impact the existing pedestrian facilities along 3e Street NW. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Conditional Use Permit request based upon the criteria included in the staff report (62.1105, 61.146). COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: scars u SNO1110NOO ON11SIx3 w/cV• rlcrE•w[ YlOGIFMY 'Y Y 3tl`MS OOOM31d g�Z 7 � w w LU CO i tto � w o wg 3a�"8 i'dl�i I ��adl- ai iE ��$Ii6p�3s���iibiti±ltliaafa11Ei;lsl 8 dl i ..w 1� W11 III' I I I :.• Y .. I .L. — ;I .�,y�•,.`` I III illl '''Y. Ilv,i.y J++4J+ t \ •FYI OOta 14 II ; ; I I I I -- -`---- t d J NVId 10alNOD / N015043 ONY 04i0Vao 'L'?. E7{.^•.. .e. �w ii pwrar�am %.u`i.I I ax le ,,n^ /c :• )3arnos ppomndrN r9/� 3 0" if i K';E.J S �f Egg ai� 9a'SE.ub�" a f ';'IIIi_2g €FS IVWe gbi Bye$ ■ .11 ES 2ghgaG$Cg"g 6d': 7S`3: d ZSpyEp A cg hfA4886 B a X`.-dfAMsi h H E. r uJ Sgg� i SE. P'fdPLLI b?t ob$g-8 C asE�lp W i Z € -tqr ?J'gam: gj iE lL U2 o '°� -I ° ` `}� g` tl IV d.e Y`E'' �£j M f4 6e W iPH da R (=�„ MIM NE NDLLv NIN dro �' u.me 3avfm DDW3Z. WS A q �1}kjjli W CO > ag LU w3 c x dads •dd ! •4 tip" '�';�:•` `„jFFF�'� ,'�51,� . 3 ! i i J r-- ..- NV1 misv. 01 "`—•"�'^�""" SXO�'L' 3dtl Dp5 ODDM33dtlli 9/.9. li 11 o A U W w a O Ll S !3 U-1 w F4 LL �z d6spaE:s� P�� J ��� A�• pCflESTER. Ns o RO(.HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT w..............M�N 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC Y N T ♦Of www.olmstedcounty.com/planning �'••• Y7/Lti'W�✓ OVA .. .... PV DRfl TED•AUGUST•5• TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: March 1, 2006 RE: Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit #05-16 and Variance #05- 16, by Franklin P. Kottschade, North American Realty. The applicant is requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for earthwork on the property that results in changing on the properties by more than 10' to accommodate development. The request also includes a variance to the reclamation requirements of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for a Substantial Land Alteration. The property is located east of TH 52, along the north side of 37th Street NW and is within Maplewood Square. Planning Department Review: Applicant: Engineer/Consultant Frank Kottschade 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 RLK Incorporated Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit to permit a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for earthwork on the property that results in changing grades on the, properties by more than 10 feet. The applicant has also requested a variance to the reclamation standards. Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 371h Street NW and the east side of the east frontage road of TH 52 in the Maplewood Square Development. Zoning: The property is located in the B-4 (General Commerical) zoning district. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works 2. Olmsted County Public Works 3. RPU Water Division Standards for Approval: Excavation activities in the B-4 zoning districts require a Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit and are regulated by Section BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 of 6 62.1100 et seq. of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Conditional Uses for Excavation are also subject meeting the standards of 61.146 and some additional standards specific to Excavation found in Section 62.1106 and the operation/performance standards for substantial land alterations activities found in Section 62.1109. Report Attachments: 1. Excerpts from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual 2. Application Map/Plan 3. Referral Comments 4. Narrative for the Excavation Activities 5. Narrative for Variance SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an excavation permit that would allow grading activities on the property that would change the elevations on the property greater than 10 feet which would ultimately create an area for a building pad. The area where the activity is proposed is in the southwest corner of the Maplewood Square development. Based on the grading plan submitted the hill in that portion of the development basically gets cuts back towards the right of way of 371h Street NW and the frontage road of TH 52 and would look similar to the area just north of the free standing Hobby Lobby sign on the property. The amount of excavation proposed is estimated at 32,500 cubic yards over the 3.37 acre site. The materials will be hauled from the property to other projects within the City. A small portion will be stockpiled on the site and used when the grading is completed for landscaping. The applicant has stated that the grading activity will take less than 24 months. Variances: LDM Section# Ordinance Requirement: Applicant Request./Proposal: - Reference: 62.1106, 4) b) 1 A minimum bufferyard of 50' Won't meet this setback to the west, shall be maintained adjacent to north and south. all properly and right of way. Variance requests are subject to findings identified in Section 60.417. The Planning staff suggested findings to Section 60.417 are: For 62.1106 4) b) 1 A minimum bufferyard of 50 feet shall be maintained adjacent to all property and right-of-ways EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There may be exceptional circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that may not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district due to location. At one time there was a service station located on the property which took access from 3/h Street N. By allowing the proposed grading, access for this portion the development would be internal and there would be no direct access to 3/h Street NW or the frontage road for TH 52. �0 Y � / Page 3 of 6 REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT. The granting of this does not appear to be detrimental to the public welfare. By being allowed to grade to the property boundaries, the appearance of the site will be similar to the area just to the north of where the grading will be taking place. Also the gradinolopes created will be similar to the development located just to the west on the other side of TH 52. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variances that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to Section 62.1106 4) b) 1 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, a minimum bufferyard of 50 feet shall be maintained adjacent to all property boundaries and all existing rights of way and any proposed rights of way for roadways included in the Long Range Transportation Plan or for which an official map has been prepared. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial. The suggested findings support the variance requested by the applicant. REVIEW PROCEDURES: Excavation activities in the B•4 zoning district requires a Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit and are regulated by Section 62.1100 et seq. of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Conditional Uses for Excavation are also subject meeting the standards of 61.146 and some additional standards specific to Excavation found in Section 62.1105. RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission wishes to proceed with this application, the Commission and Council could make findings in support of the application consistent Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached) Sections 62.1105 and $1.146, if -the -following conditions or modifications are imposed. 0. Prior to excavation, the applicant shall: • Provide the City with a financial security consistent with Section 62.1109 1,1 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual; • Receive approval of a grading, drainage and erosion control plans, meeting City standards; • Approval from the appropriate road authority for any grading proposed within the right of way. 2. A storm water management fee is applicable for any increase in impervious surface. The fee will be determined at the time a development is proposed for the property. 3. The owner is responsible for the cost of any public utilities that need to be relocated because of the proposed grading activity. Such relocation should be aligned to fit the future development of the property to minimize future system interruptions and provide proper networking of the system. 4. A 20 foot minimum public utility easement must be dedicated for the relocated public utilities, if utilities need to be relocated. 5. The grading of the site can not negatively impact the existing pedestrian facilities along 31h Street NW. i Page 4 of 6 EXCERPTS FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: 1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; and c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. 2) The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: a) there has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and b) the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other person or party who has had control of the property, to provide misleading or incorrect information, or to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate request. 3) The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a use otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of the elevation or levels for flood protection. 4) In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. 61.145 Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure that it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area surrounding its location; and that it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. T Page 5 of 6 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 6) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.1105 FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (for Excavation Activities): The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to Page 6 of 6 n `� occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6)The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7)The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 6)The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9)The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE - SUITE 200 ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 www.olmstedpublicworks.com 507.285.8231 May 5, 2005 Stephanie Foster Planning Department Dear Stephanie: The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III Phase II Conditional Use Permit #05-16 and Variance #05-16 by Franklin P. Kottschade, North American Realty and has the following comments: • Access will not be allowed to 3e Street N.W. (CSAH 22). Sincerely, / Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS/Irs cc: Frank Kottschade, North American Realty McGhie & Betts, Inc. T:%PWDATAkENGIND0CTLANZ0NEo0C PAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �. n/ rpu ur p!rri5r. nf ,i�G vrr May 11, 2005 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type IIl, Phase II Conditional Use Permit #05-16 and Variance #05-16 by Franklin Kottschade, North American Realty for approval of a SLA to allow for grading in excess of 10' in the SW corner of Maplewood Square development and a variance to the reclamation requirements for the SLA. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced application is complete and our comments follow regarding the required water main relocation: 1. This relocation should be aligned to fit the future development of this property if at all possible to minimize future water system interruptions and provide proper networking of the system. 2. A 20' minimum public utility easement must be dedicated for the relocated water main to and including any fire hydrants. 3. Final water main construction plans conforming to standard City of Rochester requirements must be prepared by a civil engineer and approved by us. 4. The owner is required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the installation of the public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department for details. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 0614A R14' Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Franklin Kottschade, North American Realty RLK Kuusisto, Ltd Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE. Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-15+2 ROCHESTER M4 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 5/ 16/05 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4'" Street SE Room 106 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for CUP#05-16, and VAR#05-16 for the proposed North American Realty (Maplewood Square) substantial land alteration. The following are Public Works comments on this proposal: 1. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required, and a Storm Water Management fee is applicable for any increase in impervious surface. 2. Any grading within the public ROW requires coordination with the road authority. 3. No grading of the site will be permitted that would negatively impact the existing, pedestrian facilities along 37" St NW. CADocuments and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\01-K42\CUP05-16 Kottschade (Maplewood Square Site).doc M Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 2900 48`s Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901-5848 March 2, 2006 Stephanie Foster Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.nmus RE: Revised Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit #05-16 and Variance #05-16, by Franklin P. Kottschade, North American Realty. The applicant is requesting approval for Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for earthwork on the property that results in changing on the properties by more than 10 feet to accommodate development. The property is located east of US 52, along the north side of 37"' Street NW and is within Maplewood Square. US 52 CS 5508 Dear Ms. Foster: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 6 staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit #05-16 and Variance #05-16 by Franklin P. Kottschade requesting approval for Substantial Land Alteration to allow for earthwork on the property which results in changing the properties by more than 10 feet to accommodate development located within Maplewood Square. A roadway inslope of 1:3 or flatter is desirable along the frontage road and it appears that more than one acre will be disturbed so a NPDES permit will be required. The current and proposed drainage will flow away from the frontage road and US 52 towards Maplewood Square. Therefore, there should be no drainage impacts to Mn/DOT right-of-way from the proposed land alteration. A permit will be required if there is work done on Mn/DOT right-of-way. Please contact Lee Gierok, Permits Regulations Supervisor at (507) 285-7362. Thank you for providing Mn/DOT the opportunity to comment on the Conditional Use Permit and Variance request. If there are any questions, you may contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner at (507) 285-7369 or Tracy Schnell, Regional Planning Assistant at (507) 280-5028. Sincerely, Chris Moates District 6 Planning Director cc: Franklin P. Kottschade, North American Realty, 3800 Highway 52 North, Rochester, MN 55901 RLK Kuusisto Inc, 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100, Minnetonka, MN 55343 Fred Sandal, Tracy Schnell, Debbie Bement, Lee Gierok, Craig Hansen, Kjersti Anderson, File REVISEI- g Proiect Narrative Substantial Land Alteration Permit Maplewood Square of Rochester Expansion Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated Revised February 7, 2006 For I E EIVED FEB 0 8 2006 ROCHESTER• OLMSTED Type III Phase II �F INNING DEPARTMENT Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application for Substantial Land Alteration Purpose This revised application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for substantial land alteration has been prepared for the south portion of the existing Maplewood Square of Rochester retail subdivision located at the northeast quadrant of TH 52 and 37 s Street NW in accordance with Section 62.1100, specifically Section 62.1101 2)a) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. The area included in this CUP application includes Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 1 of MAPLEWOOD SQUARE OF ROCHESTER and the vacated portion of 37" Street NW adjacent to the site, encompassing t3.37 acres. The grading operations will occur adjacent to the south edge of the existing parking lot and Ashley Furniture store in the retail center. The revised application has been modified to remove the proposed grading from the Ashley Furniture property, and to provide revised tree requirement calculations. It is anticipated that the revised CUP application will be heard before the Planning Commission on March 8, 2006. The project's proposed cut and fill activities constitute a substantial land alteration as defined by the Zoning Ordinance due to the change in elevation of greater than ten feet for a portion of the graded site in general accordance with the proposed rough grading plan. Excess fill material from this site will be hauled to other projects at locations to be determined. Due to the hardship imposed by the requirement to connect to the existing retail center for access and shared parking, a variance request for the following item accompanies this application: Removal of a 50-foot wide bufferyard as required by Section 62.1106, Item 4bl. Grading to coordinate the proposed retail center expansion, shared parking facilities and elevations with the existing retail center on the north and east property lines will require grading up to the subject site's property lines. Grading up to the property lines along public right of way is also requested along the frontage road on the west to provide a consistent slope and parking field connection with the property on the north, and on the south to utilize the vacated right of way along 37'" Street NW and provide adequate site area for a typical retail use with parking. Project Narrative — Substantial Land Alteration Permit Maplewood Square — Rochester, MN Revised February 7, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2004-245-M Page 1 of 5 Y rP Proposed Excavation Activities The following excavation activities are proposed on the project site: The change in pre-existing grades of 10 or more vertical feet (substantial land alteration) over 0.85 acres on the site. Disturbed Area The project will disturb the majority of the f 3.37-acre CUP application area. The property is owned by Franklin P. Kottschade. Amount of Material to be Moved Approximately 32,500 cubic yards of material will be moved as a part of the proposed earthwork activities. Assessment of Existing/Pre-Alteration Conditions Information required by Section 62.1106, Paragraph 2, is included on the plans and supplemented with the following. Existing Zoning: B-4 General Commercial Previous Zoning: B-4 General Commercial Existing Site Use: A portion of the site was previously a service station that accessed the frontage road; the use was condemned as part of the frontage road improvements. The south portion of the site was previously the original 37 Street NW alignment. The remainder of the site encompasses an excavated slope between the lower retail center and the higher adjacent roadways. Soil Types: According to the Soil Survey of Olmsted County, the site is located within a zone of Ostrander silt loam, a well -drained soil that is well suited to building site development. Soil borings have been completed that confirm the soils will support a retail development. Water Wells: There are no known water wells on the site. Wetlands: There are no wetlands on the site. The project area was previously a retail pad, excavated slope and former 371h Street pavement in public right of way. No wetland impacts are anticipated with the project. Utilities: There are existing public water main and sanitary sewer utilities in the vacated 37 ° Street NW right of way; no easement has been found to be recorded over the utilities. If required due to the removal of soil from the site, the utilities will be rerouted, adjusted vertically or insulation will be installed to meet the City requirements. There is also a water main running north through the site; no easement has been found to be recorded for the water main. If it is determined to be impacted by the removal of soil from the site or by future building placement, the loop within the development will be rerouted, adjusted vertically or insulation will be installed to meet the City requirements. The water main will be potholed prior to grading operations to confirm the depth to pipe. There are no other known utilities within the proposed earthwork boundaries; however, any private utilities (gas, electric, phone) that may Project Narrative — Substantial Land Alteration Permit Maplewood Square — Rochester, MN Revised February 7, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2004-245-M Page 2 of 5 0 be located in the vacated right of way will be relocated to be adjacent tc the 37'h Street NW right of way if necessary. Traffic: The site is accessed by an existing private driveway off 37'h Street NW, which is the proposed access for hauling. Adjacent Land Use: The property to the north and cast of the project area is currently an existing retail center that currently includes an Ashley Furniture store, retail stores, a bank and a Best Buy store. Trunk Highway 52 and frontage road are located along the west boundary of the parcel. 37i, Street NW runs along the south project boundary. The land surrounding the project is zoned B-4, General Commercial. Hoodway/ floodfringe:The site is not within a floodway or floodfringe area. Shoreland: The site is not within a shoreland district. Historic Sites: There are no known historic sites on the property. Grading and Drainage The applicant/developer proposes to rough grade the site for an expansion of the existing retail center. The CUP Site, Grading and Erosion Control Plan identifies approximate limits and earthwork quantities of the project. The higher elevations along 37 h Street NW and the frontage road on the south and west sides of the project will be cut down to provide a developable site. The excess cut material will be hauled off site. Trucking of the material will require travel outside the limits of the site; haul routes on the public roadway system will be identified as part of the grading permit application when the destination sites are identified. The project will be graded within 24 months. Drainage for the site currently exits the property via storm sewers. To be detailed in the future retail center design, the proposed drainage piping system will be connected to the existing system and will be conveyed to the existing regional stormwater facilities. These facilities drain to an unnamed ditch that conveys stormwater approximately 2.5 miles east to the south fork of the Zumbro River. Specific drainage requirements will be coordinated with City staff at the time of site plan development. Temporary sedimentation treatment for the graded site will be provided in a temporary pond to be graded as generally shown on the CUP Site, Grading and Erosion Control Plan. The pond will outlet with a temporary connection to the existing storm sewer in the retail center. A swale will be graded along the north property line to convey the runoff from the grading operations into the temporary pond and to keep the runoff from flowing onto the existing retail center parking lot. Other erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented including typical measures as illustrated on the grading plan and details. As future final site plan improvements are planned, associated erosion and sediment control measures will be proposed and implemented as required. Operations Plan per Section 61.140 The site plan illustrates the proposed project area, topsoil stockpile location and erosion control. Earthwork operations will occur within 50 feet of existing public right-of-way including 37'h Street NW and the frontage road. A variance has been requested to grade within the 50-foot bufferyards along the existing development as well as 37 h Street SW and East Frontage Road. Project Narrative — Substantial Land Alteration Permit Maplewood Square — Rochester, MN Revised February 7, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2004-245-M Page 3 of 5 .11 Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m., as allowed by City Code The overall grading plan identifies approximate quantities of material that will be removed from the site after rough grades are achieved within the earthwork limits. Grading permit applications will be submitted in the future to further clarify specific limits and quantities for the grading activities. Excess material that may be available during the grading of the site may be utilized at other locations. Permit applications will be submitted in the future as plans are developed. If final site development is not to occur immediately upon the conclusion of the grading activities, the contractor shall stabilize the site through respreading of topsoil and seeding as required by local ordinances. A proposed temporary sediment pond will be graded on the northeast corner of the site, to discharge into the existing storm sewer serving the development. The pond will be designed with the capacity for sediment control for the CUP area. Design calculations are shown on the CUP Grading Plan and will be provided with the grading permit application as required. Vegetation (turf and weeds) will be removed by typical clearing methods and disposed of by the contractor in accordance with local ordinances. The Contractor will be responsible for implementation of dust and noise control plans. Dust control measures include watering of on -site haul roads. Noise control measures include operational mufflers on equipment to meet state and local noise ordinance requirements. If required, a signage plan for construction activities will be submitted as part of the grading permit application. Stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation control for the rough graded site are identified on the CUP Site, Grading and Erosion Control Plan. Final drainage and erosion control improvements will be designed with the future final site development as part of final site planning. Anticipated construction equipment may include backhoes, dozers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, rubber tired rollers and other construction equipment as required for completion of the project. The following sequence of progression is proposed: - Install erosion control measures; - Clear site within current excavation phase limits; - Strip topsoil and stockpile; - Cut material and process/screen (as required); - Truck material to on -site fill areas and excess off -site; - Grade and compact engineered fill; - Respread topsoil and seed area within 7 days of completion of fill if needed; - Adjust erosion control fencing and other measures after turf has been established. Lighting is not anticipated to be required. Excess material is proposed to be hauled off -site. Appropriate haul routes to the ultimate destination(s) will be identified and proposed with the associated permit applications. With the proposed erosion control and sedimentation measures, there are no off -site impacts anticipated due to the construction. Project Narrative — Substantial Land Alteration Permit Maplewood Square — Rochester, MN Revised February 7, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2004-245-M Page 4 of 5 The contractor will monitor the condition of off -site roadways on a daily basis and clean/remove any dirt from the paved surfaces caused by project traffic. The project will require water for use in dust control and compaction; water will be obtained as allowable by permit. No electric, sanitary or communications utilities are anticipated to be required. Portable sanitary facilities will be provided. The nearest police station is located at 3`d Avenue and 4`h Street SE. The nearest fire station is located at 1875 41" Street NW. Site access will be available via an existing access driveway from both 37'" Street NW and 4181 Street NW. Reclamation Plan and Report Requirements for reclamation are identified on the CUP Reclamation Plan and in the above text. Landscape requirements of the reclamation plan have been calculated per anticipated clarifications to the City code and include eight deciduous and eight coniferous trees per acre of area anticipated to be impacted for mass grading. Planting will be in conjunction with future final site development and platting. Based on the conceptual grading plan, 0.85 acre has been identified as having a proposed elevation change of greater than 10 feet, resulting in 0.85 X 8 = 7 deciduous trees and 7 coniferous trees required for the reclamation plan. All erosion control, turf establishment and drainage facilities as required by the phased development and all applicable City requirements will be provided. The Developer proposes to place the required trees anywhere within the boundaries of Maplewood Square; a site plan will be submitted per City requirements to clarify tree proposed locations. Attachments Narrative for Variance Request for Removal of 50-Foot Bufferyard Requirement Project Team Developer North American Realty 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email foknarna deskmedia.com Phone 952-933-0972 Fax 952-933-1153 Michele Caron, P.E., Project Manager/Sr. Prof. Engineer Email mcaronngrlkinc.com Eric Johnson, ASLA, Sr. Landscape Architect Email jdietrich@rlkinc.com Project Narrative - Substantial Land Alteration Permit - Maplewood Square - Rochester, MN Revised February 7, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2004-24S-M Page 5 of 5 Variance Request Removal of 50-Foot Bufferyard Requirement Maplewood Square of Rochester Expansion Prepared By: RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. August 12, 2003 For Type III Phase I Variance Application Section 62.1106, Item 4b1 rPT- REVISED Rochester, MN RECEIVED FEB 0 8 2006 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED (Required Plans and Information, Operations Plan, Required Bufferyards, Minimum Bufferyard) Variance Request: Variance to Section 62.1106, Item 4bl (Required Plans and Information, Operations Plan, Required Bufferyards, Minimum Bufferyard) to allowing grading up to the property line versus maintaining a 50- foot buffer along all sides of the property. Variance Standard: This variance request has been drafted to meet the requirements of City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance Section 60.410 (Variance), specifically addressing Section 60.417 (Findings for Variance). Background Grading to the property edges is necessary in order to coordinate adjacent elevations and to gain access to the site. Denial of this variance request would result in a disjointed development between the existing Maplewood Square development and the proposed expansion. This request accompanies a Substantial Land Alteration Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the subject 3 acres proposed to be graded. The 3 acres is technically comprised of four separate parcels; however, for this variance it is assumed the internal lot lines are not subject to the bufferyard requirement, only the perimeter of the site. The 3 acres contained within the CUP would have the following property edge: NORTH Ashley Furniture Parking lot - The parking lot is approximately 15-20' tower than the undeveloped CUP site. A slope along the north line transitions the 15-20' separation in elevation. EAST Access drive from 37 Street to existing Maplewood Square development. This may be the location of a proposed access to the proposed development. Variance Request — Removal of 50-Foot Bufferyard Requirement Maplewood Square — Rochester, MN April 26, 2005 RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2004-245-M Page 1 of 3 l SOUTH 37 Street Northwest. The street is comparable in elevation to the undeveloped site. The southern boundary of the site is proposed to be sloped in order to create a site that is consistent in elevation with the existing Maplewood Square development. WEST East Frontage Road. The frontage road is also comparable in elevation to the undeveloped site. The western boundary of the proposed site is proposed to be sloped similar to the western boundary of the existing Maplewood Square development. Hardship justification Although a 50-foot bufferyard is a reasonable City provision when a parcel is a stand alone tract where the edges of the parcel are developed; this requirement cannot be met on parcels that are contiguous with other tracts requiring concurrent planning to ensure necessary roadway and utility connections, site access and earthwork balancing. Imposing setbacks on landlocked parcels would be counterproductive. This variance will enable the site to be graded to match the existing Maplewood Square development. Access to the site will be through the existing Maplewood Square development access and parking field. The following comments have been prepared to address the guidelines contained in Section 60.417 (Findings for Variance) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. For reference, Zoning Ordinance text has been included in italicized text. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: 1. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and The existing Maplewood Square development to the north is approximately 15' to 20' lower in elevation than the undeveloped area. hi order to create a developable parcel, it must be lowered to effectively match the existing development. If a 50' bufferyard were kept, the developable width would be reduced from 250' to 150'; approximately 40% of the property would be tied up in bufferyard. Internally, there is no need for a buffer between the existing and proposed Maplewood Square developments as they will be comparable uses. A slope will be created adjacent to all public right of way to lower the property to an elevation that is similar to the existing development. By allowing this variance request, the spirit of the ordinance is preserved. The condition of property edge will match the existing Maplewood Square condition along East Frontage Road. Variance Request — Removal of 50-Foot Bufferyard Requirement Maplewood Square —Rochester, MN April 26, 2005 RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2004-245-M Page 2 of 3 i 2. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved, and This variance is necessary to permit reasonable use of the property and the orderly development of Maplewood Square of Rochester Expansion with adjacent properties and agencies. 3. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan,- and The variance will not be detrimental to the public nor be injurious to other property in the area- It is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. The variance, as requested, is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the property. Project Team Developer North American Realty, Inc. 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email $1-narr deskmedia com Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Phone 952-933-0972 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Fax 952-933-1153 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Michele Caron, P.E., Project Manager/Sr. Prof. EngineerEmail n,carontarlk-knusisto.com John Dietrich, ASLA, Principal Landscape Architect Email idietricb(a)r&-kunsisto-com G:\Wzlluw C=k Camans LLC2003-306-M\ Conrspmde NVariance Sub 09-12-031Vn Req buffaya & 09-12-03AM 0 Variance Request — Removal of 50-Foot Bufferyard Requirement Maplewood Square - Rochester, MN RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2004-245-M ril 26, 2005 Page 3 of 3 DISPOSAL OF TREES AND BRUSH In November 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The text of the amendment is as follows- 61.200 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES: The requirements of Sections 61.200 through 61.584 identify approvals that will be required to authorize any subdivision activity which is defined as a subdivision by statute or City ordinance - Any person seeking approval of subdivision activity, development activity or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the subdivision activity. In order to apply this provision, you will need to indicate at the bottom of the page plans for disposal of trees, slash, and brush- Please sign and date the form. You must submit this information to the Planning Department prior to applying for a burning permit from the Fire Department. If plans change prior to obtaining a burning permit, you will need to notify the Planning Department. Wrthin this development as proposed through the development application, trees, slash, and brush will be disposed by: ❑ Burning on site ❑ Chipping on site ❑ Salvaging and removing from the property IM Other; describe in detail: P v?iv- ) JTl W�CIY� p 1! 6& Signature of Applicant of ivi 0� Avlwrn Development Proposal T4 K �1 y 22 vs Date gAwillow week commons 11 M05-246-m1 correspondmcelsubmtls- -incl tree -shrub zon ord amendmt form 1920-85.doc Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Marcb 8, 2006 Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report,\ staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr, March 2, 2006, to the Commission. The ling Department. the public hearing. Maplewood Square. Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 1, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Wallace asked if there was any concern with regard to ground contamination with the old service station. Ms. Baker responded that there was no reason to be concerned. Mr. Burke asked who would monitor it. Ms. Baker responded MPCA. The applicant, Mr. Frank Kottschade, addressed the Commission. He stated that the staff - recommendations were acceptable. He stated that, prior to purchasing the property, it was checked for contamination. Discussion ensued regarding property ownership in Maplewood Square. Mr. Gary West (3714 21 s` Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Commission. He asked what the checkered area listed on the site plan was between the parking areas. Mr. Kottschade responded that it was rock for erosion control measures and would be taken out after the excavation process. Mr. West questioned where the vegetation would be planted. He expressed concern with commitments not being met by the property owners with regard to a neighborhood park. Ms. Baker showed the reclamation plan identifying the location of the plantings. p Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Zoning Ordinance and t_and Development Manual, a minimum bufferyard of 50 feet shal.11,.i be maintained' adjacent to all pety udaeandi etnrigis ofwayad any, proposed rights of way.for roadways included in the Leong Range Transpoi fation Plan or for which an official map has been prepared. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial:; OTHER BUSINESS: 2. As may be brought up with members No discussion items were brought forward. ADJOURN: Motion made by Mr. Ohly to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Haeussinger. Mr. Burke, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP jig Mr. Jay Burke, Chair NOTE: Due to recording equipment failure, only the first 1 '/2 hour was recorded on cassette tape. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS MEETING DATE: 04-03-06 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities to PREPARED BY: rezone approximately .62 acres from the I (Interim) district to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Theresa Fogarty, zoning district. The property is the Rose Harbor Water Tower site. The property is located Senior Planner south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Harbor Drive SE and north of Harbor Heights Court SE. March 28, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2006, to consider the zone change request by Rochester Public Utilities to rezone approximately .62 acres to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. McGuine moved to approve Zoning District Amendment #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated March 2, 2006. Council Action Needed: The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council `s decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the staff report If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: Z� 1. Staff Report dated March 2, 2006. T y 2. Minutes of the March 8, 2006 CPZC Meeting. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby: Second by: to: .ONE CHANGE #06-02 SITE J 800 ft. Notification Area of 3213 Harbor Heights CT SE �{ located in Pt NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 8 Marion TWP n THWY 14 Zone Change #06-02 by r Ns Rochester Public Utilities m , PIN: 63.08.21.067840 4 Council Ward: 4 (Pat Carr) E Neighborhood Assoc: None Fm El ti �+J A --fTA ., ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAKTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite too • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C o UK T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.comlplanning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner DATE: March 2, 2006 Wi Vn. VMV , RE: Zoning District Amendment #06-02 by Rochester Public Utilities to rezone approximately .62 acres from the I (Interim) district to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) zoning district. The property is the Rose Harbor Water Tower site. The property is located south of Eastwood Road SE, east of Harbor Drive SE and north of Harbor Heights Court SE. CP & ZC Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Piannina Department Review., Petitioner: City of Rochester — Public Utilities Douglas C. Rovang 4000 East River Road NE Rochester, MN 55906 Existing Land Use: The property is currently the site of the Rose Harbor Water Tower. The property is designated for "low density residential' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Proposed Zoning District: R-1 (Mixed Single Family)) District. Proposed Land Use: Site of the Rose Harbor Water Tower. Adjacent Land Use and North: Undeveloped, zoned R-1x (Mixed Single Zoning: Family Extra). Location of proposed plat for Towne Club Second Subdivision. South: Undeveloped, zoned R-1 x (Mixed Single Family Extra). Location of proposed plat for Towne Club Second Subdivision. East: Undeveloped, zoned R-1x (Mixed Single Family Extra). Location of proposed plat for Towne Club Second Subdivision West: Rose Harbor development, zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Extra) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 ZC 06-02 City of Rochester — Public Utilities Interim to R-1 March 2, 2006 Roadway Access: Access to this site would be from Harbor Heights Court SE. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. This portion of the site does not contain any wetlands. Referral Comments: 1. No attachments, referral agencies had no comments Report Attachments: 1. Proposed Zoning Map 2. Location Map Analysis for Zoning District Amendment. Under the provisions of Paragraph 60,338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. This property is located within the boundaries of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Land Use Designations within this area are considered to be "Low Density Residential'. Rezoning this property to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family Extra) district is consistent with the land use plan and would serve to better further the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Plan. This site was included with the annexation request of the Thein/Platinum Development property in 2001. At that time the property was zoned Interim on the Rochester Zoning Map. A zoning district amendment requested by the City of Rochester, Dennis Thein and Platinum Development adjacent to the north, south and east of this site was zoned to R-1x, approved by the City Council July 18, 2005. This site, containing the Rose Harbor Water Tower, was inadvertently not included with the zoning district amendment approved by the City Council in July of 2005. �31 (� Page 3 }. ZC 06-02 (J City of Rochester — Public Utilities Interim to R-1 March 2, 2006 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and The R-1 will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. 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). The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: This site was included with the annexation request of the Thein/Platinum Development property in 2001. At that time the property was zoned Interim on the Rochester Zoning Map. A zoning district amendment requested by the City of Rochester, Dennis Thein and Platinum Development adjacent to the north, south and east of this site was zoned to R-1 x, approved by the City Council July 18, 2005. This site, containing the Rose Harbor Water Tower, was inadvertently not included with the zoning district amendment approved by the City Council in July of 2005. Based on the above -mentioned findings, it would appear that this zoning district amendment would meet the above criteria. Staff recommends rezoning the property to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 2, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Ms. Mitzi A. Baker prese d the staff report, dated March 1, 2006, to th ommission. The staff report is on file at the hester-Olmsted Planning Depar/nontami Mr. Wallace asked if there was a oncern with regard to gronation with the old service station. Ms. Baker responded that there was no reXon to be Mr. Burke asked who would monitor it. Ms. Baker responded MPCA. The applicant, Mr. Frank Kottschade, addre d the Co ssionHe stated that the staff - recommendations were acceptable/ownership that, prior t rasing the property, it was checked for contamination. Discussion ensued regarding propin Maplew\cc� re. Mr.Gary West (3714 21"Aven NW, Rochester MN 55901) address a Commission. He asked what the checkered @0 listed on the site plan was between the plftog areas. Mr. Kottschade respond that it was rock for erosion control measures and wu'�I be taken out after the excavation or ess. Mr. West question where the vegetation would be planted. He expressed concern commitments no eing met by the property owners with regard to a neighborhood p� Ms. Baker sVWed the reclamation plan identifying the location of the plantings. �a� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 'A" DATE: =- AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #06-04 by Mark Hemann to be known as PREPARED BY: Rochester Towne Club Second. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately Mitzi A. Baker, 144.28 acres into 6 outlots. The applicant is also requesting approval of a SeniorPianner Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for grading that exceeds 10 feet of cut or fill on the property. The property is located south of Eastwood Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE and is part of the Rochester Towne Center Development. March 29, 2006 City Administration informed the Planning Department, that he pedestrian path on the northleast side of the Parkway will be an 8' wide path. Therefore, staff recommends modifying condition #1, as identified with strikethrough and underlined text. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2006 to consider this preliminary plat. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #06-04 and Substantial Land Alteration by Mark Hemann to be known as Rochester Towne Club Second, with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. 1. The Final Plat application must include pedestrian facilities consistent with the Rochester Towne Club Subdivision (4-0 8' bituminous path on one the north/eastside, S 6' concrete walk on the other). 2. Prior to development of any structures on any Outlot, the Outlot must proceed through a preliminary and final plat which requires the dedication of the necessary roadway system. Any deviation of the roadway system at the proposed connection point between Outlots shall be agreed upon by the lot owners. Dedication of additional utility easements for future infrastructure shall be provided with the future platting/re-platting of the Outlots. 3. Mid -block pedestrian connections shag be provided consistent with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual regulations and will be review at future platting stages (when the outlots are replatted). 4. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication requirements are outlined in the memorandum from the Park and Recreation Department dated February 15, 2006. 5. The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable Clty policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by' Second by: to: Page 2 RCA 03/29/06 Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Land Subdivision Permit and Substantial Land Alteration Permit. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision. 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 the Rochester - Imsted Government Center Building Monday April 3, 2006 in the Council / Board Chamber at J U) 0 c 0 U a� 0 0. n. T #n N 0_ 0 I, 0 N J Q rr W Z to W v 0 0 v► jr O a � c� fh t8 2T:+as Ndld 1N3WdOl3A34 To 4. V1053NNIW '113153HJON snID 3NM01 N31S3H SCR 3 inr ..nauvx . �srnn w�..u\ tl •� n r �[� u-.-v m:_. •�..ec...ovv�w.av:n.. +� LU |9 l � w oNO aslnmawMo 'd1w1+DOS e Ina ASYNlw1138a ,. 7I?¢ ��i€ Y1053NNIW'N3153HJON �€ I ONOD3S 9nlD 3NMOi ?DiS3HJO2 on / t I91Illlis I�I� r21P2 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 am,- . Rochester, MN 55904-4744 IB�n»0tn� COUNTY OF too I�jj p�1I%� •j 1 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: March 1, 2006 RE: Preliminary Plat #06-04 by Mark,Hemann to be known as Rochester Towne Club Second. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 144.28 acres into 6 outlots. The'applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for grading that exceeds 10 feet of cut or fill on the property. The property is located south of Eastwood Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE and is part of the Rochester Towne Center Development. Plannina Department Review: ApplicanVOwner: Platinum Development Group PO Box 44424 Minneapolis, MN 55344 Engineer: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Copy of GDP 5. Copy of SLA Map Development Review: Zoning: The property included in this Plat is zoned R-1 X (Mixed Single Family Extra). Roadways: The plat dedicates the right-of-way for one public roadway, Towne Club Parkway SE. The roadway will be built on 80 feet of right-of-way with a center median in through much of the roadway. Other roadways identified on the Plat are shown as future dedication and will be proposed through subsequent preliminary and final plats. Roadway names will need to be modified as stated in the BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/AODRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-B232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 March 1, 2006 August 31, 2005 letter from the GIS/Addressing staff. Utilities: Sanitary sewer will need to be extended from the south to serve future development of the Plat. Additional looping of the water main will be required through the Outlots to better network the system to allow for building construction, in the future. Homes with main finished floors above the elevation 1214 will need 1 1/2 inch copper water services installed from the water main to the buildings to reduce the pressure loss from the pipe at higher flow rates. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required throughout the development on both sides of all public roads. Along the west side of Towne Club Parkway SE there will be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk and along the east/north side there will be a 10 foot wide bituminous bike path. The other roadway will have a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of the roadway. Drainage: The property has varied topography with the highest area being in the southern part of the Plat, in Oultlot B. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Wetlands: A wetland replacement plan has been approved for the Rochester Towne Club project. The Plat must be consistent with that replacement plan. The applicant must complete the replacement plan by securing the wetland bank credits proposed in the replacement plan. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements will be reviewed with proposals for individual lot development. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication requirements should be met via the deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park to be located in Outlot C of this Plat. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of the neighborhood park site. General Development Plan: The plat is generally consistent with GDP # 258 approved on July 18, 2005. Substantial Land Alteration & Staff Suggested Findings: The applicant is requesting approval of a substantial land alteration permit to perform grading within the residential and golf course areas of the development. There are minor areas that will exceed the allowable 10 feet of cut or fill. Also, the material excavated exceeds 100,000 cubic yards. Regarding findings for Section 62.1105, staff suggests the findings as written can be made, with the exception of #13 and #14. Staff suggests the following findings for those two items: if Page 3 March 1, 2006 #13) The grading and drainage plans and erosion and sedimentation control plans must be approved by the City prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. #14) The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable. 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. Staff Review and Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings, which must be considered by the Planning Commission, and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. At this time, this Plat needs to be revised to incorporate the following: Dedicated of controlled access as stated in the executed Development Agreement. • Access shall be shown conceptually to the smaller knob on the Thein property, along the north side of the east terminus of the Parkway. • An interior road layout shall be identified, conceptually, through Outtots E and F identifying interior roadway connectivity between the access openings from the Parkway to Outlots E and F. If the applicant agrees to file these revisions no less than two weeks prior to the Council meeting at which this item will be considered, the Commission could make a recommendation to approve, subject to the following conditions/revisions to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: The Final Plat application must include pedestrian facilities consistent with the Rochester Towne Club Subdivision (10' bituminous path on one side, 5' concrete walk on the other). 2. Prior to development of any structures on any Outlot, the Outlot must proceed through a preliminary and final plat which requires the dedication of the necessary roadway system. Any deviation of the roadway system at the proposed connection point between Outlots shall be agreed upon by the lot owners. Dedication of additional utility easements for future infrastructure shall be provided with the future platting/re-platting of the Outlots. Page 4 March 1, 2006 3. Mid -block pedestrian connections shall be provided consistent with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual regulations and will be review at future platting stages (when the outlots are replatted). 4. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication requirements are outlined in the memorandum from the Park and Recreation Department dated February 15, 2006. 5. The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. Additional looping of the water main will be required through the Outlots to better network the system to allow for building construction, in the future A wetland replacement plan has been approved for the Rochester Towne Club project. The Plat must be consistent with that replacement plan. The applicant must complete the replacement plan by securing the wetland bank credits proposed in the replacement plan. REMINDER TO APPLICANT. • Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application if the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public roadways and utilities. Page 5 y, March 1, 2006 Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual 61.225 Findings for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: 1) The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. 2) That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. 3) That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. 4) That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. 5) That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. 6) That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. 7) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. 8) That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 9) That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. 10) That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. 11) That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. 12) That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. 13) That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. 14) That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 15) That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 16) That the proposed land subdivision, if approved, would not result in a violation of federal or state law, or city or county ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent Page 6 March 1, 2006 that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compfiance with the criteria of Section 61.225. G1 February 8, 2006 Mitzi Baker Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 SE Campus Drive Rochester, MIST 55904 RE: Request for Substantial Land Alteration Permit Rochester Towne Club Second Rochester, Minnesota Dear Mitzi: YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES ER6IREERS RRCRITEITS [IIHSCRPE REHITECTE SURUE40R5 PERURERS The owners of the proposed Rochester Towne Club Second project request the approval of a Substantial Land Alteration Permit to perform grading within the residential area of the project. Minor areas of grading are required, which will exceed the allowable 10 feet of fill or cut, as shown on the attached drawing. All material cut or filled within these areas will be come from or stay on site. We request that this review be concurrent with the Preliminary Plat approval process. Please call if you have any questions or if additional information is required. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES Bryan L. Holtz YCA 09400 LD2 Attachment 'i C� FEB 0 8 2006 Rochesterl 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 5590, 507-288-6464 507-288-5058 Fax C IOpls/St Paul Office. 651-681-9040 Restinss Office: 651-437-2909 IO4snn CitO Office: 641-424-6344 Oelifield Office: 262-646-5855 § p Ne©ate ¥ o� ,I ms - - . ®'] _3NNI._3H:)OS �® jh§ oNO 2s9m,w¥o NUGH m oee- GR(aCHESTER Ae ima Bryan Holtz Yaggy Colby and Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Bryan: RE: Rochester Towne Club �yp[ti ESTC R • n1/ry l- i y DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4th Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 (507) 287-7800 FAX (507) 281-6216 While preparing my annual municipal storm water permit report, I obtained the attached files from the Department of Natural Resources regarding calcareous fens located downgradient of the Rochester Towne Club development. These types of wetlands are protected by Minnesota law as Outstanding Resource Value Waters. Their presence may impact your designs as it relates to the management of surface water and impervious surfaces. In order to protect this type of groundwater -fed wetland, development designs must insure that recharge lost by the addition of impervious surfaces is offset by appropriately designed and located infiltration features and that storm water runoff is not directed to the fens. In your office, both Wade Dumond and Dale Allen have experience dealing with the Stonehedge calcareous fen and may be of some assistance to you. Sincerely, Barb Huberty, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Coordinator Attachment: DNR Calcareous Fen Data Sheet C: Matt Crawford, Rochester Public Works John Harford, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department le ROCHESTER M;m TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 2/23/06 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 Preliminary Plat #06-04, for the proposed Rochester Towne Club Second development. The following are Public Works comments: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and all development within the Property is subject to the terms of the Agreement. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. Storm water management must be provided for this development, and specific obligations are addressed in the Development Agreement. 3. Preliminary Construction plans will be reviewed and comments forwarded separately to the applicant's Consulting Engineer. 4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. Development Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are/will be addressed in the Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet F1les\0LK1C\PP06-04 Rochester Towne Club 2nd.doc �ro The hand to reach for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: February 24, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Preliminary Plat #06-04 by Mark Hemann to be known as Rochester Towne Club Second. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 144.28 acres into 6 outlots. i 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. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only) Mark Baker— Rochester Public Works (e-mail only) Mark Hemann Yaggy Colby Associates (e-mail only) FA wr pl:Agr, we deliver February 21, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat 406-04 by Mark Hemann to be known as Rochester Towne Club Second. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates that the long "dead-end" system proposed will not provide adequate flows for fire protection based on the minimums required by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Additional looping of the water main will be required through the Outlots to better network the system to allow for building construction. 2. Static water pressures will range from 36 to 70 PSI within this area. Homes with main finished floors above the elevation of 1214 need 1 ''/z" copper water services installed from the water main to the buildings to reduce the pressure loss from the pipe at higher flow rates. Also this low pressure should be taken into account with the design of the interior plumbing systems for each home as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code. 3. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with these continents. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Gary Schick, Building & Safety Mark Hemann Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 tp & J? cM't..'o" ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, MR DEPARTMENT DATE: February 15, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Rochester Towne Club 2nd Prelim Plat #06-04 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 144.28 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. NA Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park identified as Outlot C this plat. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of Outlot C. Dedication to occur when the park site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development of the park OAPARK DEDICATION12006%SE 289aROCHESTER TOWN CLUB 2ND.DOC WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: PP #06-04 Rochester Towne Club Second ❑ 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: A wetland replacement plan has been approved for the Rochester Towne Club project. The plat must be consistent with that replacment plan. The applicant must complete the replacement plan process by securing the wetland bank credits proposed in the replacement plan. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative Minnesota Department of Transportation ''6 3 e Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 °Ry tea° 290048 h Street N.W. °F� b Rochester, MN 55901-5848 February 24, 2006 Stephanie Foster, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Southeast -Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us RE: Preliminary Plat #06-04 by Mark Hemann to be known as Rochester Towne Club Second. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 144.28 acres into 6 outlots. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for grading that exceeds 10 feet of cut or fill on the property. The property is located south of Eastwood Road SE and east of Harbor Drive SE and is part of the Rochester Towne Center Development. US Highway 14, Control Section 5503 Dear Ms. Foster: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the preliminary plat for Rochester Towne Club Second, part of the proposed Rochester Towne Club development. Mn/DOT has had previous correspondence with the City of Rochester (January 18, 2006, attached) with respect to improvements to US Highway 14 to address increased traffic levels as a result of the development and changes to the continuity of Eastwood Road. Mn/DOT approval of the preliminary plat is subject to the following conditions: • Review of a geometric layout showing the requested lane configurations of each approach with the US 14/CSAH 22 intersection. • A westbound left hand acceleration lane west of 40`h Avenue SE will be constructed at the time of the permit. • An eastbound lane extension on US 14 east from 40"' Avenue SE will be needed at the time that a signal is warranted. • Mn/DOT review of drainage plans and hydraulics data. The regrading plans for the property must not allow drainage onto Mn/DOT right-of-way. Because of the changes requested at the US 14 intersections with CSAH 22 and at 401h Avenue SE, an access permit will be needed. All improvements must be to Mn/DOT standards. As discussed in our previous letter, the costs of these intersection improvements will be shared among the City, the County, and the developer. Contact Lee Gierok, Roadway Regulations Supervisor, at (507) 285-7362 for permit requirements. Mn/DOT is preparing a more specific response to a plan from the City of Rochester to address additional access management needs for US 14. Stephanie Foster February 24, 2006 Page Two Please contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner at (507) 285-7369 or Tracy Schnell, Regional Planning Assistant at (507) 280-5028, with any questions you may have. Sincerely, 201� Chris Moates Planning Director Attachment cc: Richard Freese, City of Rochester Mike Sheehan, Olmsted County Mark Heman, Platinum Development Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Nelrae Succio Greg Paulson Mike Schweyen Lee Gierok Tracy Schnell Debbie Bement Fred Sandal File 7Q$ nnre xnwann r Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 290048'" Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901-5848 January 18, 2006 Richard Freese, P.E. Public Works Director City of Rochester 2014" St. SE Rochester, MN 55904-3708 Office Tel: 507-285.7374 Fax: 507-281-7780 E-mail: nclrae.succio@dot.state.mri.us RE: TH 14 access and safety issues at CSAH 22 and 40`h Avenue SE pertaining to Rochester Towne Club development TH 14 CS 5503 Dear Richard, Thank you for your letter dated October 25, 2005 responding to Mn/DOT comments concerning access and safety issues to TH 14 related to the Rochester Towne Club development. Considerable information has been received from the consultant by Mn/DOT in the interim and has been analyzed and discussed in great detail by Mn/DOT staff Mn/DOT has also reviewed the City's preliminary work on developing an access management plan for TH 14, proposed development agreements and other information. I want to take this moment to further clarify our understanding of the issues and respond to your analysis. The proposed Rochester Towne Club development creates several significant impacts to TH 14 that are of great concern to Mn/DOT. These impacts include the addition of a signal sequence with the extension of East Circle Drive to the south of TH 14, vacation of Eastwood Drive which will eliminate a thru east/west road between Marion Road and 40`h Avenue SE, and traffic volume increases and safety concerns at TH 14 and 40`h Avenue SE because of the new traffic patterns resulting from the closure of Eastwood and increasing development in adjacent areas. At this time Mn/DOT's position has not changed from the initial letter of October 21, 2005. Mn/DOT once again requests for review the geometrics of each approach at the intersection of TH 14 and CSAH 22. Mn/DOT is unable to grant a permit without adequate information. Also, the cost of improvements at the CSAH 22 intersection is expected to be shared between the County, the City and the developer, with the County paying for the north approach and the City and/or developer paying for the south approach. The proposed vacation of Eastwood Road is not supported by Mn/DOT as was noted in a recent letter to Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments and copied to the City. While there may be some benefit to alleviating operational problems at the Richard Freese January 18, 2006 Page Two TH 14/Marion Road intersection, closure of Eastwood severs an important east -west alternate route south of TH 14 that forces traffic to utilize CSAH 22 and more importantly the TH 14/40`h Avenue SE intersection. More development in the vicinity of 40`h Avenue SE as indicated by a planned road network east of Towne Club will also create more traffic utilizing the TH 14/401h Avenue SE intersection and will result in a substantially increased safety risk and delay to motorists on 40`h Avenue SE. Mn/DOT recommends that a westbound left-hand acceleration lane west of 401h Avenue SE be constructed immediately as a result of these issues. An eastbound lane extension on TH 14 would be recommended at the time that a signal is warranted. Mn/DOT has requested but not received a layout that would show the geometry of these improvements. Because these impacts are development driven, Mn/DOT expects that the City and/or the developer will pay for the westbound left-hand acceleration lane. Cost participation for potential signalization of the 40`h Avenue SE intersection will be discussed if and when signalization is warranted. Finally, Mn/DOT is supportive of the access management improvements for TH 14 as presented by City staff on January 3, 2006. Access management will be necessary to ensure the continued smooth and safe operation of this segment and at the 40`h Avenue intersection. The concept for access closures and frontage roads both north and south of TH 14 is desirable as a means of diverting traffic away from existing driveways. However, Mn/DOT seeks assurances as to how and when such a plan would be implemented. I would like to reiterate that there are no Mn/DOT projects planned in this area, both in the current 2006-2008 STIP or in the District Long Range Plan through 2030. In addition, this area has no critical crash issues. Without local development pressure, there would be little need to make any improvements in this vicinity. I would like to add that communities throughout the district have been told that Mn/DOT will not cost participate in development -driven projects. Mn/DOT has a need to maintain consistency. Mn/DOT remains firm in its determination that improvements within this portion of the TH 14 corridor would be development driven and therefore does not support funding the suggested improvements to TH 14 at this time. In the meantime, we will work with the City in facilitating the permit process at CSAH 22 in the near future. Please contact Greg Paulson, Assistant District Engineer, (507) 285-7380, or Chris Moates, Planning Director, (507) 280-3188, should you have further questions. Sincerely, Nelr a Succio Trans ation District Engineer C'. Memorandum To: Development Review Staff, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department From: Muhammad F Khan, Senior Transportation Planner Date: 3/3/2006 Re: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN # 258, Preliminary Plat # 06-04 BACKGROUND The property is located south of Eastwood Road and east of Harbor Drive and is part of the Rochester Towne Center Development. General Development Plan # 258 was approved on July 18, 2005. The proposed preliminary plat is reviewed under the City of Rochester Land Development Manual for consistency with the policies and guidelines found in the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, which has been adopted by the City of Rochester as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The review will address each of the key issue areas found in the adopted Transportation Plan that could influence decisions regarding the appropriateness of the Preliminary Plat # 06-04. The ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan designates the extension of East Circle Drive / 30'h Ave SE as Secondary Urban Arterial and TH 14 as a Regional Strategic Arterial. The street design classification map t shows the proposed 30°h Ave il; extension as a Parkway-2 type facility, with a two-lane divided 14 } urban street section. Future S extension of 30`h Ave to either 20'h 1 Corrkor Plannng Area St SE or CSAH 11 is planned to For ArtenabParkv2y 2 1 provide for major street system Proposed Parkway 2 continuity / connectivity; however, at this time the decision regarding the general alignment and future connection point has not been t made. A Corridor Planning Area has been identified on the Long Range Plan to indicate the need for further study of the ultimate alignment of this corridor, which would serve to tie together the arterial street system in the Marion Orderly Annexation Area. ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, August 2005: The Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Transportation Plan provides a comprehensive look at anticipated system development in Ohnsted County for the next 25-30 years. The Plan is organized around four primary transportation networks: Road & Bridge Network, Non -Motorized Travel Network, Public Transit Services and Commercial Freight and Passengers Transportation. .3r3n006 Daily traffic on TH 14 in 2004 was 13,900 ADT and projected to range from 28,000 ADT (between East Circle Drive and 40`h Ave SE) to 17,500 ADT (east of 40th Ave) by the Year 2035. The Long Range Bikeway Plan calls for the development of a bike path along one side of the proposed Towne Club Parkway. Pedestrian facilities consistent with city policy should be constructed on other side. Figure 2 highlights the adopted Bikeway Plan illustrating the planned path along Towne Club Parkway, which should be linked to similar facility along 40`h Ave SE. The plan also recommends future study of the area bounded by TH 14, CSAH 11, 20`h St and the proposed development to determine how these bike path facilities should ultimately be tied to the future Chester Wood Regional Bike Trail along the Bear Creek. Chester Wood Bike Trail is in the final stages of its planning and anticipated to be built in near future. Given that this area is part of the designated Orderly Annexation Area, the city of Rochester should take the lead in working with interested parties in determining how the future link of the Chester Woods trail to the City trail system should be planned. REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT 1. System Planning, Traffic Management and Access Management Table 4-4 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan identifies basic right of way requirements for major streets. For a Parkway2 facility, 90 feet is the base mid -block right of way (ROW) requirement. Since a bike path is planned for one side, an additional five feet of right of way should be provided to accommodate bike path within the public right of way. Additional right of way may be required by the City Engineer (up to 50 feet) if needed to accommodate slope conditions (steep terrain). The Plan also recommends additional right of way for turn lane development at the intersection of two arterial or higher level streets. "Intersection Transition Area" requirements are discussed on page 4-35 of the Long Range Transportation Plan. Table 4-5 in the plan recommends that additional right of way be provided in the first phase of this development along the frontage of Towne Club Parkway and on the south side along TH 14 frontage of the property to accommodate intersection turn lane needs. The intersection transition ROW for Towne Club Parkway would be 15' of additional ROW width for a distance of 480' south from the right of way line for TH 14. Similarly, along TH 14, N 3/3/2006 15' of additional ROW width should be provided for a distance of 660' back from the right of way of Towne Club Road. The Access Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Plan recommended that full median openings along a Secondary Arterial be spaced a minimum of/4 (1320 ft) spacing apart in a Developing Area, and that directional or % access openings be spaced a minimum of 1 /0' mile (660 ft) from other public street intersections. Right-In/Right-Out connections for a local street can be provided at 480' spacing from other street intersections. Private driveways are recommended to be located 275' from other connections if the speed limit is > 35 MPH, 175' if the speed limit is below 35 MPH. Table 4-9 of the Long Range Transportation Plan suggests that turn lanes should be provided on major arterials whenever four lanes are planned or the projected volume is expected to exceed >5000 ADT. The design of the divided median and turn lanes should be determined in consultation with the Road Controlling Authority (City Public Works Department). 2. Non -Motorized Transportation Improvements The proposed Preliminary Plat should provide accommodation for a bike path along one side of the Towne Club Parkway to be consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan. The Urban Bikeway Map identifies a Bike Study Zone east of proposed development to determine the location of future bike path connections to provide a link from the City trail system to the future Chester Woods Bike Trail, which will end at the east side of CSAH 11 near Bear Creek. An alignment and necessary easements or future right of way for this future path/trail on the east of Rochester Towne Club Second should be finalized during the future GDP approval process. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The Access Control on Towne Club Parkway, SE should be maintained as per the guidelines for Divided Roadway Median Spacing (Table 4-12-b) and Local Street and Driveway Spacing (Table 4-12-c) of the 2035 ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan. 2. The Preliminary Plat needs to provide an accommodation for the future bike path along one side of the Towne Club Parkway similar to one provided in the 1" phase of development proposal. The Urban Area Bikeway Plan identifies a Bike Study Zone on the east of Rochester Towne Club Second that will ultimately provide future connection to the Chester Wood Bike Trail on the east side of CSAH 11 along Bear Creek 3. The minimum recommended right of way for a 2 lane parkway with a bike path on one side is 95 feet. Intersection transition right of way should be provided at the intersection of Towne Club Road and TH 14. Turn lanes are not recommended in the Long Range Plan at other locations as all street intersections within the development involve roads at or below the designation of Secondary Arterial. The design/width of the divided median and turn lanes should be determined in consultation with the Road Controlling Authority (City Public Works Department). I ki Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 0 enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Platsubmitta,, that outlines the vetoper's and City's obligations related, but not limifed to ownership mainten ce,-= & cess via the,proposed private road, atormwatei management(including:an , obii `ons for off site facilities), transportation improvements (including an -site imprnts.necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian ilities, confnbuti fof existing & future pubric infrastructure, and the exten of public ublibes to ab _ in ro ernes where a IjcableE 9 P . P Pp . �� r ' 2.` Construction of a ft wide bituminous pedestrian;path is,n q d at the owner's ' expense, along the a 're frontages of the Propertjif concurr with development Grading & Drainage Planroval. is required priorto F 1 plat submittal 4..` Execution of a City -Owner Co ct, and d'edicatio f any applicable off site public easements is required prior to c truction of a public infrastructure to serve this ' development =k e„ t �s..'. i x bs�3 ;^e; ex 'a ^.x�rt �; "< � �- rr •u, 5. Controlled access will be-regtiired alo tii n5ed frontages of East_Circle,,Dr & Viola ?-'Rd NE with the exception of the propose rivate road access to Viola Rd NE Iodation" across from Viola Heights Dr NE,, and t r tin, -right-out acdess to Eastcle Dr NE s 6. The apphcantsiiall consult with U Environmen „and Regulatory Affa¢s on the design and maintenance plans ,r storm -Water rete„ o ponds in the Drinking.Water �, Supply Management Area (D MA), an& esign and intain the facilities w prevent infiltration into the DWSM r Municipal Well32, ws x 1 t k -e -e - vC "^Ti:}. 7..- Water ains mustbe orked'properly to provide adequ flows for fireprotecti mon :. and water quality, an ust be extended't¢adlacent propertie er the requirements., of Rochester Publi tilities 8. Development is property'shall be phased to provide`concurren with adequate .,' public. I iti 9;: Access t SAH 22lEasf Circle Drive w�ll,be hmrtedto a righ{ minght-ou ccess F permit hall besecured from Olmsted County Public Works , a 5^ s x 10: Hy is soils may exist on the southern edge of this`ptoperty: The applicant is r ponsible for determining if Wetland exist and the Location a � The iievelo ment`shall be' limited to 35,000'squaie feet'of floor area: PUBLIC HEARINGS: Center Development subd (01 "% Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 1, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker showed a revised plat that was submitted today that addressed a few of the conditions of approval. Mr. McGuine asked if the revised plan took care of the three bullets listed in the staff report. Ms. Baker responded yes. The applicant's representative, Wade DuMond from Yaggy Colby Associates (717 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the recommended conditions. He indicated that there is letter in the report regarding calcareous fen on the SW corner of the property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Page 10 �� I City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2006 Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated February 15, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the applicant contacted staff today indicating that they didn't do a site survey to make sure they only need the 10 foot. She stated that the applicant could clarify the situation. She did explain that they could not be closer than 5 feet due to an easement. The applicant's representative, Mr. Curt Walter (906 21't Street SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that they would match the building to whatever exterior they needed. He also stated that the building would not be closer than 5 feet to either property line. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /�1300 DATE: 04-03-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLAJNTNING El— fV ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-06 by MSB Holdings Rochester LLC to be known as PREPARED BY: Pennington Business Park Seventh. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.17 acres Theresa Fogarty, into 2 lots for development. The recently constructed Minnesota School of Business Senior Planner Globe College would occupy one of the lots. The property is located west of 22n° Avenue NW, south of 48'" Street NW and east of the East Frontage road behind the car dealerships. March 29, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated March 29, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A 20' public utility easement shall be dedicated at the time that Lot 2, Block 1 is developed for the required 8" public water main extension through the lot from the north side to the south side. 2. A G1S Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the March 23, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — G1S 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 Monday, April 3, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: EiEE gae F HIM alms' 3- a �{ � �"w FS 5$ _ •d 33 EEYYE " 3• ° a g. ill` Z 3" :F sY w / sp �p3 }YF_s� y[F i ally a d C6t T i IFE I 3{ S4 �• � 8 F- Ge. Y� iei SE1 �.�.i '� !6� ef'G jfE E:r. EEE f'�i[:. SsF�'.i p_ j I Si =• .n LU Y z3 3i: vP�id Ce��sR�ia.%a •.. f3 � I � J :iss mSsg3-.FS-•I t'jiIv ? FlEW is sa"{ '' %I yi33 eR-S.ea[• S,. F� L{ � i i{ sFSS�f FnsiBES gt_Ra •` G-Ed a `; � . 1 fi a s . Y O i3e f!i .At ..5..:`3 `e:i By'i•y^ a `.S3) - t ~ Fa s=:y LU Z f.. ;',:=i2:i$:i:3i B ' 3{ j3 a 4. z uzd .�y°• S._. ��°. _ ' :t �E= :S is�f'isif^°:=F€:E!iE s• G. GFYg' -• d 't•', i:.:j:`aFa �SR f'{�s QQ leas3 „ead5-_E{iF?.ls��$aeT� $ I II hhl i I• i&� e$ PR Q { \ m z ;-'` �9FpS € F LU CL gqlk y at - 1N31L.AII4S jNU*VW14 _ ii y a zw LLw Y .4s I` Y a � >; coROUL r r talk \ ' fIR3T S ISINES , MRS i r FrntA":: N.�. COUNTY OF OLMSTED CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT Petition: �;� /n �t 8� Location: Scale of Map: /" _ /,04a l Date: s 00/ Cn 0 77- 500 ft. Notification Area of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lot 1 Block 1 Pennington Business Park Sixth to be known as Pennington Business Park Seventh ZIy i� A 4l3y 1 ". t t \>• 49 9�i klHNl1N I I I — h i � d i FP #06-06 by MSB Holdings Rochester LLC PINS: 74.15.32.066533; 74,16.41.019434; 74.16.41.066534 Neighborhood Assoc: None Council Ward: 3 3/20/06 M. GIS ..n ,-..leo..,M. .,D tv-J. 2122C nJ'l SlE. re lwN de5n. mm. IM. 2 �! GIS Owam. PrcMSNrvpmuE Cauny Nxmng Gplmnl.:l't2 Clary iE On+<SE. XOMnIw, AW S59O1, 15pi126�BZ12. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 F Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C O U NTT OF wwwolmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner IRu�ruta�pa�C,� ioi I1pi i��1� DATE: March 29, 2006 RE: Final Plat #06-06 by MSB Holdings Rochester LLC to be known as Pennington Business Park Seventh. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.17 acres into 2 lots for development. The recently constructed Minnesota School of Business Globe College would occupy one of the lots. The property is located west of 22nd Avenue NW, south of 48th Street NW and east of the East Frontage road behind the car dealerships. City Council Hearing Date: April 3, 2006 Plannina Department Review: Applicant/Owner: MSB Holdings Rochester LLC 1401 West 761h Street, Suite 100 Richfield, MN 55423 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works Department 2. Planning Department — Addressing 3. Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat 2. Copy of General Development Plan 3. Location Map 4. Referral Comments (3 Letters) Plat Data: Zoning: The property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this plat. Pedestrian Facilities: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property which addresses the requirements for pedestrian facilities. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 �� FAX 507/287-2275 Page 2 Final Plat #06-06 Pennington Business Park 7" March 29, 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: A 20' public utility easement will need to be dedicated at the time that Lot 2, Block 1 is developed for the required 8" public water main extension through the lot form the north side to the south side. Spillover Parking: Disposal of Trees & Brush: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: Parking for this development was reviewed at the time of the Site Plan Development Review. 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. The property will not be used for residential development, therefore there are no parkland dedication requirements. This property is included within the Pennington Properties General Development Plan (GDP). 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 has 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. A 20' public utility easement shall be dedicated at the time that Lot 2, Block 1 is developed for the required 8" public water main extension through the lot from the north side to the south side. 2. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the March 23, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 3/27/06 V1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287.7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-06 proposed as Pennington Business Park Seventh. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and development is subject to the terms of said Agreement. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are included in the Development Agreement and/or City -Owner Contract. C:\Documents and Settings\plasfoshLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C\FP06-06 Pennington Business Park 7th.doc if rpu - we plydye, we delivrr March 21. 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester. MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-06 by MSB Holdings Rochester, LLC to be known as Pennington Business Park Seventh. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our continents follow: A 20' public utility easement will need to be dedicated at the time that Lot 2, Block 1 is developed for the required 8" public water main extension through the lot from the north side to the south side. 2. Final construction plans for the water main extension will need to conform to the standard City of Rochester Requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly y',00u�ur--s,A'�.,& 06'vx Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention MSB Holdings Rochester, LLC Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Phone: (507) 285-8232 GISIAddressing Division Fax: (507) 287-2275 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: March 23, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM:. Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; Peter Oetliker RE: PENNINGTON BUSINESS PARK SEVENTH FINAL PLAT #06-08 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: $ 70.00 (1 LOTS/ADDRESSES) $480.00 (2 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/Ohnsted Countv Planning Dent. A review of the final plat has tamed up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: NOTE: There is only one addressing fee as one address already exists. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETII DATE: AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITE�. PUBLIC WORKS 2006APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ASSISTANCE I PREPARED BY: A KNAUER i., This is a public hearing to consider a proposed annual Program of Projects for the expenditure of federal transit assistance funds. Actual capital expenditures are still subject to Council approval and will be reviewed once the grants are approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The attached summary shows the available federal funds and a description of howthe City intends to commit those funds. This is referred to as the "Program of Projects". This 2006 program includes a number of funding sources that have been made available to the City. The 2006 apportionment for Rochester (Section 5307 funds) is $1,480,866. This can be used for operating or capital. The State requires that 50% of this amount be used for operating expenses. The program proposes to use $767,673 or approximately 52% for operations. The remainder is being carried over for future projects. Federal sources also included Section 5309 funds for bus purchases. These are special funds that are over the annual FTA apportionment. FTA capital grants such as for bus purchases provide 80% funding requiring a 20% local match. The current CIP shows 4 new buses in 2006. (One is on order. These funds will provide for the remaining three. Once the grants are approved and the equipment is ordered it takes 52 weeks until delivery. The actual expenditure is usually 30 days following delivery.) Other capital projects include; 5 buses in 2007 and design/ engineering to rebuild and enhance the downtown bus transfer facility and a future park and ride facility at 75t' Street NW. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolutions authorizing; 1. The submittal of a grant application for 2006 operating assistance to the Federal Transit Administration under 49 USC Section 5307 —Urbanized Area Formula and authorizing the Mayor's signature of subsequent grant contracts. 2. The submittal of grant applications for capital assistance based on the 2006 Program of Projects to the Federal Transit Administration under 49 USC Sections 5307 and 5309 and FHWA STP Transfer funds and authorizing the Mayor's signature of subsequent grant contracts. ...OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/06 A SECTION: Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department C EM DESCRIPTION: Providing Final Approval To The Issuance Of Revenue Bonds, Series I PREPARED BY: 2006, in the Amount of $125,000,000 On Behalf of Mayo Foundation Dale Martinson On February 22nd, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing and provided preliminary approval to the issuance of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $125,000,000 (the "Series 2006 Bonds") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165 (the "Act"), to finance on behalf of the Mayo Corporation and its affiliates the acquisition, construction and improvement of its health care facilities in the City (the "Project"). Drafts of the bond documents relating to the Series 2006 Bonds have now been presented to the City. The City's bond counsel has reviewed the documents, made various changes to protect the City's interest, and approved the final form. We are therefore recommending the Council provide final approval to the issuance. It is important to note that these bonds, if approved, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City and each bond, including interest when due, will be payable solely from the revenues pledged by Mayo Foundation for repayment. This debt would also not apply to the City's legal debt limit. To protect potential investors, Mayo has agreed to either have the bonds rated by a major rating agency, or require they be sold to "sophisticated investors" in increments of not less than $100,000. Recommendation: Approve the resolution giving final approval to the issuance of up to $125 million in revenue bonds on behalf of Mayo Foundation and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all documents necessary to complete the transaction. l r v =NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' ?0 DATE:4/3/06 v GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: IT ESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: rrc�rrinw o . RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERR�,AADKINS G. 1 G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Amending And Reenacting Ordinance No. 3747 Establishing The Salaries Of The Mayor, ' Councilmember-At-Large, and Councilmember for 2006, 2007, and 2008. G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS s COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 04/03/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. / REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works r/ i ITEM DESCRIPTION: Design Modification: Rose Harbor Third Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Freese The City has received a request from DeWitz Construction for a Design Modification to the City's Access Spacing Standards for driveways located on a major local collector roadway. Specifically, they request that six (6) individual driveways be permitted to take access to Eastwood Road SE from six individual residential lots as shown on GDP #265 Rose Harbor Third Subdivision. A Design Modification is requested because the required driveway access spacing on a major local collector (Eastwood Road) is 60 feet from edge to edge of driveway as noted in Section 64.143 of the Land Development Manual (LDM). The requested driveway layout is shown on the attached drawing. Separation between driveways will vary between approximately 20 feet and 45 feet instead of the required 60 feet. LDM Section 64.146 states where access meeting the spacing guidelines of Section 64.143 or the design objectives of 64.144 cannot be provided, the City Engineer shall be guided by the following process in determining whether a substandard access location may be permitted. 1. The City Engineer should first determine whether alternate access is available. Alternate access includes; a) access to another street that meets the standards of the ordinance b) access provided jointly with an adjacent property that will meet the standards of the ordinance 2. Where alternate access opportunities are determined not to exist, the City Engineer may grant a reduction in spacing standards. The particular layout of the duplex units (garages on the ends instead of in the middle with a shared driveway) is necessitated by the applicant's prior placement of engineered fill for three individual residential buildings on three lots. Applicant further states that the City's rezoning of the property across Eastwood Road made it impossible to market the original three R-1 lots and therefore seeks a rezoning of the property to R-2 and a further subdivision of the three lots into six lots. The new duplex units will be constructed upon the previously placed engineered fill. I have determined that there is no alternative access available either to another street or through joint access with another property. The applicant did not create the "hardship" from which it seeks relief. Applicant also seeks authorization to construct 5 foot wide sidewalks along the frontage of the entire property in lieu of a 10 foot wide pedestrian path. Staff is agreeable to this request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution in support of the City Engineer's findings that: 1. A Design Modification for driveway access spacing shall be granted for six driveways to serve the six lots to be created and known as Rose Harbor Third Subdivision. 2. Applicant shall construction 5 foot wide sidewalks in lieu of a 10 foot wide pedestrian path along the entire frontagerpf�Rose Harbor Third Subdivision. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: (7) m z rri 0 (A 0 r-m 0 (Al > M co > z;o00 r- 0 Z ;;u su \N01a22'59'V 150.M. dD - A�l C, 0 143.00� C O till 150.00 iZ CA N(311'22'59'W c6 1 F 1% m m LY) 0 V) OD 00 CDC dc) (3) C '150.00 N01.22,59-W V .9 co Coll 143.00', —.awl *04'39"W 33 WN L4 F� &I 6041 1 TH AVENUE NORTHWEST SUITE 100 ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 507-282.4624 Richard Freese City Engineer Honorable Mayor and City Council 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 March 28, 2006 Dear Richard; We would like to request a 5' sidewalk in front of our six lots on Eastwood Road. The Pedestrian Facilities Agreement has an option for the City to request either a 10' bituminous path or a 5' sidewalk, but with the street being shifted to the south side where we have to give up part of the lot for the street 10' would cut the green area down in front of the homes. A 5' sidewalk will keep the green area with the homes. The 5' sidewalk will also help align with the corner lot. We would also like to construct the sidewalk at the time of construction of the home because we will need to grade and sod the lots at that time just like we have done on all the homes we have built before. The sidewalks should be build along with the driveways. Sincerely, Robert DeWitz REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 04/03/06 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works t- Z ITEM DESCJIIPTIO_Reeeftsiel�f Final Plat Conditions /l C1C' Fifth Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Freese The City Council on 10/20/2003, as a condition of approval of the Final Plat for Pine Ridge Estates Fifth Subdivision, placed a hold on the issuance of Building Permits within that subdivision until the developer, Denny Peterson, constructed and received City Engineer approval of a secondary access to serve the subdivision. Unfortunately, that condition of final plat approval has been misinterpreted or otherwise overlooked and approximately half of the 35 lots in the Fifth Subdivision have been issued Building Permits. This past week I received calls from builders and their title companies because they bought lots from the developer (Denny Peterson) last year in the 51h Subdivision free and clear of any mechanics liens and any condition imposed by the city and now they cannot get a building permit. I'm told that Road Constructors (RCI) and possibly Yaggy Colby have both filed mechanics liens on the property. RCI liens are related to the 5th Subdivision and Yaggy's are related to a yet unplatted 61h Subdivision. The secondary access has been planned, but is yet to be platted as apart of the 61h Subdivision. A construction plan for the Secondary Access Road was submitted to the City in October 2003. The City never approved this secondary access road construction plan nor has the city approved a grading plan for the area in which the secondary access road is to be constructed. However, the secondary access road has been constructed without a Public Works approved grading plans or construction plans. What work that has been done is not an acceptable secondary access by definition of the LDM and does not meet city design standards. As City Engineer I could not accept the existing secondary access road. It is my opinion that a significant investment (> $25,000) must be made in this road to bring it up to city standards. As a condition of approval of the Pine Ridge Estates Fifth Subdivision the developer has provided to the city a $2,000 Surety available to the city use for the maintenance of the secondary access road. Ron Livingston, Brent Svenby, Ron Boose, Mike Nigbur, Doug Nelson and I meet today to discuss possible solutions. We concluded that the most expeditious solution was to recommend to the City Council that they adopt and record a resolution for the approved Final Plat for the Pine Ridge Estates Fifth Subdivision releasing the lots which have been sold to individual owners to facilitate the issuance of building permits to those persons who unknowingly acquired a lot in the Fifth subdivision when if fact a "no building permit hold" had been imposed on this subdivision by the City Council on 10/20/03. This resolution also will restate the plat conditions for the 51h Subdivision to notify potential purchasers of those remaining lots which are currently owned by the Developer. The two main conditions affecting Pine Ridge 4" & 5th Subdivisions include: Condition # 5 reads as follows: "Prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots within this plat, the secondary access to serve the development shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer, as stated in the executed Development Agreement." Condition # 6 reads as follows: "No building permits will be issued for the last ten (10) lots in the Pine Ridge Estates Fifth subdivision until or unless the final punch list items for the street and utility improvements in the Pine Ridge Estates Fifth are completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department." Since condition #5 affects lots within the 41h Subdivision as well as the 5th Subdivision the group supported the creation of a document by the City Attorney that could be recorded by the City against these remaining platted lots to advise would-be buyers that no building permit will be issued by the City for these lots until Conditions 5 and 6 have been satisfied. ICOUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt and record a prepared resolution releasing those lots previously sold and restating the plat conditions for the remaining lots owned by the Developer within the 5t Subdivision. Authorize the creation of a document that could be recorded by the City against the remaining un-built upon lots in the 41h and 5th Subdivisions to advise would-be buyers that no building permit will be issued by the City for these lots until Conditions 5 and 6 have been satisfied. Lots affected by the creation of the document includes: The following property in Pine Ridge Estates Fourth: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and13, all in Block 1, Lots 2 and 3, all in Block 2 AND The following property in Pine Ridge Estates Fifth: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 22, 23, 26 and 27, all in Block 1 Lots 1, 2 and 4, all in Block 3 Lots 1, 2 and 3, all in Block 4 NOTE: This list is based on recorded ownership and known purchase agreements as of 3/30/06. City staff may further modify this list as a result of documented other purchase agreements having been executed prior to 3/30/06. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: