The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/17/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 eH STREET SE MEETING NO. 10 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLEDGE OF A11E61AMCE PAGE: A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER (NO-N April 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 1-2 1) Presentation of Appreciation Plaque from U.S. Secret Service 3-4 D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes 5-6 2) Election of Officers to the City of Rochester's Economic Development Authority (EDA) 7-8 3) Appointment to the Rochester Arts Council 9-10 4) Bid Award for street and utility construction to serve Northwest Airport Industrial Development 11-20 5) Amending RCO 117 — South Amplification Device Permits and RCO 125A — Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance 21-22 6) Sound Amplification Requests 23-26 7) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 27-28 8) Approval of Accounts Payable 29-30 9) Accept Donation for Fire Safety House Graphics 31-32 10) Acceptance of Donation of Defibrillators from Phillips Medical Systems 33-34 11) 2007 Safe & Sober Communities Grant Application 35-36 12) Engineering Services to Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Design for Storm Water Ponds WC p 4.8 & WC p 4-11 (north of airport) Project J6553 & J 6554 37-40 13) Consideration of Bids: Sewer to Rochester Towne Club, REA Sewer Upgrade and Drainage Ditch Improvements J7745 41-42 14) Award of Contract: (J4610) 2006 Sidewalk Repair and Replacement of Public Sidewalk in Various Locations 43-44 15) Award of Contract: (J4609) Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various Locations 45-46 16) Award of Contract: (J7743) 7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge #55529 47-48 17) Amendment #1 to 2006 Rochester City Lines Contract Council Agenda Monday, April 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2 49-50 18) Real Estate — Annexation of properties in Cascade Township & Haverhill Township 51-52 19) Approve Engineering Services Contract for the Quarry Hill Ravine and Creek Stabilization Project 20) MnDOT Right of Way Permit Application: TH 52 East Frontage Road Construction from 65"h Street to 75 Street NW E) HEARINGS 53-64 1) Proposed Special District #18 to be known as the Forest Knoll Subdivision Single Purposed District. 65-78 2) Type III, Phase III Amendment to Restricted Development Permit #03-61, by LB Electric, Inc. located along the south side of TH 14 East, east of 401h Avenue S.E. 79-86 3) Final Plat #06-01 by Arcon Development to be known as Boulder Ridge Fifth Subdivision. 87-98 4) Final Plat #06-08, by The Gardens Manufactured Home Community, LLC to be known as The Gardens Fourth Subdivision. 99-118 5) Text Amendment #06-02, initiated by the Rochester City Council, to amend the Subdivision regulations to clarify the adequate public facilities requirements, clarify how a final plat relates back to a preliminary plat, and to correctly reflect the requirements for recording final plat documents, Sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual included in the amendment include: 60.200, 61.214, 61,215, 61.225, 61.230, 61.231, 61,233, 61.237, 61.251, 61.255, 61.584, and 64.131. 119-126 6) Text Amendment #06-01, initiated by the City Council to amend Section 62.278(5) and 60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual regarding private swimming pools. 127-132 7) Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Section 63.2241 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning districts are permitted to have banners. F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 133-154 1) Hawthorn Hills Purchase Agreement G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 155-156 H) TABLED ITEMS OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A ?M DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY. S.KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this foram. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/ 17/06 AGENDA SECTION: Letters & Petitions ORIGINATING DEPT: Administration ITE No. I M DESCRIPTION: Presentation of Appreciation Plaque from U.S. Secret Service PREPARED BY: S. Kvenvold Special Agent in Charge John Kirkwood of the United States Secret Service would like to present a plaque to the Rochester Police Department to express the Secret Service's appreciation for the City of Rochester's outstanding assistance with security for heads of state and political candidates. )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:_to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 2 DATE: 4/17/06 J CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR I D-1-19 N DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councihnembers 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) Election of Officers to the City of Rochester's Economic Development Authority (EDA) 3) Appointment to the Rochester Arts Council 4) Bid Award for street and utility construction to serve Northwest Airport Industrial Development -5) Amending RCO 117 — South Amplification Device Permits and RCO 125A — Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance - -6) Sound Amplification Requests '7) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 8) Approval of Accounts Payable 9) Accept Donation for Fire Safety House Graphics 10) Acceptance of Donation of Defibrillators from Phillips Medical Systems 11) 2007 Safe & Sober Communities Grant Application 12) Engineering Services to Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Design for Storm Water Ponds WC p 4.8 & WC p 4-11 (north of airport) Project J6553 & J 6554 13) Consideration of Bids: Sewer to Rochester Towne Club, REA Sewer Upgrade and Drainage Ditch Improvements J7745 14) Award of Contract: (J4610) 2006 Sidewalk Repair and Replacement of Public Sidewalk in Various Locations 15) Award of Contract: (J4609) Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various Locations 16) Award of Contract: (J7743) 7t' Street NW from 13a' Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge #55529 17) Amendment #1 to 2006 Rochester City Lines Contract 18) Real Estate — Annexation of properties in Cascade Township & Haverhill Township 19) Approve Engineering Services Contract for the Quarry Hill Ravine and Creek Stabilization Project COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Consent Agenda REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY .ADMINISTRATOR M DESCRIPTION: Election of Officers to the City of Rochester's Economic Develoment Authority (EDA) MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 ITEM NO. D-D- PREPARED BY: D. HANSON In 2001, the Rochester Common Council adopted a resolution to establish an Economic Development Authority comprised of the Rochester Common Council , along with adopting bylaws and appointment of the officers of the EDA. The purpose for doing so was to provide the City with the flexibility to utilize the broader authorities granted to an EDA under Statute for issuance of bonds and property ownership, as compared to those powers granted to the Common Council. Under the terms of Resolutions 01-001 and 01-002 (Bylaws and EDA Organizing Resolutions), the President, Vice - President and Treasurer shall be members of the Board (Council). The Assistant Treasurer and Secretary need not be members of the Board. In 2001, the Council appointed the Finance Director and City Clerk to those positions respectively. Under the Resolution 01-001 organizing the Rochester Economic Development Authority, the President shall be the chief presiding officer of the Board (Council), and submit recommendations concerning the business affairs and policies of the Authority. Since the Vice President and Treasurer positions have been vacated due to changes in the Board (Council) makeup, at s time, the President is recommending that Marcia Marcoux be elected Vice President and Robert Nowicki be elected e rer Ithe Rochester Economic Development Authority. jy Motion to elect Dennis Hanson as President, Marcia Marcoux as Vice President, and Robert Nowicki as F Treasurer of the Rochester Economic Development Authority. UUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: L Mayor & Council Stevan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM APRIL 17, 2006 AGENDA i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORGANIZING THE ROCHESTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Rochester Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") as follows: 1334505vl Recitals. A. On October 1, 2001, the City of Rochester, Minnesota, (the"City"), acting through its City Council, adopted a certain enabling resolution establishing the EDA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.108. B. The Board wishes to provide for the basic organization of the EDA, including appointment of officers and adoption of Bylaws. 2. Adoption of Bylaws and Appointment of Officers. The Board hereby (A) approves the Bylaws of the EDA, as presented on the date hereof for the Board's consideration, and (B) appoints and approves the following officers of the EDA: President: JOHN HUNZIKER Vice President: DENNIS HANSON Secretary: JUDY SCHERR Treasurer: DAVID SENJEM Assistant Treasurer: DALE MARTINSON The President shall be the chief presiding officer of the Board and shall have such other responsibilities as may be required by law or conferred on the President by resolution of the Board. In the absence of the President, the Vice -President shall assume all of said responsibilities of the President. The offices of President, Treasurer and Secretary shall be elected annually, as required by law. The Secretary shall act as the chief recording officer for the Board and shall maintain a file of minutes of Board meetings and resolutions. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.096, subd. 8, all checks of the EDA shall be signed by the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer and shall state the nature of the claim for which the check is issued. As required by law, the EDA shall adopt an official seal. 3. Regular Meetings of the Board. The Board's regular meetings shall be held at such times as the Board may designate. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AT ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF eT7Da5?— , 2001. P.OIDENT OF THE -BOARD ATTEST: ECRETARY Res2000\ResoluEDA.2 133450iv1 2 A A BYLAWS OF THE ROCHESTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARTICLE I — THE AUTHORITY Section 1. Name of Authority. The name of the Authority shall be the "Rochester Economic Development Authority" (which may sometimes be referred to as the "EDA" or the "Authority"), and its governing body shall be called the Board of Commissioners (the `Board"). The Board shall be the body responsible for the general governance of the Authority and shall conduct its official business at meetings thereof. Section 2. Seal of Authority. The Authority shall have an official seal, as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.096, Subdivision 1. Hall. Section 3. Office of Authority. The offices of the Authority shall be the Rochester City ARTICLE H — OFFICERS Section 1. Officers. The officers of the Authority shall be a President, a Vice -President, a Treasurer, an Assistant Treasurer, and a Secretary. The President, the Vice President, and the Treasurer shall be members of the Board and shall be elected annually, and no Commissioner may be both President and Vice -President simultaneously. The Assistant Treasurer and the Secretary need not be members of the Board. Section 2. President. The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board. Except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Board, the President and the Secretary (the Vice - President, in the Secretary's absence or incapacity) shall sign all contracts, deeds, and other instruments made or executed by the Authority, except that all checks of the Authority shall be signed by the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer. At each meeting, the President shall submit such recommendations and information as he or she may consider proper concerning the business, affairs, and policies of the Authority. Section 3. Vice -President. The Vice -President shall perform the duties of the President in the absence or incapacity of the President; and in case of the resignation or death of the President, the Vice -President shall perform such duties as are imposed on the President until such time as the Board shall select a new President. Section 4. Secretary. The Secretary shall keep minutes of all meetings of the Board and shall maintain all records of the Authority. The Secretary shall also have such additional duties and responsibilities as the Board may from time to time and by resolution prescribe. r Section 5. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have the care and custody of all funds of the Authority and shall deposit the same in the name of the Authority in such bank or banks as the Board may select. The Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer shall sign all orders and checks for the payment of money and shall pay out and disburse such moneys under the direction of the Board. The Treasurer shall keep regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures and shall render to the Board, at least annually (or more often when requested), an account of such transactions and also of the financial condition of the Authority. The Assistant Treasurer shall act as the Treasurer's agent and assistant to perform the above -described duties, subject to the Treasurer's approval thereof. Section 6. Additional Duties. The officers of the Authority shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Board or the bylaws or rules and regulations of the Authority. Section 7. Vacancies. Should the office of the President, Vice -President, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary become vacant, the Board shall elect a successor at the next regular meeting, or at a special meeting called for such purpose, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said officer. Section 8. Additional Personnel. The Board may from time to time employ such personnel as it deems necessary to exercise its powers, duties, and functions. The selection and compensation of such personnel shall be determined by the Board. ARTICLE III — MEETINGS Section 1. Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the Board shall occur according to a meeting schedule, if any, adopted or revised from time to time by resolution of the Board. Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the President or any two members of the Board from the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for a special meeting may be delivered at any time prior to the time of the proposed meeting to each member of the Board or may be mailed to the business or home address of each member of the Board at least two (2) days prior to the date of such special meeting. At such special meeting, no business shall be considered other than as designated in the call, but if at least four members of the Board are present at a special meeting, any and all business may be transacted at such special meeting. Notice of any special meeting shall be posted and/or published as may be required by law. Section 3. Quorum. The powers of the Authority shall be vested in the Board. Four Commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the business and exercising the powers of the Authority and for all other purposes, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. When a quorum is in attendance, action maybe taken by the Board upon a vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. 10 L Section 5. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have the care and custody of all funds of the Authority and shall deposit the same in the name of the Authority in such bank or banks as the Board may select. The Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer shall sign all orders and checks for the payment of money and shall pay out and disburse such moneys under the direction of the Board. The Treasurer shall keep regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures and shall render to the Board, at least annually (or more often when requested), an account of such transactions and also of the financial condition of the Authority. The Assistant Treasurer shall act as the Treasurer's agent and assistant to perform the above -described duties, subject to the Treasurer's approval thereof. Section 6. Additional Duties. The officers of the Authority shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Board or the bylaws or rules and regulations of the Authority. Section 7. Vacancies. Should the office of the President, Vice -President, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary become vacant, the Board shall elect a successor at the next regular meeting, or at a special meeting called for such purpose, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said officer. Section 8. Additional Personnel. The Board may from time to time employ such personnel as it deems necessary to exercise its powers, duties, and functions. The selection and compensation of such personnel shall be determined by the Board. ARTICLE III — MEETINGS Section 1. Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the Board shall occur according to a meeting schedule, if any, adopted or revised from time to time by resolution of the Board. Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the President or any two members of the Board from the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for a special meeting may be delivered at any time prior to the time of the proposed meeting to each member of the Board or may be mailed to the business or home address of each member of the Board at least two (2) days prior to the date of such special meeting. At such special meeting, no business shall be considered other than as designated in the call, but if at least four members of the Board are present at a special meeting, any and all business may be transacted at such special meeting. Notice of any special meeting shall be posted and/or published as may be required by law. Section 3. Quorum. The powers of the Authority shall be vested in the Board. Three Commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the business and exercising the powers of the Authority and for all other purposes, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. When a quorum is in attendance, action may be taken by the Board upon a vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. f Section 4. Order of Business. At the regular meetings of the Board, the following shall be the order of business: 1. Roll call 2. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting 3. Bills and Communications 4. Reports 5. Unfinished business 6. New Business 7. Adjournment. All resolutions shall be written or transcribed and shall be retained in the journal of the proceedings maintained by the Secretary. Section 5. Adoption of Resolutions. Resolutions of the Board shall be deemed adopted if approved by not less than a simple majority of all Commissioners present, unless a different requirement for adoption is prescribed by law. Resolutions may, but need not, be read aloud prior to vote taken thereon and may, but need not, be executed after passage. Section 6. Rules of Order. The meetings of the Board shall be governed by the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order. ARTICLE N — MISCELLANEOUS Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws. The bylaws of the Authority shall be amended only by resolution approved by at least three of the members of the Board. Section 2. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Authority shall coincide with the fiscal year of the City of Rochester. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AT ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS r1i DAY 2001. PRESIDENT'OF TH BOARD ATTEST: SEtCRETARY Res20WEDA.Bylawsl REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION M DESCRIPTION: Appointment to the Rochester Arts Council PREPARED BY: S. KVENV"OLD The arts organizations in Rochester are establishing a Rochester Arts Council and are requesting that the City Council appoint one representative (see attached). Council President Hanson has requested that Councilmember Means be appointed to the Rochester Arts Council by the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appointing Sandra Means as the Council's representative on the Rochester Arts Council. DUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ej R DA ster Downtown Alliance March 22, 2006 Mr. Dennis Hanson Rochester City Council 201 Fourth Street SE, Room 2( Rochester. MN 55904 Dear Dennis: The arts organizations in Rochester have decided to set up a Rochester Arts Council through the Minnesota Non -Profit Corporation Act. I am assisting them in getting this underway. They believe this council will help them kvntb their sense of identity and act as an affective social and political force. Hopefully this organization will set up new marketing offerings throughout the city of Rochester and make the arts experience more accessible to all of our audiences via print, web, and television. They have decided to have nine directors, one of which would be a person selected by the City Council. The other members would be as follows: four persons from the Arts Administrators Round Table, one person from the Rochester Downtown Alliance, one person appointed by the Mayor from the public, one person selected from the Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau, and one person selected by the Southeastern Minnesota Arts Council. The person you select would serve initially for two years. After this initial period of time, future directors would serve for three years. I would appreciate it if you would let me know the person your board wants on this council. With this information, we can get the Articles of Incorporation filed. I look forward to hearing from you. Warmest personal regards, DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE A. . Sandy Keith Executive Director amkeith a'.rdowntownalliance.com AMK tnrb 220 South Broadway • Suite 100 • Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Telephone: (507) 424-4744 • Fax: (507) 282-8960 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r MEETING DATE: 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DE ITEM NO. Rochester International Airport �Consent ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bid Award for street and utility construction to serve Northwest Airport PREPARED BY: Industrial Development. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Bid award to Rochester Sand & Gravel for the street and utility construction to serve Northwest Airport Industrial Development. City Project #5218. Bid amount: $263,185.20 (complete bid tabs attached) Eng. Estimate: $313,352.00 Funding: 100% Local DUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the bid award to Rochester Sand & Gravel. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4/17/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Clerk �5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amending RCO 117 - Sound Amplification Device Permits and RCO PREPARED BY: 125A - Alcoholic Beverages Ordinances Judy Scherr At the April 10, 2006, Committee of the Whole meeting Councilmembers considered the findings and recommendations from the Sound Ordinance Work Group to amend sections of RCO 117 (Sound Amplification) and RCO 125A (Liquor) ordinances and clarified the interplay with RCO 85.10 (General Noise Ordinance). As a result of discussions at the meeting, ordinance amendments will include: 1. Amend RCO 125A.27 so that repeated violations of RCO 85.10 and RCO 117 can result in the suspension or revocation of an establishment's liquor license. 2. Amend RCO 117 so that the terms and conditions of the use of the Sound Amplification permit are clearly stipulated on the permit application. 3. Amend RCO 117 to give the Council greater information and clearer criteria to better evaluate and respond to applications and complaints. 4. Establish a uniform standard as to how sound pressure levels will be measured by Police Officers using a Type I or Type II decibel meter, as defined by American National Standards Institute Specifications, Section 1.4-1971, using the A -weighted, fast response scale. 5. Amend RCO 117 to give the Council the authority to suspend or revoke existing Sound Amplification permits and/or deny Sound Amplification permits in the future for any violations under this chapter including refusal of a directive or order issued by a law enforcement officer in the implementation of this chapter. 6. Amend RCO 117 to allow for the issuance of a Sound Amplification Permit by: - maximum allowable sound pressure level no more than 85 decibels measured at the property line or venue boundary or -waive the maximum allowable sound pressure level and require the amplified sound to terminate no later than 10:30 PM. 6. Review RCO 117 prior to March 31, 2007. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED A motion to approve or deny the recommended changes to RCO 125A and RCO 117 and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance for adoption. It is requested that the rules be suspended and the ordinance receive a first and second reading at the meeting. �y ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING SECTION 117.011, 117.08, 117.09 AND 117.10, AND AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 117.04, 117.05, 117.06 AND SUBDIVISION 1 OF 125A.27 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO SOUND AMPLIFICATION DEVICE PERMITS. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 117.011 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 117.011. Purpose and Intent. Subdivision 1. The Common Council determines that the creation of excessive noise and sound within the City limits of Rochester is a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare and the quality of life of the citizens of the City. Citizens of the City have aright to an environment free from excessive noise and sound that may jeopardize their health, safety or welfare, or degrade their quality of rife. It is the City's objective to promote the peace and quiet enjoyment of residential neighborhoods. Subd. 2. At the same time, the Common Council recognizes the desire of many of the City's citizens to fully enjoy the outdoors especially when the weather permits for outdoor events. Citizens wish to take advantage of our short- lived warm weather by attending and participating in outdoor musical concerts, parties and other events. These outdoor events add to the quality of life in this City and help citizens endure our winter weather by looking forward to warmer weather. Subd.3. Accordingly, this chapter represents the Common Council's balancing of the City's citizens' interests in a quiet and peaceful community and their interests in enjoying the City's outdoor environment during times of good weather. Ultimately, the Council seeks to preserve, protect and promote the City's citizens' health, safety, welfare and quality of life. Section 2. Section 117.08 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 117.08. Suspension or Revocation of Permit. Subdivision 1. Any sound amplification device permit issued by the City may be suspended or revoked upon a finding that the permittee, during the term of the permit, failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, any directive or order issued by a law enforcement officer, any condition imposed upon the issuance of the permit, any term or provision stated upon the permit, or any applicable federal or state statute, administrative rule, or city or county ordinance. 13 Subd.2. A person's right to apply for and receive a sound amplification device permit may be suspended or revoked upon a finding that the person has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, any directive or order issued by a law enforcement officer, any condition imposed upon the issuance of the permit, any term or provision stated upon the permit, or any other applicable federal or state statute, administrative rule, or city or county ordinance. Subd. 3. Any suspension or revocation of a permit must occur only after a public hearing has occurred before the Common Council with notice and an opportunity to be heard provided to the permittee or person who is the subject of the hearing. Section 3. Section 117.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 117.09. Permittee's Presence On Location. The permittee shall keep the permit in possession at all times at the location where sound amplification is occurring under the authority of the permit, and shall present the permit upon demand by a law enforcement officer. The contact person, as required to be named in the application form pursuant to section 117.04 (C), must be physically on location during the time the permit is effective or must have made some other arrangement with and satisfactory to a law enforcement officer. Section 4. Section 117.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 117.10. Penalties. Subdivision 1. No person shall violate any provision of this chapter. No person shall violate any directive or order issued by a law enforcement officer in the implementation of this chapter, any condition imposed upon the issuance of the permit, or any term or provision stated upon the permit. A violation of this subdivision is punishable as a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. Upon a finding that a permittee or person has violated any provision of this chapter, any directive or order issued by a law enforcement officer in the implementation of this chapter, any condition imposed upon the issuance of the permit, or any term or provision stated upon the permit, the Council may suspend or revoke the permit or the person's ability to obtain a permit pursuant to section 117.08. Subd. 3. No person may be prosecuted for any violation of section 85.10 if, at the time of the alleged violation, a permit had been issued to the person under this chapter. Subd. 4. The penalties provided for in this section are cumulative. FA- \k Section 5. Section 117.04 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and re-enacted to read as follows: 117.04. Application for Permit. Each applicant for a permit shall file a written application with the city clerk for submission to the city council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Such application must be accompanied by payment of the license fee as established by city council resolution and contain the following information: A. The location for which the permit is sought; B. The dates and times of the event for which the permit is sought; C. The name, address and telephone number (land line and wireless) of the applicant and the contact person named by the applicant to implement the permit and to be on site during the event for which the permit is sought. The contact person must be responsible for permit's compliance with the laws of this chapter and any terms or conditions imposed upon the approval of the permit. D. A description of the facilities and arrangements to be implemented for the handling of food, medical needs, sanitation, fire services, garbage disposal, and security including crowd control and traffic control; E. A sketch, site plan, stage plot or other description of the land and premises to be used for the event for which the permit is sought; F. A description of the entertainment intended to be provided, including the type of entertainment, the location where it is to be staged or provided, the dates and time frames during which entertainment is to be provided, a statement as to the maximum number of persons who will be permitted to be in attendance on any particular day and a description of the means by which attendance will be limited to such number of persons; G. A written statement from the Chief of Police or the Chiefs designee stating that, in the Chiefs opinion, appropriate arrangements have been made to provide adequate security and police protection for the event for which the permit is sought including crowd control, traffic control and police protection for adjacent property owners; H. A description of the means and methods proposed by the applicant to prevent noise from the event from unreasonably disturbing those persons who live or work in the vicinity of the event. V� A statement from the applicant indicating the applicant has obtained a copy of this chapter, has read and does understand the regulations found within this chapter, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within this chapter and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. J. A statement from the applicant as to whether the applicant requests the maximum sound measurement pursuant to section 117.06, subdivision 2, or the time restriction pursuant to section 117.06, subdivision 3, and the reasons for such request. K. Such other information that the City Clerk, City Administrator, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Planning Director or City Attorney may reed in order to carry, out the purposes of this chapter. Section 6. Section 117.05 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 117.05. Issuance of Permit: Terms. Subdivision 1. The Council must consider each application for a sound amplification permit in light of all of the following criteria: A. The volume, frequency and type of sound to be generated; B. The day of the week, time of day and duration of the sound to be generated; C. The character and nature of land uses underlying and adjacent to the event generating the noise D. The proximity and compatibility of the event generating the noise to residential, religious or medical facilities, or the general public; E. The sufficiency of the arrangements made to provide adequate security, garbage disposal, crowd control and parking control Subd. 2. The City must not issue any permit to any person who has, during the past 12 months, failed to observe the terms and conditions of any previously issued sound amplification device permit or who has had his or her right to apply for and receive a permit suspended or revoked under section 117.08, subd. 2. The City must not issue any permit for any location where, during the past 12 months, there has been an incident involving the failure to observe the terms and conditions of any previously issued sound amplification device permit. 2 `11 Subd. 3. The Council may impose conditions upon its issuance of any permit that are reasonably related to the satisfaction of the provisions or the furtherance of the objectives of this chapter. Subd. 4. The permittee shall keep the permit in possession at all times at the location where sound amplification is being made under the authority of the permit, and shall present the permit upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Section 7. Section 117.06 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 117.06, Maximum Sound Measurement and Time Restriction. Subdivision 1. The measurement of sound pressure levels shall be made with a Type I or Type II decibel meter, as defined by the American National Standards Institute Specifications, Section 1.4-1971, using the A -weighted, fast response scale. The decibel meter microphone shall be placed three to five feet above ground level and positioned so as not to create any unnatural enhancement or diminution of the measured sound pressure level. Subd. 2. Except as provided in subdivision 3, no person shall exceed the maximum allowable sound pressure level. The maximum allowable sound pressure level is 85 decibels measured at the property line or venue boundary. Subd. 3 The Council, in issuing the Permit and in consideration of the criteria provided in section 117.05, subdivision 1, may waive the maximum allowable sound pressure level provided in subdivision 2 and replace it with a restriction requiring the amplified sound to terminate no later than 10:30 p.m., on the day of each event covered by the Permit. - If applicable under this subdivision, no person shall allow the amplified sound to continue beyond 10:30 p.m. Section 8. Subdivision 1 of Section 125A.27 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 125A.27. Suspension or Revocation of License. Subdivision 1. Any license or permit issued by the City pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be suspended or revoked upon a finding that the licensee or permit holder, during the term of the license or in connection with the application, transfer or renewal of such license, failed to comply with any applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverage, violated section 85.10 or violated any provision of chapter 117. In the case of an intoxicating liquor/civic center license, the expiration or other termination of the license holder's contract with the city to provide concession services at the civic center also constitutes grounds for revocation of the license. Section 9. This Ordinance shall become effective upon the date of its publication and shall terminate as of March 31, 2007. ki / PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF (Sea[ of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) OrdC51117.04 FlnalVersion DAY OF 2006. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL MAYOR OF SAID CITY 2006. Ell April 10, 2007 Committee of the Whole Sound Ordinance Work Group Findings & Recommendations 1) Council received Background Information & Benchmarking Data at its January 6, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting_ a) Council asked the Work Group to formulate recommendations based on the data provided. b) Council was invited to provide input and ask questions relative to this matter. 2) The work group met on Thursday, April 06, 2006 to review the Background Information & Benchmarking Data as well as to review draft ordinance revision language crafted by the City Attorney. 3) Work Group findings/recommendations are as follows: a) Clarify the interplay between the city's general noise ordinance (RCO 85.10) and the sound amplification device ordinance (RCO 117). b) The "bass noise" emanating from inside certain establishments is dealt with in RCO 85.10, § 1 -- No person shall make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, convenience, safety, health, welfare or repose ofpersons in the vicinity thereof, unless the making, continuing, or causing to be made or continued of such noise cannot be prevented and is necessaryfor the protection or preservation of property or of the health, safety, life or limb of some person. The receipt of a sound amplification permit under the provisions of Chapter 117 of this code is a defense to this section so long as the permittee complies with the conditions contained in the permit. Law enforcement may issue citations for noise that exceeds or is otherwise in violation of this subdivision or the conditions contained in a sound amplification permit, and may order the person violating this subdivision to stop making the noise or using the sound amplification device. c) Amend RCO 85.10 and RCO 125A so that repeated violations of RCO 85.10 can result the suspension or revocation of an establishment's liquor license. d) Strengthen the language of RCO 117 so that the terms and conditions of the use of Sound Amplification Devices are clearly stipulated on the permit application. Sound Ordinance Work Group Findings & Recommendations Page I of 2 i kq e) Strengthen the language of RCO 117 so that Council is provided with greater information and clear criteria to better evaluate and respond to permit applications and complaints. f) Strengthen the language of RCO 117 so that Council may suspend or revoke existing permits and/or deny future Sound Amplification Permit applications. g) Adopt language in RCO 117.06a that sets a uniform, maximum allowable sound pressure level, e.g., The maximum allowable sound pressure level shall not exceed 85 decibels measured at the property line or venue boundary. h) Adopt a new section 117.06b that details how sound pressure measurements are to be made e.g., The measurement of sound pressure levels shall be made with a Tyne I or Type lI decibel meter, as defined by American National Standards Institute Specifications Section 1 4-1971 using the A -weighted. fast response scale The decibel meter microphone shall be placed three to five feet abovzroe and level and positioned so as not to create any unnatural enhancement or diminution of the measured sound pressure level_ Respectfully Submitted by the Sound Ordinance Work Group: Terry Adkins Hayford John Randy Klement Roger Peterson Judy Scherr Steven Schmidt Terry Spaeth Sound Ordinance Work Group Findings & Recommendations Page 2 of 2 r 9 ROCHESTER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Outdoor Sound Amplification Permit Policy Statement - FINAL The Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce appreciates businesses within our community who invest in outdoor entertainment venues which enhances our quality of He in our great and growimgcommumty. The Chamber's Hospitality l' initiative views this as an added amenity that our community needs to draw events and conventions to our city and improve the overall quality of life. I October 61'the ROcherter C I y Council review5u' the sound amplification. VLL VGLo LSer permit process following complaints from area residents in regards to a few outdoor entertainment events this past summer. Following the discussion the Council asked staff to review possible options for discussion at a later data. From the Chamber's perspective the permit should include: • The sound amplification permit process should be the same for everyone. 'Whether it is a community event, non-profit fizndraiser, or a for profit event.....everyone should have to follow the same guidelines. • The permit should include an acceptable decibel level in areas adjacent to the event unless other zoning ordinances apply. By having a threshold, this would aid in enforcement while providing reasonable parameters for permit holders. This would provide for a more consistent response to noise complaints. The Rochester police department should invest in purchasing decibel meters for enforcement purposes. Applicants are limited to 24 hours per month per location. ( example: either 6 four hour events or 3 eight hour events) The sound amplification portion of each event must be over by 11:00 p.m. unless the City Council approves the applicant's request for a condition to extend the hours. • The event dates must occur in the summer or a non -school night Appropriate non -temporary entertainment structure is strongly encouraged although not required. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/17/069! AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CTTY CLERK , , ,!M DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS PREPARED BY: DONNA ISCHOTT The following Sound Amplification requests 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. SOUND AMPLIFICATION Alliance of Chicanos, Hispanics and Latin Americans 150413'h Ave NE Rochester, Mn 55906 Cinco de Mayo Celebration 5/6/06 ll:00 AM to 4:30 PM River View Patio behind Civic Center Dos Amigos 11 Restaurant 200StSE Rochester, Mo. 55904 Cinco de Mayo Celebration 5/5/06 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM Restaurant Parldng Lot Boomers Lounge 3737 40'h Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 30 Year Class Reunion 7/14/06 6:30 PM tol 1:00 PM Mn State Harley Owners Rally, Inc. %Scott Gerr 814 7t' Ave SW Faribault, Mn. 55021 Harley Rally 6/16tb & 17tb, 2006 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM Olmsted County Fairgrounds Team Rochester 1815 38 h St NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Prayer Festival 5/6/06 12:00 Noon to 6:00 PM Soldiers Field _ :)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: r Plp SOUND AMPLIFICATION 0 PAGE 2 APRIL 17, 2006 Rochester Track Club PO Box 6711 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Running Race Event 5/13/06 6:00 AM to Noon Soldiers Field COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approve contingent that the applicants complete the new application for sound amplification permits and are subject to the new regulations and departmental approvals. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 4/3/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: REM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK EM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA J SCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — TEMPORARY Junior Achievement of the Upper Midwest 33416'b St SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Raffle 7/4/06 AT �. Silver Lake Park 7d' St & West Silver Lake Dr NE / Sunset Terrace PTA 1707 19a' Ave NW Rochester, MN. 55901 Raffle 5/19/06 Trout Unlimited 4034 Huntington In 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 OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: #, LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 APRIL 4, 2006 ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR — TEMPORARY Masque Youth Theatre and School 140StSW 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 �U 3905 18"' Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 SOUND AMPLIFICATION MN State Harley Owner's Group % Scott Gerr 81470'AveSW Faribault, Mn. 55021 U Olmsted County Fairgrounds 6/16/06 to 6/17/06 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM Juvenile Diabetes Foundation % Tom O'Leary 805 15t Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Roll and Stroll Fundraiser Soldiers Field 5/21/06 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM LICENSES, NONDS AND MISCELLANEOU CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 3 APRIL 3, 2006 MISCELLANEOUS MN State Harley Owner's Group % Scott Gerr 8147"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 15a' Ave SE Southeast Minnesota Youth Orchestra (SENYO) %Jerry Wille 1500 7' Ave NE Rochester, Mo. 55906 5K Run/Walk 4/15/06 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM Soldiers Field — Zumbro 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 17a' 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 / MEETING 71 DATE: 4/17/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Finance Department _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Approval of Accounts Payable Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of $4,449,558.32 Accounts payable of $4,180,508.55 Total disbursements $8,630,066.87 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING r DATE: 4(17(06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: FIRE ITEM NO. p --q ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: ACCEPT DONATION FOR FIRE SAFETY HOUSE GRAPHICS DC Felsch The Fire Department requests approval of a $1,000 donation from Summit Fire Protection to help pay for the graphic fire safety messages to be applied to the exterior of the new Fire Safety House we received in October 2005. These graphics will be professionally applied by a local contractor and will remain for the life of the Safety House. This unit is a mobile billboard for fire safety messages as it travels around the city for fire safety demonstrations and especially teaching regarding recommended use of fire sprinklers in both commercial and residential construction. Summit Fire Protection has agreed to partner with Rochester Fire Department and the National Fire Sprinkler Association in helping fund these fire safety messages. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval to accept $1,000 donation from Summit Fire Protection. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 k DATE April 17. 200 erENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police and Fire () _ (b ITEM DESCRIPTION: Acceptance of Donation of Defibrillators from Philips Medical Systems PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson When a person suffers a cardiac arrest that is related to heart disease, quite frequently, the person's heart is in a rhythm known as ventricular fibrillation (VF). When the heart is beating in this manner the chambers of the heart are contracting in a chaotic manner that leaves the heart unable to pump blood through the body. If this rhythm is not corrected within eight to ten minutes, death will result. Defibrillation is the process of applying a specially designed electrical charge to the heart to stop VF and hopefully allow the return of a normal cardiac rhythm. Medical studies have proven that the sooner a fibrillating heart can be defibrillated, the better the changes that the person will survive. When a person suffers a cardiac arrest it is essential to do everything humanly possible to get defibrillation equipment to the person quickly. Often times, 911 will be called and it is the Police Department that will arrive on the scene first. Many of the squad cars carry defibrillates and officers are trained on their use. As of March 12, 2006 the Early Defibrillation Program has saved the lives of 93 people in our community. Phillips Medical Systems is donating 18 (eighteen) defibrillators to the City of Rochester for use by the Rochester Police and Fire Departments for the Defibrillation Program. The Police Department will receive 12 (twelve) defibrillators and the Fire Department 6 (six). These defibrillators will replace existing defibrillators. The value of the defibrillators is estimated at $49,400. There is no match required for their acceptance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the acceptance of the donation of defibrillators from Phillips Medical Systems for use by the Police and Fire Departments. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33l DATE: 4/17/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police b_' I i i tM DESCRIPTION: 2007 Safe & Sober Communities Grant Application PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The Rochester Police Department would like to apply for the Safe & Sober Communities 2007 grant program through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety. The Department of Public Safety is seeking proposals to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic safety issues with an emphasis on impaired driving and passenger protection use. The purpose of the program is to promote the safety of those who use public roadways. Traffic safety interventions have been proven to reduce deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicle crashing. Grant funds are for additional funding for enhanced enforcement. Cities and/or counties are strongly encouraged to join forces and submit a joint application. Working cooperatively with another agency is rewarded in the evaluation of proposals. The Rochester Police Department would like to join forces with the Ohnsted County Sheriff's Department and submit a joint application. The City would serve as the lead agency and act as the fiscal agent and administer the grant. The grant funds are available on a cost reimbursement basis. Costs are reimbursed after they are incurred and paid by the grantee agency. The project year begins on October 1, 2006 and ends on September 30, 2007. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to apply and accept Safe & Sober grant funds and to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE & SOBER Communities during the period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. Further it is requested that the Police Chief, Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Rochester, Rochester Police Department and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. . OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3< � 4/17/06 ENDA CONSENT AGENDA I ORIGINA PubliINGc Works EPT:ITEM NO. _' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services to Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary I PREPARED BY: Design for Storm Water Ponds WC p 4.8 & WC p4.11 (north of J. Wellner Pt'l�y airport) Project J 6553 & J 6554 The Storm Water Management Master Plan indicates the need for stone water management ponds to serve the drainage flowing from the city airport properties. Two of these ponds are noted to the north of the airport property and will serve the northern portions of the airport, the developed and developing portions of the airport property and some developing areas north of the land. These ponds will be located to the north of CSAH 15. This location was selected to reduce the interference with airport operations that waterfowl common to storm water pond could cause. The ponds will be design to provide storm water management. Treatment storm water related to specific airport operations, such as deicing, must be addressed with other facilities or airport operational procedures. McGhie & Betts, Inc. has provided a proposal for the professional services required to evaluate the feasibility of constructing the 2 storm water management ponds, WC p4.8 & WC p4.11. McGhie & Betts was an extensive history of service to the Rochester Airport in various airport construction activities and is familiar with many of the details of the airport property that would impact the design requirements of the storm water ponds. The proposal for Preliminary Design services is for $9,800 provided on an hourly rate basis. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an engineering service agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. in the amount of $9,800.00 for the Preliminary Design of 2 storm water management ponds north of the airport. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 51 DATE: 4117/06 :ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: AGENDA Public Works ITEM NO. 13 CONSENT I _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: Sewer to Rochester Towne Club, REA PREPARED BY: Sewer Upgrade and Drainage Ditch Improvements, J7745 J. Loehr J( Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 5, 2006 for the following local improvement project: Project No. M5-30, J7745 "Extend Sanitary Sewer from the REA Sub-trunkline to Rochester Towne Club Development, Upgrade REA Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, and Drainage Ditch Improvements from TH 14 East to Stormwater Pond EP-16". The following bids were received: Road Constructors 255,795.10 (Low Bid) Hodgman Drainage 262,223.25 Elcor Construction 275,473.50 McHugh Excavating 283,461.05 Blitz Construction 297,432.25 Winona Excavating 306,658.75 Winona Mechanical 305,092.00 Swenke Company 313,685.00 A-1 Excavating 338,309.00 Engineer Estimate $319,510.00 The project is included in the 2006 Capital Budget, Sewer and Water, project no. 10, page 60. The sanitary sewer extension is necessary to provide sewer service to portions of Rochester Towne Club Development that is located north of Eastwood Road SE, and to a small portion of the Development that is located south of Eastwood Road SE. The 2006-2011 CIP does not include the REA sub-trunkline upgrade or the ditch work. The REA upgrade is necessary to provide sanitary sewer capacity to the REA sewer service area lying east of East Circle Drive. The drainage ditch is necessary to convey storm water from Rochester Towne Club Development to the stormwater pond Ep-16 that is located east of East Circle Drive. The project is proposed to be funded by contributions from Platinum Development for the extension of sanitary sewer from the REA sub-trunkline to Rochester Towne Club, Sewer Utility Share for the upgrade from the east side of East Circle Drive to approximately feet west, and from stormwater management fees for the construction of a drainage ditch from TH 14 to stormwater Pond EP-16. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to Road Constructors. Attachment: Location Map Budget and Assessment Schedule COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: � z u \ \ / / < 2j/ \\j z0$ixL- \>-/0 //2LLJ Wzƒ<Z 0 zzTZ �/g\� \ f / NO LU <//�— ce=z— /\/� §>U ryl) ce02� \: /\\ \_ / < / f < O 2 3 } j ¢!u | g;w31i ± , ems,mom SIN3W3AONdWI s8nd 4§||! z \ \ ) \ !§ §| ;�.•• ( !� F �, ] HIT ` � ; � ;� i ■ ! El y q� 3 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No.: M5-30 Date (Orig.) 416/2006 J No.: 7745 Description: "Extend Sanitary Sewer from the REA Sub-trunkline to Rochester Towne Club Development, Upgrade REA Sub-trunkline sanitary Sewer, and Drainage Ditch Improvements from TH 14 East to Stormwater Pond EP-16." Construction Contract Cost Final Cost Sanitary Sewer $ 188,195.00 $ 177,797.10 Storm Sewer $ 131,510.00 $ 77,998.00 Sub -Total $ 319,705.00 $ 255,795.10 Engineering/Interest/Contingencies $ 95,911.50 $ 76,738.53 Total $ 415,616.50 $ 332,533.63 Cost Distribution Platinum Development $ 119,016.33 $ 112,252.40 (by Development Agreement) REA Sub-trunkline Previously Collected SAC $ 61,645.34 $ 58,141.92 Sewer Utility $ 61,645.33 $ 58,141.91 Drainage Ditch Stormwater Fees $ 170,709.50 $ 103,997.40 Total $ 413,016.50 $ 332,533.63 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 04/17/06 PENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works �::)— 14 ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J4610) P PA ED BY: 2006 Sidewalk Repair and Replacement of Public Sidewalk in J. Wellner Various Locations Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 12, 2006 for the following local improvement. Proiect Name and Number: 2006 Sidewalk Repair and Replacement of public sidewalk in various locations. City NoM6-04 (J4610) Proiect Backaround The Project to repair and replacement of public sidewalk at various locations was included in the City's 2006 — 2011 Capital Improvement Program, with a recommended 2005 construction. A portion of the costs of this project will be charged to abutting property owners and the remaining costs will be paid by general tax levy budgeted to fulfill the city's sidewalk maintenance obligations under current city policy. Annually the Department of Public Works inspects a portion of the public sidewalks within the city. Inspections are conducted pursuant RCO Chapter 72. These inspections are conducted in response to citizen complaint or reports of sidewalk falls. In addition, a portion of the city is designated for sidewalk inspection each year. Inspections are conducted keep the public sidewalks in repair and safe for pedestrians as set forth in Chapter 72. The owner of the property abutting a sidewalk with a safety defect is duly notified, advising the property owner of their responsibility to repair the sidewalk. The property owners are given the option to repair the sidewalk themselves, to hire a licensed contractor or to have the city complete the repairs. Should the property owner fail to make the required repairs with the 60-day time period set forth in Chapter 72, the city will then proceed to make the repairs. The city will then bill the property owner for any repairs made by the city. Although city forces complete a large number of sidewalk repairs each year, more sidewalk repairs fall to the city forces than can be completed with staff available. Whenever, the backlog of sidewalk repairs becomes large, staff requests that a public project be conducted by private contractor. The last such project was completed in 2002. The backlog has again grown so large that another sidewalk repair and replacement project is needed. The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Doyle Conner $ 120,748.29 2. Ti-Zack $ 157,487.69 Engineers Estimate $ 83,902.12 Proiect Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, (J4610) 2006 Sidewalk Repair and Replacement of Public Sidewalk in Various Locations to Doyle Conner in the amount of $ 120,748.29 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 43 ' DATE: 04/17/06 3ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. i� IS ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J4609) PR PARED BY: Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various Locations . Wellner { Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 12, 2006 for the following local improvement. Proiect Name and Number: Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various Locations City NoM6-01 (J4609) Project Background The Project to construct public sidewalk at various locations was included in the City's 2005 — 2010 Capital Improvement Program, with a recommended 2005 construction. The costs of this project will be paid from assessment charges to abutting property owners. Project and Assessment Hearing were held by council on March 6, 2006 for the project. Construction work on this project will not begin until June 1, 2006. The followina bids were received: Total Bid 1. Innovative Contractors Inc $ 109,160.10 2. Doyle Conner $ 120,004.98 3. Ti-Zack $ 127,063.25 4. Floyd Larson $ 161,407.00 Engineers Estimate $ 121,288.50 Project Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, (J4609) Construction of Public Sidewalk at Various Locations to Innovative Contractors Inc in the amount of $ 109,160.10. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: Qs. 04/17/06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works )\ , ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J7743) PREPARED BY: 7th Street NW from 13" Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 R. Kelm Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 12, 2006 for the following local improvement. Project: City No. 6207-4-05 (J7743) SAP 159-104-15 Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from 13th Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529. Project Background: 7t St NW was originally scheduled to be reconstructed from 11 th Ave NW to North Broadway (TH 63) in 2005. As the scope of the project expanded to include storm sewer work from 13`n Ave NW the project was divided into two phases. The City Council approved the first phase reconstruction from Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 to North Broadway (TH 63) on May 15, 2005. The currently proposed project is the second phase of the original reconstruction project for 7th Street NW. An informational meeting was held with the abutting property owners on February 15, 2006, and reschedule due to snow storm to March 1, 2006. 4 of the 54 properties were represented at the meeting. The Assessment and Project Hearings were adopted by the city council on March 6, 2006. i1 . r The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Elcor Construction $ 2,443,558.75 j m 2. Road Constructors, Inc $ 2,589,903.79 11STN '- 3ST NW�^i Engineers Estimate $ 2,378,690.70 > 6ET NW,¢ F CIVIC CENTER DR z y t I 3 / < CENTER ST W 25T SW Proiect Recommendation: Upon concurrence with the Mn/DOT, the Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, (J7743) Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from 131h Ave NW to Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 to Elcor Construction. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION i MEETING 04-1 - 6 DATE: ENDA sFpom ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC � I N- I-1 ITEM TO 2006 ROCHESTER CITY LINES CONTRACT PREPARED BY: A KNAUER L This is a request to amend the 2006 Rochester City Lines contract. The company is reimbursed on a deficit basis. (Expenses less revenues.) The contract provides for a monthly progress payment of $60,000 towards the prior months deficit. The balance of the deficit is paid upon receipt of the invoice. For example the progress payment for the January, 2006 deficit is released on February 1 with the balance due upon invoice. Due to changes in accounting procedures and increased expenses staff is recommending the progress payment be increased to $70,000. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution amending Paragraph 2.b "Disbursements" of the 2006 contract with Rochester City Lines increasing the monthly progress payment to $70,000. This change in disbursements would take effect with the April, 2006 progress payment to be released on Mayl , 2006. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 1 DATE: 1 4117106 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate - Annexation of properties in Cascade Township & PREPARED BY: Haverhill Township M. Nigbur' 0,1�17 The City of Rochester has property known as the Hawthorn Hills Golf Learning Center. This property has been discussed for various uses including development of the property and development of a 9 hole golf course and expansion of the golf learning center. In anticipation of future City development Staff is recommending the property be annexed into the City at this time. Since the property is owned by the City there is statutory authority (State Statute #414.033) allowing cities to annex property that they own. f I , .- ri J --: II - -' ILLT COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to adopt the Ordinance for annexation the City's property known as the Hawthorn Hills Golf Learning Center Property. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: D.V --- nll I\Xd TTrDT To\D/ Al I - II Cn2 D-1 Ae«era A---- 9 A— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 ,ENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N Public Works 14 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve Engineering Services Contract for the Quarry Hill Ravine PREPARED BY: and Creek Stabilization Project 1 B. Huberty Last November, the City Council approved a contract with the HR Green / Inter-Fluve team to complete a geomorphic analysis and preliminary design work to address creek and ravine stabilization issues at Quarry Hill Park. Our consultants have analyzed the situation and provided the following recommendations to be constructed beginning late summer of 2006: 1. Manage flows in the highly eroded West Ravine with a storm pipe and re -grading. 2. Use a treatment train approach in the Northwest Ravine, consisting of: a. Extending storm sewer pipe underneath private yards, b. Constructing a bicengineered channel bed with grade control riffles to stabilize the drainage channel, c. Constructing a wet sedimentation basin for storm water quality treatment, and d. Constructing an infiltration basin for storm water volume control and aquifer recharge. 3. Resolve vertical instability problems along the North Fork of Quarry Hill Creek through re- grading and the construction of a dry detention basin that provides storm water rate control, water quality treatment, and modest volume control. Multiple recommendations were also provided as part of the final concept design report to address stabilization concerns along the Main Stem of Quarry Hill Creek. It is proposed that final design for the Main Stem be completed as a third phase of this project, with final design and construction targeted for 2007. Design and construction of this project is being coordinated with the design and construction of a new sanitary sewer line that will extend through Quarry Hill Park to serve new development near the East Circle Drive / Viola Road intersection. Funding for this project has been approved in the 2006 CIP storm water utility budget (J6512). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve an amendment to the cost-plus Engineering Services Contract with HR Green to provide final design, bidding oversight and construction oversight for the first construction phase of the Quarry Hill Ravine and Creek Stabilization Project, with costs not to exceed $139,964.95. =NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: P:'PR0JECTS\J-PR0.IV65I2 Quarry HIII',RCA2.D0C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: MnDOT Right -of -Way Permit Application: TH 52 East Frontage PREPARED BY: Road Construction from 65`h Street to 751h Street NW R. Freese MnDOT recently denied a Right -of -Way Permit requested by Prairie Crossing LLC to place fill in the TH 52 right-of-way as a part of the construction of the East Frontage Road connecting 65d' and 751h Streets NW. The area in which the fill is to be located is a portion of the land MnDOT purchased from Jerry Nelson for the ROC 52 Project for a stormwater pond that MnDOT did not build. The frontage road right-of-way and the TH 52 right-of-way abut at the particular location in question. The elevation of the frontage road is higher than the abutting MnDOT right-of-way. The encroachment into the MnDOT right-of-way is estimated to not exceed 50 feet in width. The alignment of the frontage road would need to be shifted easterly approximately 50 feet to avoid filling on MnDOT right-of-way. The shift in the alignment reduces the amount of developable property within the Prairie Crossing development to a greater extend than the amount of the encroachment on to the MnDOT right-of-way. Mr. Nelson has asked MnDOT to sell him back the parcel. MnDOT has refused to sell Mr. Nelson the land at this time indicating that a portion may be needed for a future TH 52 65`h Street interchange northbound on -ramp. The alignment of the proposed East Frontage Road is consistent with the City approved Official Street Map 14 (OSM 14). MnDOT was offered an opportunity to comment on the OSM 14 before its approval. MnDOT offered no comments on OSM 14 before approval by the City Council. I suggested to Bill Tointon that Mr. Nelson should reapply for the Permit to fill in the MnDOT right-of- way for the frontage road and this time have the City co-sign the Permit application. I am in receipt of a revised MnDOT Right -of -Way Permit application. The City Administrator has indicated the Council should determine if the City should co-sign the permit application. The City Council approve the filing of the permit application may carry more weight with MNDOT. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the City Engineer to co-sign a MnDOT Application for Installation of Utilities or Miscellaneous Work on Trunk Highway Right -of -Way provided Prairie Crossing LLC signs a document prepared by the City Attorney that holds the City harmless from any liability for work associated with the filling in MnDOT's right-of-way and subsequent construction of the East Frontage Road connecting 65'h Street and 75`h Street NW. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 6 / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4-17-06 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Forest Knoll Subdivision Special District Ordinance PREPARED BY: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner April 12, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on March 22, 2006, The applicant, Mr. Larry Frank of Acron Development, addressed the Commission on the reason why he is requesting a special district on the 16 lots. The special district would allow different housing plans to be offered on the lots. An adjacent property owner voiced concern over creating a special district on adjacent lots. The commission discussed the proposed special district and recommends denial of the requested special district based on the issues listed in the staff report under Recommendation. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend deny of Proposed Special District (#18) to be known as the Forest Knoll Subdivision Special District. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, with Mr. Ohly abstaining. Council Action Needed: if the Council wishes to proceed with the Special District, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare the Ordinance accomplishing the rezoning to the Special District designation. 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 17, 2006 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: g.� rvy� e a ' � I M 1 / S �N3AiL!vt3J �)NINN.'id clls1Nlo-"3132HOO 90CZ 6 C, 833 t`[3:1I3�323 •a•s avox E17DMa ss 9b bLt 00M LE•9ZL c ^ 00 LEL 12123 `N. Q O 96OEL S N o a m 00'OEL 00'OyL ^ 00'OEL 00'Obl n 00'Ou Oy o^ o b 9 oo'o4L Her o N o � o L7 00'04t m 00'OEL c n M O o o 00'0bt tl• 00'OEL LL FJ„ o N ^ 00'M O u' ZO'96L o N N oA FIE :Iim(l77p�� o Oy ^p. z F 0 F O v c ZEN a z 125 p n C o Zvo Zm4 � ti .. N 3ry W g. 4L'4SL LPL . T o ~ m Bt'OEl � 8Ls tt v, m 9E M oo OM M~ m b9'OEL W ' 00'OEL tO M o zLoOZ ° m 000EL m 0 ti 0 16'OEL 00'OEL m T g g o 60' CL m C) OOT. 8 �•�, 8 p g �, 8 0 0 00'OEL m O N N m m N O Lb'LZL 00'Bll m N ~ ^ �� 30.p3 902[ 1:63M1 2 "1 ROtsFSTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAicTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 559D4.4744 COUNTY OF +'✓ww.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: March 16, 2006 �1iin►��in►��1 1hlM��i\frv��'>� IWoee? RE: Proposed Single Purpose Special District to be known as Forest Knoll SD - #18. Summary of Regulations: In order to permit a more flexible means of land development and redevelopment, the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes regulations necessary to permit the creation of special districts. These regulations are found within Section 62.900 of the Land Development Manual and are attached for your information. Section 62.921 states that a special district may be established for the purpose of modifying any of Lot Development Standards found in Chapter 63 of the ordinance on an area -wide basis. Section 60.327 identifies existing special districts and will be amended as part of this application to include the Forest Knoll Single Purpose Special District. Included with the Special District application, and attached for your review, is a draft Ordinance as proposed by the Applicant. Background & Summary: The final plat for the Forest Knoll Subdivision was approved on April 5, 2004. The final plat consists of 50 lots and 3 outlots. Two of the outlots will contain stormwater management facilities while the other outlot is the location of a wetland. The larger lot (Lot 1, Block 1) will be developed with townhomes/condominums similar to the dwellings in the Boulder Ridge and Crimson Ridge Developments. The applicant is proposing a special district only on Lots 2-9, Block 1 and Lots 23 —30, Block 3 of Forest Knoll Subdivision, not all of the lots within the subdivision. The reason for purposing a special district on only these lots is due to the fact that a developer is proposing to buy the lots. The perspective buyer has a house plan option that is 56 feet wide which would not fit on the 70 foot wide lots, the lots would need to be 72 feet in width in order to meet the minimum sum of the side yard setback of 16 feet. The main purpose of the special district is to permit flexibility with side yard setbacks in order to allow a certain type of house plan to be constructed on lots that have a frontage of 70 feet. The underlying zoning on the property is the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district. In the R-2 zoning district for a single family detached dwelling the minimum sum of side yard is 16 feet with a minimum setback of 6 feet. The special district is purposing a minimum sum of side yard of 14 feet with a minimum setback of 6 feet. So the special district would allow for 2 feet less on the side yard setbacks. All other setbacks (front and rear yard) remain at 25 feet each. The Ordinance also includes architectural requirements including similar mailboxes and minimal landscaping requirements which requires the home owner to plant one 2'Y2" B & B tree in the front yard. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GISfADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071265-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Findings For Special District — Ordinance: The attached Ordinance includes findings for the establishment of the Special District as follows: Subdivision 1. Findings. It is the finding of the Council that the lands described in Subdivision 3 herein which define the property are of special and substantial significance to the City of Rochester. Ina desire to effectively and efficiently achieve community goals, to assist and encourage the development of an architecturally attractive mixed income neighborhood, the Common Council hereby creates a special zoning district, as provided in Section 62.900 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (R.C.O.), to be known as the Forest Knoll Subdivision Single Purpose Special District. Recommendation: This is a single purpose Special District request, with the primary purpose to provide modified sideyard setbacks to allow a certain house plan to fit onto existing platted lots. Staff does not support the creation of this special district for a number of reasons. One reason is due to the fact that the lots already exceed the minimum lot width for lots zoned R-2. Another reason is that there are a number of house plans that would fit on the lots without having to vary the side yard setbacks. The developer could modify their existing house plans so that the side yard setbacks are met. Typically a special district is created for an entire development not just a certain number of lots within the development. The lots could be replatted so that the lots are large enough to accommodate the house plans. Staff does not recommend approval of the purposed special district because of the reason listed in the paragraph above. Action Needed: The Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing to consider the establishment of this Special District and make a recommendation to the City Council. Following the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, a public hearing will be scheduled with the City Council for consideration of the Special District. EXCERPT FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 62.900SPECIAL DISTRICTS In order to permit a more flexible means of new land development and redevelopment, the City of Rochester finds that regulations are necessary to permit the creation of special districts. Such regulations shall promote the public health, safety and general welfare and shall be substantially in accord with and promote the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 62.901 Purposes: The further specific purposes and conditions supporting the establishment of a special district are: 1) The existence of a special and substantial public interest in protecting the existing or proposed character of an area or unique geological, ecological, archeological or social characteristics of an area; or 2) The existence of a special and substantial public interest in protecting areas surrounding an individual building, group of buildings or man-made features and their environs; or 3) The need to establish modifications to or to supplement existing zoning regulations to accomplish a special public purpose. 62.902 Effect: The effect of a special district designation shall be as an overlay district. The regulations established in special district legislation shall supersede the regulations of the underlying zoning district. To the extend they are not inconsistent with the special district regulations, the underlying zoning district requirements shall remain in effect. 62.903 Submission Criteria: The petition for establishment of a Special District shall be accompanied by two (2) copies of the proposed ordinance language, a summary of the intent and effect of the proposed modification, and a map indicating the boundary of the district and the boundary of the underlying zoning districts. An application fee as required in Paragraph 60.175 shall accompany the petition. 62.904 Procedure: An application for a Special District shall be processed under the Type III Review Procedure, with a Phase II Hearing Process utilized. 62.905 Notifications: Notifications for Comprehensive Special Districts shall be sent to all owners within the area proposed for rezoning and all owners owning land wholly or partially within 350 feet of the exterior boundaries of the area proposed for rezoning. For Single Purpose Special Districts, notifications shall be sent to all owners of land within the defined area of the proposed Single Purpose Special District. 62.906 The ordinance establishing a particular Special District shall contain a statement of intent setting forth the nature of the special and substantial public interest involved and the objectives to be promoted by special regulations or procedures within the district. 62.920 SINGLE PURPOSE SPECIAL DISTRICT Owners of sixty percent (60%) or more of the land within any defined area may petition the Council for creation of a single purpose Special District. 62.921 The proposed Special District may be established for the purpose of modifying any of the Lot Development Standards found in Chapter 63 of the ordinance on an area -wide basis. Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual RECEIVED FEB 0 9 2006 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING CHAPTER 645, AND AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 60.327 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOREST KNOLL SUBDIVISION SINGLE PURPOSE SPEICAL DISTRICT: THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter 645of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 645.. FOREST KNOLL SUBDIVISION SINGLE PURPOSE SPECIAL DISTRICT 645.100 FINDINGS AND DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. Subdivision 1. Findings: It is the finding of the Council that the lands described in Subdivision 3 herein, which define the property, are of special and substantial significance to the City of Rochester. In a desire to effectively and efficiently achieve community goals, to assist and encourage the development of an architecturally attractive mixed income neighborhood, the Common Council hereby creates a special zoning district, as provided in Section 62.900 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (R.C.O.), to be known as Forest Knoll Subdivision Single Purpose Special District. Sub. 2. Intent: It is the intent of this Ordinance to assist and encourage the development of an architecturally attractive mixed income neighborhood by creating special zoning approaches. Sub. 3. Description of Lands Contained Herein: This Ordinance shall apply to the following land located in the City of Rochester, county of Olmsted, State of Minnesota: Lots 2 - 9, Block 1 and Lots 23 - 30, Block 3, Forest Knoll Subdivision. 645.200, EFFECT OF REGULATIONS: Subdivision 1. Applicability: The Special District established by this Ordinance shall be an overlay zoning district with specific development standards on the property defined as the Forest Knoll Subdivision Single Special District, which is the property within the district boundary. The underlying zoning of this property is R-2 (low Density Residential). Unless otherwise specified within these regulations, all other standards and requirements of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance remain in effect as though the property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. Subd. 2. Zoning map: The boundary of the Forest Knoll Subdivision Single Special District shall be identified on the official Zoning Map as "SD - &". 64s.300. SPECIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Subdivision 1. Permitted Land Uses: A. Uses permitted within the R-2 Low Density Residential district. Subd. 2. Setbacks and Architecture: A. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum six (6) feet, with a total setback sum of fourteen (14) feet. This setback shall apply to all interior lots. B. Each style of dwelling in the Special District must have at least three exterior building elevations. C. Roof pitches: All front gables shall be a minimum of 8/12 pitch, remaining house roof pitches shall be a minimum of 6/12 (front porches or garage -shed roofs are exempt from this requirement). D. The entry of each dwelling shall be a focal point of the front elevation through the appropriate use of roof elements, columns, porches, pilasters, urns, shutters, windows, or other architectural features. E. The front doors of each dwelling must be enhanced with windows, raised panels, and transom window above or beside the door, or similar decorative treatment. F. Maintenance -free siding is allowed on the front exterior if used in combination with areas of brick, stucco, stone, or other architectural features approved Arcon Development, Inc. (Architectural Review Committee). Subd. 3. Landscaping: A. All yards shall be sodded (except where slopes are too steep to maintain, in such cases, the slope shall be left natural). B. There shall be one (1) 2 1/2" B & B tree planted in the front yard of each lot. C. Common Architectural style mail boxes shall be installed to serve all lots in the Special District. RECEIVED D. No driveway curb cut shall exceed eighteen (18) feet. FEB � 9 2046 643,400. RESCINDING APPROVAL: The Rochester Common Council may, without liability, rescind the provisions of this Special District Ordinance and return the property to its underlying zoning district at the time of adoption or to another zoning district. Rescinding this overlay zoning district must follow the procedures set forth in R.C.O.—60.330. Section 2. Section 60.327 of the Rochester Code of Ordinance is amended and reenacted to read as follows: 60.327 SD SPECIAL DISTRICTS: Existing Special Districts approved by Ordinance numbers 3443, 3404, 2726, 2516, 2247, 3385, 3468, 3497, 3503, 3520, 3534, 3604, 3615, and 3691rare recognized as separate zoning districts and the plans and procedures established for each Special District will continue in force. When a Special District Ordinance does not specify the procedure or criteria to amend an approved site development plan, the proposed amendment will be reviewed under Section 64.148. When a Special District Ordinance requires a two-phase review, the development will be reviewed under Section 61.146 and either Section 62.708 (1) (for preliminary plans) or Section 62.708 (2) (for final plans). Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective on and after the date of its publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS _ DAY OF 2006. ATTEST: PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS _ DAY OF MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) N RECEIVED FEB 0 9 2006 i L?-Gc!3'icG j Page City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 Mr. Burke asked if there Act a buff eryard required in theyear yard. Ms. Baker replied that there a rear yard buff eryard r uired and it is not currently correct. Mr. Burke asked what the prop to the east is zo d. Ms. Baker replied that it is zoned 1. Mr. Burke asked if a bufferyard woul a req ' ed on three sides. Ms. Baker replied yes. Mr. Burke asked how the lot would be Ms. Baker replied that the existing Ms. Wiesner asked if B-1 has a Ms. Baker replied yes and that and hours of operation, if that e Mr. Burke opened the res cted use C� t y could add in s a concern. hearing. is required to meet the B-1 district standards. of operation versus a B-4 zoning district. regarding the lighting requirements With no one wishing tqoge heard, Mr. Burke closed thI.Lnublic hearing. Ms. Baker presented the staff report dated March 16, 2006, to the Commission. A copy of the staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Wiesner stated that on page 28, there are two typo's in the staff recommendation: stating that on the second line "concern" should be changed to "certain" and on the fifth line "area" needs to be changed to "are'. Ms. Baker agreed to the typo changes. Ms. Rivas asked if the applicant could apply for a variance. Ms. Baker replied that a variance would have been another alternative. Mr. Burke opened the public hearing. Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 The applicant, Mr. Larry Frank (residing at 16590 Irwin Court Lakeville, MN) addressed the Commission. He stated that previously he had informally gone through the Zoning Board of Appeals and they had stated that he would need to have a hardship for the variance to be approved, and that he should apply for a Special District. The plat was approved several years ago; which is made up of three single- family additions and two small areas of multi -family. There is a 100 foot buffer around the property, 50 feet on their property and 50 feet on Fleet Farms property. It would be used as a landscaping buffer between the commercial and residential areas. All of the lots in block 1 are 70 feet wide and are walk -outs. There are five house plans that would be offered. They feel that they would be bringing high value into the neighborhood. The lots do exceed the minimum requirement of 60 feet. He doesn't feel that not meeting the 60 foot lot size is a reason to deny the Special District. Mr. Haeussinger asked if they could build the bigger homes on the wider lots. Mr. Frank replied that they could sell on all the lots. Mr. and Mrs. Eric and Tamara Beekler of (285 Forrest Knoll PL SE Rochester, MN) addressed the Commission. She stated that their home was the first one built in the subdivision and they oppose the new development. They worked very closely with their builder on all of the requirements for the building of their home to fit within all of the covenants. They purchased the lot with certain expectations and that future developers should adhere to those same expectations. She feels that Centex Homes could have bought the higher priced lots for the homes that would be closer to each other as is proposed by the developer. They are disappointed to hear that this may happen. Mr. Beekler asked if the Centex building that is now on lot 13 is open to all developers because all they see is Centex Homes now. He would like to see a sign that the development is open to all developers. Mr. Ohly stated that they cannot dictate who they sell to. Ms. Rivas asked if there is a subdivision entry sign. Mr. Beekler replied no. Ms. Rivas stated that an open to all builders sign would need to be placed there. However, they could make some phone calls regarding the issue. Mr. Frank stated that he did send a letter to all people residing there now, and addressed the Centex signs. The selling price for the homes would probably be in the $250-$275,000 range and it would not decrease any other homes values that are presently there. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke asked staff about two two-story homes side -by -side and the minimum clearance required. Ms. Baker replied that would be a building code issue. Ms. Wiesner made a motion to deny Proposed Special District'#18 based on staff srecommendations to not change the issues. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion . The' ' motion carried 7-0 with Mr. Ohly abstaining REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0� DATE: 4-17-06 ,GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEMt PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Amendment to Restricted Development PREPARED BY: Conditional Use Permit #03-61 by Larry Brown/L.B. Electric, to Mitzi A. Baker, permit auto sales on property located south of TH 14 east, east of Senior Planner 401" Ave SE. April 10, 2006 The applicant filed an additional request with regard to amending this permit. The applicant requests that the requirement for bufferyards along the east and west property lines be eliminated. Mr. and Mrs. Brown consulted with the abutting property owners to the east and west and obtained their signatures in support of this request. A copy is attached for your information. The requirements for bufferyards was specified in the original approval of the Restricted Development Permit and is identified on the approved plans, as well as the proposed amendment. If the City Council wishes to remove this requirement, it should be stated in condition #1, that bufferyards are not required along the east and west property. City Plannino and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On March 22, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the amendment to Restricted Development #03-61. Mr. Hauessinger made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Restricted Development #03-61, with staff recommendations. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried i CONDITIONS: 1) This application is subject to complying with all previously approved conditions of approval. 2) Prior to the Planning Department signing the State dealership license, the applicant shall complete the following: a) striping the parking lot, as identified on the Site Plan; r b) complete/install the required Bufferyard G y.-" y^ 'u x '" ,,..V,( "� 3) Sign standard B applies to this property, and the property will be limited to one free-standing sign 4) No banners shall be placed on the property. 5) No more than 11 stalls may be occupied by the auto sales lot, within the north 12 stalls identified on the Site Plan dated received February 23, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 0 kAge 2 RCA April 10, 2006 Council Action Needed: 1. Hold a public hearing. 2. if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting its decision. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 pm in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center on Monday April 17, 2006. 101 Larry M Brown Susan D. Brown 4210 Hwy 14E. Rochester, MN. 55904 March 30, 2006 RECEIV D �'J.^, rCiitiES..tR OL!,18TED We would like to request an additional amendment to eliminate the buffer yard requirements at the property of 4210 Hwy 14E. on the East and West property lines. The Owner to C'a.s l J the�rst. Date:_3 A fi /n> ate: — C% Request to leave as is. Thank You, Larry M. Brown Susan D. Brown FA �.m | |� \ NW ^ � |q\/[ 0l2�;' N | ^ || § § �| § ® ) / | ! .!B«.|/�.4Ra! - ! ! ) §! §|)!§§ k; \ | s12i §/0 | 7 q |!; � V ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C C V N T Y OF www.cimstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: March 16, 2006 RE: Type III, Phase III Amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #03-61 by Larry Brown/L.B. Electric, to permit auto sales on property located south of TH 14 east, east of 401" Ave SE. Planning Department Review Applicant: Larry Brown/L.B. Electric 4210HWY14E Rochester, MN 55904 Property Location: The property is located on the south side of TH 14 East; North of Valley Side Subdivision and east of 40`" Avenue SE. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) on City of Rochester Zoning map. Adjacent Zoning: This property abuts land on the west and east that is outside of the city limits and designated as Low Density Residential; abuts land on the south zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) and abuts Hwy 14 East to the north. Summary of Proposal: The City approved a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit for this property in January 2004 to allow for a Trade Shop use, including construction of a 4,955 square foot commercial building. The applicant is now requesting approval to use a portion of the existing parking lot for an auto sales lot and have an office in the existing building dedicated to the auto sales business. The applicant is requesting approval to sell up to 12 auto's, utilizing the northern 12 parking stalls in the BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 ,,, PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLlSEPTIC 507/285-8345 /� FAX 507/287-2275 I v0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 0A' i Referral Agency Comments: Attachments: MnDOT Location Map Site Plan EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: Restricted Development: The Restricted Development allows certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning district on a permitted or conditional basis which can, if regulated, serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations. The regulations of this article recognize and provide encouragement for innovation and experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the zoning district regulations established by this ordinance. Proposal & Background: The City approved a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit for this property in January 2004 to allow for a Trade Shop use, including construction of a 4,955 square foot commercial building. The applicant is now requesting approval to use a portion of the existing parking lot for an auto sales lot and have an office in the existing building dedicated to the auto sales business. The applicant is requesting approval to sell up to 12 auto's, utilizing the northern 12 parking stalls in the existing parking lot. The approved use was evaluated using the B-1 standards for a Trade Shop as a guide in reviewing the proposal for compliance with zoning standards. It should be noted that the approved Plan identifies a Bufferyard which was to be completed with the initial development of the site. It does not appear that the Bufferyard has been completed as required. Completion of the Bufferyard should be done prior to the City signing the MN State dealership license, if this request is approved. CRITERIA & ANALYSIS: Sections 62.706 and 62.708 of the Zoning Ordinance set forth the standards upon which a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan is to be evaluated. The staff suggests the following findings for each of the Final Development Plan: 1) Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: No modifications to public facilities are proposed with this application. b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. c) Access Effect: Access to this property is from TH 14. The access serves three properties. This amendment does not propose changes to the existing access. w�3 d) Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian facilities and pedestrian circulation should not be impacted by this proposal. A Pedestrian Facilities Agreement has been executed as part the executed Development Agreement for this property. e) Foundation and Site Plantings: The approved use was evaluated using the B-1 standards for a Trade Shop as a guide in reviewing the proposal for compliance with zoning standards. It should be noted that the approved Plan identifies a Bufferyard which was to be completed with the initial development of the site. It does not appear that the Bufferyard has been completed as required. Completion of the Bufferyard should be done prior to the City signing the MN State dealership license, if this request is approved. f) Site Status: It should be noted that the approved Plan identifies a Bufferyard which was to be completed with the initial development of the site. It does not appear that the Bufferyard has been completed as required. Completion of the Bufferyard should be done prior to the City signing the MN State dealership license, if this request is approved. The Ordinance requires two parking stalls for the auto sales portion of the business. The existing business requires seven parking stalls, based on the number of employees; totaling nine stalls required for the two businesses. The site plan identifies a total of 20 non -handicap stalls, and 2-handicap stalls, leaving 11 non -handicap stalls available for the sales lot. If this application is approved, it should be with a condition that no more than 11 stalls may be occupied by the auto sales lot. e) Screening and Bufferyards: Bufferyards previously approved with the approval for a Trade Shop at this location have not been completed. Bufferyards must be complete prior to final approval to expand the uses permitted on this property. Bufferyards should be completed in compliance with the approved permit prior to the Planning Department signing the State auto dealership license for this property. f) Final Building Design: This amendment does not propose changes to the building that have not already been approved. g) Internal Circulation Areas: Internal circulation patterns and site access are not proposed to change from the previous approvals. h) Ordinance Requirements: It should be noted that the approved Plan identifies a Bufferyard which was to be completed with the initial development of the site. It does not appear that the Bufferyard has been completed as required. Completion of the Bufferyard should be done prior to the City signing the MN State dealership license, if this request is approved. -,3 The Ordinance requires two parking stalls for the auto sales portion of the business. The existing business requires seven parking stalls, based on the number of employees; totally nine stalls required for the two businesses. The site plan identifies a total of 20 non -handicap stalls, and 2-handicap stalls, leaving 11 non -handicap stalls available for the sales lot. If this application is approved, it should be with a condition that no more than 11 stalls may be occupied by the auto sales lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and provisions, as included in this report. Based upon staff review and the analysis included above, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1) This application is subject to complying with all previously approved conditions of approval. 2) Prior to the Planning Department signing the State dealership license, the applicant shall complete the following; a) striping the parking lot, as identified on the Site Plan; b) complete/install the required Bufferyard G 3) Sign standard B applies to this property, and the property will be limited to one free-standing sign 4) No banners shall be placed on the property. 5) No more than 11 stalls may be occupied by the auto sales lot, within the north 12 stalls identified on the Site Plan dated received February 23, 2006. - 1K Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual 62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. Feb 10 20CS 11:51AN MN/DOT 507-285-7279 P•2 Yk Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 2900 48's Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901-5848 February 10, 2006 Jennifer Gamess Rochester Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Fax 507285-7279 E-mail: chris.meates@der.state.mn.us RE: Response to request for used car storage, Larry Brown (LB Electric) CS 5503 US 14 East Dear Ms. Gamess: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (NInIDOT) received from Lary Brown (LB Electric), a request to add used car storage to his business an US Highway 14, east Rochester. The current access for LB Electric is onto a county frontage road which leads to a permitted opening on US 14. Information provided to Mn/DOT indicates space would be provided on the east side of the lot to store a maximum of 40 vehicles. The traffic impacts from this minor addition to his business are anticipated to be minimal and will not require a permit from Mn/DOT. However, Mn/DOT has concerns about future development impacts for this intersection given the high volume of traffic on US 14 and its location near the 4 to 2-lane merge/transition. The City of Rochester in cooperation with Mn/DOT and Olmsted County are in the process of developing an access management plan for east US 14 with the intent of restricting access from future east side development to future frontage road intersections. A future median closure at the frontage road entrance also remains an option if safety becomes an issue - The City or County may have additional review and comment with regard to this request. Please contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Tracy Schnell, Regional Planning Assistant, at (507) 280.5028 for any questions you may have. Sincereky, Chris —� District 6 Planning Director cc; Larry Brown, LB Electric, 6556 70"' Avenue NE, Rochester, MN 55906 Mike Schweyen, Lee Gierok, Fred Sandal, Tracy Schnell, Debbie Bement, File DOCS4471597 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 22, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Mr. Robert Haeussinger, Chair; Mr. Jay Burke, Vice Chair; Ms. Leslie Rivas; Mr. Jesse Wallace; Mr. Paul Ohly; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Vince Barry; and Mr. Gerald Pestka Members Absent: Mr. John McGuire Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi Baker and Ms. Stephanie Foster Other City Staff Present: Mr. Terry Adkins, City Attorney; and Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney SET ORDER OF AGENDA: Mr. Hauessinger moved to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Wallace made a motion to take the minutes off of the consent agenda for corrections. He stated that, on page 3 of the minutes a name change from Mr. Copeland to Mr. Hoaglan needs to be corrected. Mr. Hauessinger moved to approve the minutes with the correction. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. • March 8, 2006 minutes The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Type III, Phase III Amendment to I Inc. The applicant is proposing tc stalls of the existing parking area sirlo of TH 14 Fast Past of 4nth Ai El Ms. Baker present the staff report dated March 16, 2006, to the Commission. A copy of the staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Wallace asked why there is such a large setback and what would be the purpose for the area. Ms. Baker replied that the developer sited a building on the lot with the option to develop the area with additional uses or sub -divide the lot in the future. 0 Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 Mr. Burke asked if there is not a bufferyard required in the rear yard. Ms. Baker replied that there is a rear yard bufferyard required and it is not currently correct. Mr. Burke asked what the property to the east is zoned. Ms. Baker replied that it is zoned R-1. Mr. Burke asked if a bufferyard would be required on three sides. Ms. Baker replied yes. Mr. Burke asked how the lot would be lighted. Ms. Baker replied that the existing approved use is required to meet the B-1 district standards. Ms. Wiesner asked if B-1 has a restricted use of hours of operation versus a B-4 zoning district. Ms. Baker replied yes and that they could add in a condition regarding the lighting requirements and hours of operation, if that was a concern. Mr. Burke opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr. Hauessinger made a motion to approve; Type III Amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #03-61 with staff recommendations. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Baker presented the staff report staff report is on file at the Rocheste Ms. Wiesner stated that on page 28, that on the second line "concern" sh needs to be changed to "are". Ms. Baker agreed to the typo c Ms. Rivas asked if the applicant igle purpose special district bdivision that would allow a the north and south side d SE. ch 16, 2006, to the Commission. A copy of the Planning Department. apply for a typo's in the staff recommendation: stating ad to "certain" and on the fifth line "area" Ms. Baker replied that a variance would have been another alternative. Mr. Burke opened the public hearing. MEETING -1 f / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4-17-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLBLIC HEARLNGS PLANNLNG ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-01 to be known as Boulder Ridge Fifth PREPARED BY: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner April 13, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated April 13, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following modifications/conditions: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the April 4, 2006 letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing division. 2. The Plat documents shall be revised to include: a. controlled access along the entire westerly line of Lot 1, Block 1. b. The drainage easement across the westerly part of Outlot B as shown on the approved grading plan. 3. 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 April 4, 2006. 4. Prior to recording the final plat, execution of an Ownership & Maintenance Declaration Agreement is required for Outlot 'A' which is proposed to serve as a private roadway and for Outlot "B". 5. One side of the private roadway shall be posted "No Parking". Council Action Needed.- 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Distribution: i y7a,; 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 800 ft Notification Area of Final Plat #06-01 to be known as Boulder Ridge Fifth located in Pt W 1/2 NW 1/4 Sec 10 Cascade TWP --,fz RM. ki I MI Mat a 1 by An OOVNopmpt RM. 74.10 MOTWU �Z: 3 NWWfti6000 A., N. 4M, HIM �WA IMMM •li-= � gy�gy pR�p k$6�B SYbq�l 9 Z � � � tl y T �f W N �! g�g � F fi • � ppie 2 El� MRl F? a $F$a 0 $9'L69 � wee. . eu �.€° 5� e� �� x�•r � Z ee m n = sad€.� 4,�c 4 .eYFp4 � m P ... �' N � °m.r •.,. �.a.� 0�4.� to � • ww .r urn ur _ � � 8 a N q r— __ 1 w V �! Im'SfMM y' A� v • .wmwti � a :'.7 'K 8 ® •L.:�r. .;ei.u.rN �.oFm-0 n _ N p � •x� nww � Ql Ow / a�a—£S 1ZS • "'q� a ,i'� ' .Ra,�v a '� o' / w fS Z056�p •y / 'v«r « 9AIi1Q DD'8t£�a f j u; u •� � i�? `e*a 6/ C7 ci /� / � L Y »4r � • h C'1i ka cn / A 2 00 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, AN 55904-4744 CC O N T Y OF www.olmstedcounty comlplanning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: April 13, 2006 ROCHESTER ,M(N,y F' 2•. OR4 TED•AOG0S4'' RE: Final Plat #06-01 by Arcon Development to be known as Boulder Ridge Fifth Subdivision. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 16.35 acre of land into 41 lots for single family homes and two outlots. The subdivision would be served by a private roadway. The property is located north of Overland Drive NW, east of Granite Drive NW. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner Surveyors/Engineers: Report Attachments: Arcon Development 7625 Metro Blvd, Suite 350 Edina, MN 55439 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rtl Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located north of Overland Drive NW, east of Granite Drive NW. Zoning: The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: The Plat proposes to subdivide 16.35 acres of land into 41 lots and 2 outlets for low density residential development. Wetlands: No wetlands are located on this portion of the property. Streets: This plat does not dedicate any new public roadways. The development will be served by a private roadway which takes its access from Granite Drive NW. The private roadway (Outlet A) will serve 41 lots. The naming of the roadway will need to be coordinated with the GIS/Addressing staff. Noise Easement has been dedicated over the entire property BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 R SIN A PING 0 2 5-823'1• vk �� theo ron jt t� gv d Ho SING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELLlSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 C7(J AN[ Ant Cl nPPnaTutJITY!AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 April 13, 2006 Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire westerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $25,000 with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat Preliminary Plat: The City Council approved a preliminary plat (Boulder Ridge Fifth for this property on March 6, 2006 subject to the following 5 conditions: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Indicating Controlled Access along the entire westerly line of Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Dedication of parkland shall be handled in the form of cash in lieu of land as outlined in the January 19, 2006 Memorandum from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 3. A revised grading and drainage plan is required prior to final plat approval. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development and a Storm Water Management fee is applicable for the entire Property. 4. Prior to recording the final plat, execution of an Ownership & Maintenance Declaration Agreement is required for Outlot `A' which is proposed to serve as a private roadway and for Outlot "B". 5. One side of the private roadway shall be posted "No Parking". Planning Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and would recommend approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the April 4, 2006 letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing division. 2. The Plat documents shall be revised to include: • controlled access along the entire westerly line of Lot 1, Block 1. • The drainage easement across the westerly part of Outlot B as shown on the approved grading plan. 3. 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 April 4, 2006. 4. Prior to recording the final plat, execution of an Ownership & Maintenance Declaration Agreement is required for Outlot 'A' which is proposed to serve as a private roadway and for Outlot "B". 5. One side of the private roadway shall be posted "No Parking". M ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 4110/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281.6215 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-01, proposed as Boulder Ridge 5"Subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. A Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract have been approved for this Property (NOTE: the public improvements for this Subdivision were included in the C-O for Boulder Ridge 4 b). Development is subject to the terms of said Agreement & Contract. 2. There is a drainage easement across the westerly part of Outlet `B' that is on the approved Grading Plan, but missing from the plat. The final plat shall be revised prior to recording to include the applicable drainage easement. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are included in the Development Agreement and/or City -Owner Contract. C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK1C\FP06-01 Boulder Ridge Sth Subd.doc Rochester -Olmsted Plannin,. Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 4, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; McGhie and Betts Inc. RE: BOULDER RIDGE FIFTH FINAL PLAT #06-01 Phone: (507) 285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 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: $2870.00 (41 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $1095.00 (43 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats must be legally recorded before request for address Applications are submitted to E911 Addressing Staff-Rochester/Olmsted County Planning Dept. A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: 1. Upon review of BOULDER RIDGE FIFTH the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. N �cK & ReQea'on ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, r mn DEPARTMENT DATE: April 4, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Boulder Ridge 5 Final Plat #06-01 Parkland dedication requirements for the plat: Acreage of plat.......................................................... 16.35 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 41 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.00 a Fair market value of land ............... .............................. $25,000 / a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $25,000 (1.00 a X $25,0001 a) with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. WPARK DEDICATIOM20061MN 2898\BOULDER RIDGE 5.DOC 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROOM 150 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6164 FAX 507-281-6165 DSTOTZ@CI. ROCHESTER. M N. US REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4-17-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANTNT'1IG E I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-08, by The Gardens Manufactured Home PREPARED BY: Community, LLC, to be known as The Gardens Fourth Subdivision. The Mitzi A. Baker, plat proposes to create 129 lots and 4 outlots. The property is located Senior Planner north of 451h St. SE, east of St. Bridget Road, and south of the future extension of 40th Street SE. April 13, 2006 Staff has reviewed this final plat for compliance with the applicable regulations and recommends approval subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the April 6, 2006 letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department GiS/Addressing division. 2. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall execute a supplement to the executed Development Agreement to incorporate language addressing the phasing of this development. This Final Plat includes a portion of the property included in The Gardens General Development Plan #261. 3. Water service stubbed to lots that will remain unused must be abandoned properly at the main per RPU'sn requirements. %4' L✓/'%l/ti a_R.L'Ui{'✓K'� r i-G w� �� 4. /,[.. /IL! L� h/t. a.-_ li 4. The Final Plat Documents shall be revised so that the cul-de-sac bulbs at the south end of Daisy Avenue and Daffodil Avenue are setback from the south limits of the Plat to provide a minimum 10 foot setback and green space, similar to what was identified on the approved amended Restricted Development Plan (#99-21 and 00- 20). 5. The Final Plat Documents must not be recorded prior to May 9, 2006 6. Concurrent with filing the Final Plat Documents, the applicant shall provide the City with an ownership and maintenance agreement, or association documents, providing for the long term care and maintenance of all common lands and private infrastructure including private roadway and utilities (i.e. sanitary sewer). Said document shall be recorded concurrent with the Final Plat Documents, and must be in a form acceptable to the City. Council Action Needed: 1. if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on April 17, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: (%% ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PL.ANNLNG DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C o U M i Y OF www.almstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner gpCr1F.STCR.,y�4,NF $pp ..... .......SaO B4 TED•pU GUST• DATE: April 13, 2006 RE: Final Plat #06-08, by The Gardens Manufactured Home Community, LLC, to be known as The Gardens Fourth Subdivision. The plat proposes to create 129 lots and 4 outlots. The property is located north of 45th St. SE, east of St. Bridget Road, and south of the future extension of 40th Street SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: The Gardens Manufactured Home Community, LLC 4325 Garden Court SE Rochester, MN 55904 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave SE Rochester, MN 55904 Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located north of 451" St, SE, east of St. Bridget Road, and south of the future extension of 4& Street SE. Zoning: The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential Family). Proposed Development: The plat proposes to create 129 lots and 4 outlets. Wetlands: N/A Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. Internal roadways will be private. Removal of Trees/Brush: N/A this site is developed. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/235-8232 • HOUSING;HRA 507/285-8224 n�a ww PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • wELLJSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 Page 2 April 13, 2006 Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication was met via the October 2002 dedication of Outlot G of Gardens Subdivision. Planning Staff and Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the April 6, 2006letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing division. 2. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall execute a supplement to the executed Development Agreement to incorporate language addressing the phasing of this development. This Final Plat includes a portion of the property included in The Gardens General Development Plan #261. 3. Water service stubbed to lots that will remain unused must be abandoned properly at the main per RPU's requirements. 4. The Final Plat Documents shall be revised so that the cul-de-sac bulbs at the south end of Daisy Avenue and Daffodil Avenue are setback from the south limits of the Plat to provide a minimum 10 foot setback and green space, similar to what was identified on the approved amended Restricted Development Plan (#99-21 and 00- 20). 5. The Final Plat Documents must not be recorded prior to May 9, 2006 6. Concurrent with filing the Final Plat Documents, the applicant shall provide the City with an ownership and maintenance agreement, or association documents, providing for the long term care and maintenance of all common lands and private infrastructure including private roadway and utilities (i.e. sanitary sewer). Said document shall be recorded concurrent with the Final Plat Documents, and must be in a form acceptable to the City. l rpu we plydie, we deltvrr April 7, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-08 by The Gardens Manufactured Home Community, LLC to be known as The Gardens Fourth Subdivision. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow: Our records indicate that Lot 11, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 6 have 2 water services stubbed into them. The service on each lot that will remain unused must be abandoned properly at the main per our requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, ou-�^..�. ",uA 1 ` IXf—' Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention The Gardens Manufactured Home Community, 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 Plannir, partment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 6, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; McGhie and Betts Inc.; The Gardens Manufactured Home Community LLC RE: THE GARDENS FOURTH SUBDIVISION i Phone: (507) 285.8232,' Fax: (507) 287-2275 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: $180.00 (2 LOTS/ADDRESSES) $2445.00 (133 LOTS/OUfLOTS) 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 County Planning Dept. A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: NOTE: The two addressing fees seen above are for change of address on two lots in the plat. All other addressing for the area has been established prior to this plat. M or 1. Q,itw � Recret "�'-- ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT DATE: April 4, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: The Gardens 4th Final Plat #06-08 Dedication for this plat has been met via the Oct 2002 dedication of Outlot G Gardens Subdivision. No additional dedication is required. O:\PARK DEDICATIOM20WSE 2995\THE GARDENS 4.DOC kOCHESTER q� M. ou TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 a Street BE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 FROM: Mark E. Baker 507-287-7800 FAX - 507.281-6216 DATE: 4111/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-08, proposed as The Gardens Fourth Subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. The Development Agreement executed for the Maine Street Development includes this Property. Development is subject to the terms of said Agreement. Certain charges/fees for SAC & WAC applicable to the development of this property have previously been addressed through the City -Owner Contract process for "The Gardens". Other remaining Development Charges are addressed in the Development Agreement and shall be paid as specified by the terms of the Agreement. C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK1C\FP08-08 The Gardens 4th Subd.dm i 3 The hand to reach for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: April 10, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Final Plat 406-08 by the Gardens manufactured home community, LLC to be know as The Gardens Forth Subdivision. With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. a) The minimum fire flow for this residential development area shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 psi. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. c) Minimum cul-de-sac diameter shall not be less than 70 feet in diameter d) Cul-de-sacs less than 96 feet in diameter shall be posted "No Parking". 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only) Mark Baker— Rochester Public Works (e-mail only) The Gardens Manufactured Home Community LLC McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only) Rochester -Olmsted Planning _ jpartment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 11, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gayness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; McGhie and Betts Inc.; The Gardens Manufactured Home Community LLC RE: THE GARDENS FOURTH SUBDIVISION Phone: (507)285-8232 G Fax: (507)287-2275 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: $540.00 (2 LOTS/ADDRESSES) $2445.00 (133 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats must be legally recorded before request for address Applications are submitted to E911 Addressing Staff-Rochester/Olmsted County Planning Dept. A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: NOTE: The addressing fees seen above are for change of address on silt lots in the plat. All other addressing for the area has been established prior to this plat. M M g$i�dl Q311V 1dNn .3 .._...__...._._._..._..____.�.. 31u'1L i0 ._....-., X� ®LL mE 6E ME !P6 WR 3 :_ o-_rn I r I 5e_ I 214 Rp _jg 6� s8 8c3 g y V^ Q ry� W Ww I WG wr {d N UQ � v l > M rj d I2 a o: N Cie o r � LL I� LU F o LU LZIJ Q fiC8 y�p 3�fs §6 LU 2 g s � e ?$9 LLLa-- l q e sg aa«8 y �xRe Re ike g :2 �g ID �'-®- - !^ ' Y- k- y d --mw—L�— h �aa^aa_ a^R �8x saa.- __ --Rr=A$ Wm p^a a 0g"a L Aq�3'"i�� e2�YG2^8`aka aA$£^S $$ Sadadaaa 8$oa$aq-Rqa das:.a7_Azaaaaad�SSA R50g5ca==S,ACj Sdd e..a<s$. d RAAaiY:4 8a888^aa-^asaaAae 6§g a^_?aggx ^ = 8gg �pCC➢q�M?-9^Cga^°S:8 RR48RCa6tk:A ORAnA 88 4...,�---_aaaa^ $88CSHSa�e $$� $$081 e$$@5B� .:aae__�aa5aaea $$$8888$8gp8 a^ d 22- ^ ^_RSSS: « dad�d'ASAa�d aaaaa�s:x aa�=•ad_3.-C�ds MAMAA FASRR.�.. (IS Qtl081I'oMa '15) eL TN 5b-SS 'ON 1H-ld AVM 30 1HOI8 '1'0'0 Y1i123NNIN 11 � p! } ! \ wa) \ °•w |6 /\ _3 w_ S 2 � � ± � y w O LL. m 2 m S ry � q � Z ® � ;OVON 1 . AVM z es: 'Cl mom m. qq — R Qaa2=2gm 2m a ii;; hit Iii, A- sRrRR-#8R 2................... REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION q� MEETING DATE: 4-17-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLICIN HEARINGS PLANNG ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #06-02, initiated by the Rochester City PREPARED BY: Council, to amend the Subdivision regulations to clarify the adequate public Mitzi A. Baker, facilities requirements, clarify how a final plat relates back to a preliminary plat, Senior Planner and to correctly reflect the requirements for recording final plat documents. Sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual included in the amendment include: 60.200, 61.214, 61.215, 61.225, 61.230, 61.231, 61.233, 61.237, 61.251, 61.255, 61.584, and 64.131. April 11, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On March 22, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed zoning text amendment. The Planning & Zoning Commission found that the proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Land Development Manual and recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The commission recommended approval of this text amendment 8-0. Mr. Hauessinger moved, and Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated march 16, 2006. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached staff report). Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED LL4NNING DEPARTMENT F,�ocxesrER.HrNN 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 www.olmstedcounty.com/planning n .�``.�'• ' Fso_ u; COUNTY Or •••.. ` Q�pD ....... •'p0 $q TED•AllGUST"� March 16, 2006 TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner RE: Text Amendment #06-02, initiated by the Rochester City Council, to amend the Subdivision regulations to clarify the adequate public facilities requirements, clarify how a final plat relates back to a preliminary plat, and to correctly reflect the requirements for recording final plat documents. Sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual included in the amendment include: 60.200, 61.214, 61.215, 61.225, 61.230, 61.231, 61.233, 61.237, 61.251, 61.255, 61.584, and 64.131. Text Amendment: The City Council initiated this text amendment in July, 2005 (see attached RCA). The proposed amendment is attached for review and consideration. New text is identified with underlined text. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION: A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (staff suggested findings follow each criteria): a) whether there is a public need for the amendment; There is a public need for this amendment to clarify and improve the Ordinances; b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester; This amendment will further the purpose of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to "create a system of land use regulation that is intent on finding equitable solutions to the land use conflict which routinely arise as development occurs, so as to provide the orderly development of land within Rochester and to conserve the value of land and buildings. "; c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. This amendment will be lawful. Staff recommends approval of this text amendment. BUILDING CODE 507/2B5-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/2B5-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 .w.ee.wPLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLJSEP71C 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 `b(J aN Fnual nPPORTI JNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ��x ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING SECTION 81.255 TO THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 60.200, 61.214, 61.215, 61.225, 61,230, 61.231, 61.232, 61.233, 61.237, 61.251, 61.584 AND 64.131 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO FINAL PLATS, THE COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND THE NEED FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 61.255 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 61.255 Timing of Development Agreement: If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a Type III Land Subdivision Permit the Council may approve any required or voluntary development agreement concurrently with or following approval of the General Development Plan but may not approve any development agreement prior to its approval of the General Development Plan. Section 2. Section 60.200 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to add a definition for the term "On -Site or Off -Site Public or Private Facility Improvement' as follows: On -Site or Off -Site Public or Private Facility Improvement: The sizing, grading location or improvement of lots structures areas accessible to the general public streets roads trails walkways curbs and gutters, water, sewers storm drainage lighting sewers electricity gas and other utilities, and the protection and conservation of flood plains shore lands, soils, water, vegetation energy air quality, and geologic and ecologic features and similar on -site or off -site public or private utilities and improvements that are reasonably related to the proposed subdivision and that are needed so that the facilities can adequately handle the needs created by the proposed subdivision The term "On -Site or Off -Site Public or Private Facility Improvement' shall include the terms "required improvements," "on -site and off site public improvements " "development improvements," "off -site improvements" and "public improvements" as then may be found within the Land Development Manual portion of this Code. r Section 3. Section 61.214 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.214 Submission Criteria Subdivision 1. Appendix B outlines the information that i&-te must be submitted with an application of a General Development Plan. The plan sl}sitld must show the density, intensity, land uses, pedestrian and bicycle ways, trail thoroughfares, parks, open space and pattern of future streets within the development, and possible off -site drainage situations affecting other tracts within 500 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land subdivision. The City Engineer may reduce the distance subject to a drainage analysis to 200 feet where stormwater is channeled into an existing drainage facility that is designed to carry projected runoff and is located within 200 feet of the site, or where the drainage plan is found to be consistent with the Stormwater Management Plan, or adopted drainage and stormwater policies. Subd 2 In addition to the information required in subdivision 1 of this section every application for a General Development Plan must show one of the following: A The proposed development is bounded on all sides by arterial or higher level streets streams or other topographic constraints or existing development land already included in an approved General Development Plan or permanent open space that limit the inclusion of other abutting lands; or B. The proposed development consists of at least 80 acres in land area regardless of ownership or interest and consists of all lands for which the applicant has ownership or interest. Section 4. Section 61.215 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.215 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan: In approving a general development plan, the Council must make each of the following findings: A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted zoning map. If the general development plan is �ID 01 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. B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation, is compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. 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. 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 must 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 must be included in the assessment of adequacy. 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 must stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities must be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. 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. 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. 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. I If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a Type III Land Subdivision Permit the proposed development must satisfy one of the following categories of development: ko A development bounded on all sides by arterial or higher level streets streams or other topographic constraints or existing development land already included in an approved General Development Plan, or permanent open space that limit the inclusion of other abutting lands; A development with adequate public facilities and constituting the entire remaining service area of a major public facility improvement (such as a trunk sewer or water tower) that has been identified as a proiect in the Capital Improvement Program; 3. A development that consists of at least 80 acres in land area regardless of ownership or interest and consists of all lands for which the applicant has ownership or interest: or 4. A development for which a _development agreement has been executed by the owner and the city for the entire property included in the proposed general development plan The development agreement must have been drafted based on the development of the property occurring as proposed in the general development plan. Section 5. Section 61.225 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 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: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance; B. 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; C. 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; D. 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; E. 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; F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current six -year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision; G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426; H. 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; I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations; J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards; K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties; L. 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; M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes; N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of 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; P. That the proposed land subdivision, if approved, would not result in a violation of federal or state law, or city or county ordinance; and O That the proposed land subdivision permit is consistent with any approved and applicable General Development Plan Conditional Use Permit or Traffic Impact Study. Section 6. Section 61.230 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.230 FINAL PLATS: Subdivision 1. There shall be a final plat for each subdivision that has received preliminary approval through either a Type II or Type III land subdivision or site planning permit process, unless the zoning administrator has waived the requirement for a land subdivision permit pursuant to Section 61.221. No final plat may include both conventional lots and common interest community lands. A final plat must receive approval within two years from land subdivision permit approval unless there exists a development N agreement with the City which authorizes final plats of the subdivision to be phased. Phasing will be allowed up to six years for two phases, eight years for three phases and ten years for four phases. Subd 2 The final plat process is intended to be a "mechanical" stage of the approval process designed to verify compliance with the conditions of approval imposed on the land subdivision permit It is not intended to reconsider those initial conditions of approval Except as provided in Section 61.237, Subd 2 new conditions of approval unrelated to the land subdivision permit should not be imposed during final plat review. This subdivision does not apply to a development for which there is no preliminary plat. Subd 3 An applicant may request approval of a final plat that is submitted for only a portion of contiguous land holdings or one phase of a multi -phased or staged development included within a general development plan or land subdivision permit In this case the Council must consider the demand for adequate public facilities generated by subsequent phases of the development and must require a development agreement as to the design and construction of adequate on -site or off -site public or private facility improvements required to serve the subsequent phases. Section 7. Section 61.231 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.231 Application for Final Plat: Subdivision 1. An applicant for a final plat must submit the materials described in this section at least two weeks prior to the Council meeting at which the applicant wishes to have the matter considered. Subd. 2. Two copies of a final plat application on the appropriate form provided by the zoning administrator. Subd. 3. Ten full size copies of the final plat on black or blue line prints and a reduced size copy of the plat on 8'/2 x 11", 8 1/2 x 14", or 11 x 17 paper. Subd. 4. Two copies of existing or proposed private deed restrictions, if any. \0� Subd. 5. An application fee as required by Section 60.175. A new application fee must be submitted if the final plat has been tabled at the request of the applicant for nine months or more from the original date of submittal. Subd. 6. If a design modification request accompanies the final plat, the application form, processing fee and documentation supporting such a request. Subd. 7. Two copies of the documents assigning responsibility for long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities. Subd. 8. Two copies of the approved construction plans for street, sidewalk, trail, water, wastewater, grading, storm water management, and other public or private subdivision improvements. Subd. 9. Two copies of a development agreement if the applicant intends to: A. record the final plat before completion of required on -site or off -site public or private facility improvements; B. stage or phase -in on -site or off -site public or private facility improvements required as part of a multi -stage or phase development; or C. fund off -site public or private facility improvements as required by the terms and conditions_ of an executed contribution or development agreement, or as described in Traffic Impact Study approved by the City or applicable road authority. Subd. 10. Any supplemental information, which differs in any material respect from the information submitted and findings made at land subdivision permit approval as determined by the Zoning Administrator. A material change includes, but is not limited to a change which burdens adjacent properties or public facilities and utilities, increases the number of lots or dwelling units, increases the square footage of nonresidential development, will have a detrimental impact on public health or safety, will adversely affect the value of adjacent properties, will affect a floodplain or stream channel, will reduce the amount of neighborhood park land or open space, or will increase the potential for flooding of the subject property or adjacent properties. Section 8. Section 61.232 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.232 Submittal of Final Plat Documents: The following materials shall be submitted following the City Council meeting at which the final plat is approved: A. One original mylar, and `" ee mylaF ^^^ eS, of the final plat which shall contain all of the certifications, signatures (of the City Clerk, County Auditor/Treasurer and County Recorder), and acknowledgments required to file and record the same in the office of the County Recorder. If the boundary of the final plat is not coincident with the boundaries of an existing lot or record, then a legal description and survey plat of the remnant unplatted parcel created by the recording of the final plat must be provided. B. Except for the signature of the City Clerk, County Auditor/Treasurer and County Recorder, the final plat shall be in recordable form and shall include the fee to be charged for filing and recording the plat in the office of the County Recorder and a statement from the County Recorder indicating the amount of such fee. C. Two copies of a title opinion prepared by an attorney within 60 days prior to the application or certificate of title insurance identifying the owners and persons of record having an interest in the property being subdivided. Section 9. Section 61.233 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.233 Preparation of Final Plat: Final plats must be prepared in accordance and compliance with the provisions of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Appendix B contains a list of the information to that must be included on final plats. Section 10. Section 61.237 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.237 Action On Final Plats: Subdivision 1. Following completion of the Phase I Hearing Process, the Council shall-,--b-y tkae—a�4isatier�either approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the final plat. The City must take such action pursuant to the time period provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358. The reasons for disapproval shall be recorded in the minutes of the Common Council and reported to the applicant and the zoning administrator by the City Clerk. Subd. 2. In conditionally approving a final plat, the Council may introduce conditions not applied to the land subdivision permit or general development plan upon finding that new information reveals conditions that directly affect the subdivision's ability to satisfy the criteria established in Section 61.225. No final plat shall be appFGVe4-4�y� Subd 3 The final plat documents shall not be recorded until: A there is satisfactory evidence filed with the City that all past taxes have been paid in full; B. the final plat is in a form acceptable for recording at the Office of the County Recorder: C. all required or voluntary development agreements with the City have been signed by the applicant; D. the final plat conforms and complies with all conditions of approval attached to the applicable land subdivision permit (preliminary plat): and E. there is deposited with the City a filing fee sufficient to record those documents that are recorded. Section 11. Section 61.251 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.251 Completion of Improvements: Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Section 61.252 and before the final plat is recorded, all applicants shall be required to complete, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all on -site or off -site public or private facility improvements of the subdivision or addition as required by these regulations. Subd. 2. When an applicant provides all on -site or off -site public or private facility improvements prior to recording a plat for only a portion of contiguous land holdings or one phase of a multi -phase development or any portion of a Citv-initiated and approved general development plan, the City, as a condition accompanying Final Plat approval, tray shall require the applicant to: A. deposit in escrow a deed describing by metes and bounds and conveying to the City all street rights -of -way, easements and public land required by these regulations for subsequent phases of the development; or B. execute a development agreement pursuant to Section 61.252 that guarantees the completion and performance of all required on -site and `�� off -site private or public facility improvements for subsequent phases of the development. Subd. 3. In the event the applicant is unable or unwilling to complete the required improvements in accordance with the city/owner contract, and such improvements are deemed necessary for the preservation of the public health and safety, the City may compel the delivery of the deed and guarantees in order to complete the improvements as required. Section 12, Section 61.584 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 61.584 Review Criteria: The approving entity shall approve a site development plan if all of the following findings are made: A. The prepesal proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed development complies with +R" ^..gu!atiens all applicable laws and ordinances. C. The site plan layout satisfies the purpose, intent and all development standards of the zoning district unless a variance is approved. D. The proposed development, wherever practical, indicates all utility service transmission systems (including, but not limited to, water, sewer, natural gas, electrical and telephone lines) are placed underground. E. The site proposed development will occur in a manner that will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted by applicable laws and ordinances. F. The proposed development is consistent with adopted policies and standards for access, grading, drainage, erosion control and stormwater management. G. The proposed development is consistent with any approved General Development Plan Conditional Use Permit and Traffic Impact Study i approved for the property. H. There has been complete compliance with all issues addressed in any applicable development agreement. Section 13. Section 64.131 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 64.131 Required Facilities: Subdivision 1. In a proposed development, the required improvements include, but are not limited to, streets, sidewalks, public sanitary sewer and water extensions, storm water management facilities, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and monumentation. Other items that are necessary or material to the project, such as school sites or park land, may be identified during the development approval process. Subd 2 An applicant may seek to stage or phase development in order to link the timing of development with the adequacy of public facilities However, the Council must consider the demand for adequate public facilities generated by subsequent phases of the development and must require a development agreement as to the design and construction of on -site or off -site public or private facility improvements to serve those subsequent phases. Section 14. This ordinance shall become effective as of the date of its publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2006. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12006. MAYOR (Sea[ of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) OrdG 5161.231. m a rked V er6 �� Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 Ms. Rivas stated that all pools should be inside a fence for the Ms. Wiesner stated tti�t the responsibility needs to be put children. V s safety. on the parents for watching their Mr. Haeussinger stated th\acertain ertain heights on ere a child could pull themselves out of a pool. Ms. Wiesner stated that thsubdivision at they cannot have fences with regard to their covenants. The mver could be option when they are trying to appease their covenants. She alsoith the word' g of a pond -landscape pond or Silver Lake and if they are recreationabe include the text amendment. Mr. Barry stated that he does not have pools within fences. Mr. Ohly stated that the ponds normally sited for it. The covers would not be eni material for someone to walk on without Ms. Baker asked the Commission if City Council with striking the langua Ms. Rivas asked if temporary pools as it would be highly dangerous to not than 24 inches of water and no one should be ction and if they were made of a heavier ev would not function. would sort moving the text amendment forward to having a ver in lieu of a fence. be conside%d within the language changes. Ms. Baker replied that ther/was attempt to define po if they would be temporary or permanent. Mr. Adkins stated that he ending cases regarding h e owners being sited for having pools without being enclosces and he is waiting to go rward with the cases until a decision would be made osible language changes. Haeussinger move o send on Text Amendment#06-01 to a City Council with:' king, the words po covers from, numbers 5 & 6 from Sec tfo . Private Swimming )Is and Tennis Co its and adding that a pool cover cannot.be used in lieu .f a fen( I to add theword recreational rn front of pond In the definition of Swimming Pools Text Amendment #06-02 initiated by the Rochester City Council, to amend the Subdivision regulations to clarify the adequate public facilities requirements, clarify how a final plat relates back to a preliminary plat and to correctly reflect the requirements for recording final plat documents Sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual included in the amendment include: 60.200, 61.214, 61.215, 61.225, 61.230, 61.231, 61.233, 61.237 61.251 61.255, 61.584, and 64.131. Ms. Baker presented the staff report dated March 16, 2006, to the Commission. A copy of the report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 Mr. Adkins stated that they are in litigation on Pebble Creek, which involves a plat where the final plat hearing was used by the developer to change the amount of acres and the attempt of change the conditions from the preliminary plat. If a development is going to be phased, a developer should be able to show the City what the future plans would be. A final plat hearing cannot be used to amend the preliminary plat. Public infrastructure is needed and there will be a development agreement required by the City when a developer would be phasing a future development. Mr. Burke asked if the 80 acres that is currently required, would still be required. Ms. Baker replied that the 80 acre minimum used to be a requirement, than it was taken out in 1999, We are proposing to put that in the requirement. Mr. Burke asked if a development would be less than 80 acres, but connected to annexed land in the City would that be allowed. Ms. Baker replied that the topography of the site of the adjacent development and other features listed in the Ordinance would allow for the 80 acre area to be reduced. Mr. Wallace stated that he is confused with the 80 acres requirement, and what would happen if they only have 50 acres. Ms. Baker replied that they would need to look ahead at how the services would carry on through the next parcels, and include a minimum of 80 acres. Mr. Burke asked if they have heard anything from any developers regarding the issues. Ms. Baker replied no. Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Adkins if a development agreement would be in place, and the developer has the money available to get things started, would there be an open door for the developer with an extension of the streets. Ms. Baker stated that the amendment still allows a developer the opportunity to fund improvements necessary to make the facilities adequate, if the improvements are not planned and/or budgeted already. Mr. Adkins stated that if there would be phasing in the development and not adequate information, then the development agreement would need to be in place between the City and the developer. With no one wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr. Haeussingee made a motion to approve Text Amendment#06-02, initiated by_the Rochester Ci Council Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. 1.The motion carried 8-0. AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #06-01, initiated by the City Council to amend Section 62.278(5) and 60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual regarding private swimming pools. April 11, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: MEETING DATE 4-17-06 ITEM NO. &,! PREPARED EI : Brent Svenby, Senior Planner On March 22, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed zoning text amendment. The Planning & Zoning Commission found that the proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Land Development Manual and recommended approval of the proposed amendment with the following changes to the proposed language: Striking the words "pool covers" from numbers 5 and 6 from Section 5 and adding that a pool cover cannot be used in lieu of a fence. The commission also suggests that the word "recreation" be added in front of pond in the definition of Swimming Pools. See the revised language has recommended by the planning commission. Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of Text Amendment #06-01 with modifications. Seconded by Mr. Ohly. The motion carried 8-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached report dated March 16, 2005. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the text amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached staff report). Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: _ second by: to: 10 �o ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 559D4-4744 C O V N T N OF www.olmstadcounty.com/planning March 16, 2006 TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Randy Klement, Planner RpGHE57Lg'�rNh� ti.'r S b r. 0Rd Tk: GGUSK'S' RE: Text Amendment #06-01, initiated by the City Council to amend Section 62.278(5) and 60.220 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual regarding private swimming pools. Background and Analysis: In the summer of 2005 the City Attorney received a complaint on the enforcement of the regulations for private swimming pools. Based on the complaint, staff started looking at amending the Ordinance. Staff researched what other Cities have for regulations regarding private swimming pools. Attached is a proposed amendment to Sections 60.220 and 62.278 (5) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, which as initiated by the City Council on February 22, 2006. The text amendment is proposing to modify the language applicable to private swimming pools. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission amend Sections 60.220 and 62.278 (5) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual with language underlined in the attached handout. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION: A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (staff suggested findings follow each criteria): a) whether there is a public need for the amendment; There is a public need for this amendment as there has been confusion in the enforcement of the existing zoning regulations pertaining to private swimming pools; b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester; This amendment will further the purpose of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual by protecting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. The amendment will provide clarification to the enforcement of the zoning regulations pertaining to private swimming pools and this amendment will be lawful. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 o,o„ PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 OD FAX 507/287-2275 Tc�' AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 60.200 DEDINITIONS SWIMMING POOL: Any private pool, pond, lake or open tank not located within a completely enclosed building and capable of containing water to a depth at any point greater than one and GRe half (1 "" fee%. twenty-four (24) inches. SWIMMING POOL, AR^"�oVE'�;= ABOVE GROUND: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of four (4) feet or greater above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. SWIMMING POOL, 519LO1AI GRADE SURFACE: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of over twenty-four (24) inches, but less than four (4) feet above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. 62.278 Detailed Accessory Use Regulations: The following paragraphs detail additional requirements that are placed on specific types of accessory uses or structures due to their unique nature or their potential for having possible adverse effects on surrounding properties. These specific accessory uses or structures are not allowed except under the particular requirements contained herein. [Any person who makes, or allows to be made, one of the specific accessory use identified herein, without meeting all of the specific requirements therefore, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who constructs an accessory structure identified herein without meeting all requirements identified for that type of structure is guilty of a misdemeanor.] 5. Private Swimming Pools and Tennis Courts: No swimming pool or tennis court shall be allowed in any residential district unless it complies with the following requirements: a) The pool or court is not operated as a business or private club, except when allowed as a permitted home occupation. b) It shall not be located in any required front or required side yard, and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any property line of the property on which it is located. Pump and filter installations for pools shall not be closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. 1) For a belsw-grade an in -ground surface swimming pool, the pool or the property upon which said pool is located shall be enclosed by a fence of a type which effectively controls the entrance by children to the pool area, said fence to be at least five (5) feet in height. Wooden fences with boards placed vertically shall not have any opening wider than four (4) inches per opening and wooden fences with boards placed horizontally shall not have any opening wider than one (1) inch per opening. For an in -ground pool, a mechanically controlled cover can be used in lieu of fencing requirements. 2) Gates installed for access to the property or pool area shall be equipped with an automatic closing and latching device to protect against uncontrolled access to the property. 3) For as abeve gfade an above around swimming pool, the pool shall be equipped with an automatically retractable type ladder, a retractable ladder, or a removable ladder or shall be fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,i) and said ladder to be removed or retracted when said pool is not being attended. 4) If access to the pool is via a deck or porch, then no access from the ground is permitted to the deck area unless the property or the ground access to the deck is fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,l). 5) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner where said pool is located to maintain all pool covers, fences, gates and closure devices in good operating condition. 6) Failure to maintain pool covers, fences, failure to have gates closed, or failure to either remove or retract the ladder access to the pool shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore be subject to the penalties contained therein. c) Enclosed pools and courts shall be considered to be structures for purposes of regulations limiting lot coverage. LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 60.200 DEDINITIONS SWIMMING POOL: Any private recreational pool, pond, lake or open tank not located within a completely enclosed building and capable of containing water to a depth at any point greater than @Re and-oRe half (I I Q) feet. twenty-four (24)inch es. SWIMMING POOL, ARQVr GRADE ABOVE GROUND: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of four (4) feet or greater above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. SWIMMING POOL, BELOW GRAB€ SURFACE: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of over twenty-four (241 inches, but less than four (4) feet above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. 62.278 Detailed Accessory Use Regulations: The following paragraphs detail additional requirements that are placed on specific types of accessory uses or structures due to their unique nature or their potential for having possible adverse effects on surrounding properties. These specific accessory uses or structures are not allowed except under the particular requirements contained herein. [Any person who makes, or allows to be made, one of the specific accessory use identified herein, without meeting all of the specific requirements therefore, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who constructs an accessory structure peril herein without meeting all requirements identified for that type of structure is guilty of a misdemeanor.) 5. Private Swimming Pools and Tennis Courts: No swimming pool or tennis court shall be allowed in any residential district unless it complies with the following requirements: a) The pool or court is not operated as a business or private club, except when allowed as a permitted home occupation. b) It shall not be located in any required front or required side yard, and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any property line of the property on which it is located. Pump and filter installations for pools shall not be closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. ►IF 1) For a 4elew-grade an in -ground surface swimming pool, the pool or the property upon which said pool is located shall be enclosed by a fence of a type which effectively controls the entrance by children to the pool area, said fence to be at least five (5) feet in height. Wooden fences with boards placed vertically shall not have any opening wider than four (4) inches per opening and wooden fences with boards placed horizontally shall not have any opening wider than one (1) inch per opening. For an in -ground pool, _ _ - Deleted: a mee� covers can not be used in lieu of fencing requirements. 2) Gates installed for access to the property or pool area shall be equipped with an automatic closing and latching device to protect against uncontrolled access to the property. 3) For aR abovegrade an above ground swimming pool, the pool shall be equipped with an automatically retractable type ladder, a retractable ladder, or a removable ladder or shall be fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,l) and said ladder to be removed or retracted when said pool is not being attended. 4) If access to the pool is via a deck or porch, then no access from the ground is permitted to the deck area unless the property or the ground access to the deck is fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,i). 5) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner where said pool is located to maintain all fences,_gates and closure devices in good operating _ _ _ - Deleted: Door covers condition. 6) Failure to maintair�_fences, failure to -have -gates closed, or failure to either_ _ _ _ - Deleted: Poor covers. remove or retract the ladder access to the pool shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore be subject to the penalties contained therein. c) Enclosed pools and courts shall be considered to be structures for purposes of regulations limiting lot coverage. Page 4 1� City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 Text Amendment #06-01 initiated by the City Council to amend Section 62.278(5) an 60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual regarding private swimming pools. Ms. Baker presented the staff report dated March 16, 2006, to the Commission. A copy of the report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ohly asked why they would raise the standard of water to 24 inches. Ms. Baker replied that staff researched other areas standards throughout the Country and the State. An in -ground pool would no longer require a fence if it had a mechanically controlled cover if the language changes are approved. Mr. Haeussinger stated that the pool cover is typically pulled back an hour or two before someone would be using the pool. The pool could be left open when people walk away from it. With no fence, any one could fall into the pool. Mr. Wallace stated that he agrees with Mr. Haeussinger. He went on to ask how the 0-24 inches of water pools would be regulated. Ms. Baker stated that pools would not be regulated if the water level would be less than 24 inches. Ms. Wiesner asked if Silver Lake would be affected by the possible language changes. Ms. Baker replied no. Mr. Burke asked if the landscape ponds would be included in the possible language changes and if so, who would be measuring the water depth and where would it be measured from. Ms. Baker replied that the measurement would have to be from the bottom to the top level of the water, it would be the capacity of the water. Storm water run-off ponds would be different. Ms. Rivas asked if other communities actually had in ground pools with no fence and just a mechanical cover. Mr. Terry Adkins, City Attorney, addressed the Commission. He stated that it was brought on by a complaint stating that kiddie pools need fencing, that they pose a danger to young children if they are left unattended. The City Council members were not pleased with the issue. There was someone from the public that came to the Council meeting with a binder of the different types of covers and Council directed staff to incorporate the covers into the fencing issues. Mr. Burke stated that the covers would probably not be able to hold a child. Mr. Haeussinger stated that pool covers are not good enough for safety protection for young children. Mr. Burke stated that staff should review and identify what the covers would entail and any stipulations in lieu of a fence. Ms. Rivas stated that cover should not be in lieu of a fence. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 22, 2006 Ms. Rivas stated that all pools should be inside a fence for the children's safety. Ms. Wiesner stated that the responsibility needs to be put back on the parents for watching their children. Mr. Haeussinger stated that there are certain heights on where a child could pull themselves out of a pool. Ms. Wiesner stated that there are certain subdivisions that they cannot have fences with regard to their covenants. The mechanical cover could be an option when they are trying to appease their covenants. She also has issues with the wording of a pond -landscape pond or Silver Lake and if they are recreational would they be included in the text amendment. Mr. Barry stated that he does not agree with the changes, as it would be highly dangerous to not have pools within fences. Mr. Ohly stated that the ponds normally have less than 24 inches of water and no one should be sited for it. The covers would not be enough protection and if they were made of a heavier material for someone to walk on without sinking they would not function. Ms. Baker asked the Commission if they would support moving the text amendment forward to City Council with striking the language of having a cover in lieu of a fence. Ms. Rivas asked if temporary pools would be considered within the language changes. Ms. Baker replied that there was no attempt to define pools if they would be temporary or permanent. Mr. Adkins stated that he has two pending cases regarding home owners being sited for having pools without being enclosed in fences and he is waiting to go forward with the cases until a decision would be made on the possible language changes. Mr. Haeussinger moved to send on Text Amendment:#06-0.1 to the City Council with striking_the words pool covers fro m`numbers 5 & 6 from Section 5. Private Swimming Pools and Tennis Courts and adding that a pool cover cannot be used in lieu of;a fence and to add the -word recreational in front of pond in the definition of Swimming Pools Section 60.200 Definitions. Mr. Ohl seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0..: Ms. Baker presented the staff report daifd Marc Nnepartment. 2006, to the Commission. A copy of the msted report is on file at the Rochester-OlPlanni MEETING DATE: 4-17-06 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: TABLED PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNLNG ITEM NO. C` - ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning PREPARED BY: Commission, to amend Section 63.2241 of the Rochester Zoning Mitzi A. Baker, Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning ° Senior Planner districts are permitted to have banners. April 12, 2006 This text amendment was continued several times by the City Council and then tabled in December 2005. In December, the City Council considered a draft recommendation and ultimately agreed to move forward with a text amendment to incorporate that recommendation as a reasonable solution to balancing the interests of the residents and the non-residential property owners in the Residential Zoning Districts with regard to regulating banners. Attached is the proposed text amendment, based on the direction provided by the City Council in December. Two parties expressed interest in this amendment and were provided with a copy of the proposed amendment on April 4, 2006. One of the contacted parties and another who had learned about the amendment contacted the Planning Department on April 12, 2006 to express concerns with the proposed Ordinance amendment. Attached is an e-mail from Steven Gronseth outlining concerns related to the amendment. The other party contacted Planning by phone and is expected to be in attendance at ne City Council meeting on April 17, 2006. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On July 31, 2005 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed zoning text amendment. That version of the amendment proposed to prohibit banners in all residential districts, and the B-5 Residential Commercial district. The Commission recommended in favor 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached revised staff report dated April 4, 2006. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached staff report). ¢ cL Li Distribution: 1. City Administrator (/ct- L City Attorney /N l %�f 3. Planning Department File r COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: �4 Baker Mitzi From: sgronset@charter.net Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:27 PM To: Baker Mitzi Subject: Re: banners Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Mitzi Baker I do have concerns with this ordinance. I was going to to bring it to our membership meeting next Thursday t4-20-06) to get a concensus of our members. This ordinance as it stands to day eliminates the most effective and cheapest form of advertising for the majority of our membership. We have a member with a twenty unit building on Broadway is property investment of approx $800,000 to $1,000,000) that would not be able to advertise by this manner. We have another member with a twelve unit building one block off of Broadway whose property faces a strip mall and single family housing behind him and this ordinance would prevent him from advertising effectively. The past 3-4 years have been extremely difficult being a owner/manager of smaller rental units. Our membership has been experiencing vacancies ranging from 15-25%. Plus a number of our members have had 35-65% increases in their property taxes on top of the vacancies. I will not mention the increase in existing and new city fees or utilities. We are business owners some with a larger concentration of units in one location or scattered throught out the City. The majority of the rental units in Rochester are smalle buildings or single family rental homes. These business owners already pay higher taxes I not having our rental units homesteaded and we pay rental licenses that must pass City inspection. This ordinance favors the large businesses while severely limiting the small business owner. The Rochester Multi Housing Association I believe ( I have had an opportunity to speak to an officer of the organization) is not in favor of this ordinance. Sincerely, Steven Gronseth Rochester Multi Housing Association Director ---- Baker Mitzi cbaker.mitzi@CO.OLMSTED.MN.US> wrote: > Steve, > I e-mailed the proposed Ordinance amendment to you last week regarding > banners. I'm following up to see if you had any comments or concerns. > I am preparing a report to the City Council for this amendment which > must be completed by the end of the day today. Please reply at your > earliest convenience. > Thank you, > Mitzi A. Baker > Senior Planner > Monday - Thursday > Phone: 507-287-1696 > FAX: 507-287-2275 > "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the > dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the > aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the > handicapped." Hubert H. Humphrey 1 ROCHESTER-OLIISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C 011„r, of www.olmstedccurty.comlplanning April 4, 2006 TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission p CHEST $ A oR"� TLD•AEGUST•' FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner RE: Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Section 63.2241of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning districts are permitted to have banners. Text Amendment: Attached is a proposed amendment to Section 63.2241 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, which the Planning Commission initiated on June 8, 2005. Staff is proposing to modify the language applicable to banners to clarify the Ordinance and which zoning districts are permitted to have banners. The underlined text identifies text to be added. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION: A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (staff suggested findings follow each criteria): a) whether there is a public need for the amendment; There is a public need for this amendment to clarify the ordinance and make the language consistent with the administration of the Ordinance; b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester; The amendment will provide clarification of regulations and what zoning districts banners are not permitted in. c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. The amendment will provide clarification, and this amendment will be lawful. Staff recommends approval of this text amendment. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIG 507/285-8345 777-- o V FAX 5071287-2275 ..__._..._..._..._..,.. _...,. ...._.. 63.2241 Banners: Subdivision 1. mean a strip of cloth -like, sign appears. For purposes of this section, the term "banner" shall vinyl, lightweight or other woven material on which a Subdivision 2. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code to the contrary, no person may install or maintain a banner unless the banner is mounted parallel to a building fagade or other vertical building surface. A banner may not be mounted more than 18 inches from the wall surface to which it is attached. Subdivision 3. Banners in Residential Districts shall be subject to the following limitations: Non- Residential Uses No more than one banner shall be permitted per use or (i.e. office, personal per tenant. if located adjacent to a residential use of service, area accessory — church, school, etc) less than 24 units, or a RS-a, R-1 or R-1x District, no banner is permitted on any wall where the banner is visible from said use or District. Multi -Family Residential One banner shall be permitted per multi -family developments with 24 development with 24 units or more, when the banner is units or more oriented toward an abutting major collector road, or higher order roadway. if located adjacent to a residential use of less than 24 units, or a RS-a, R-1 or R-1x District, no banner is permitted on any wall where the banner is visible from said use or District. All other uses in Banners are prohibited. Residential Districts Subdivision 4. Residential Districts shall include, for the purposes of administering this Section of the Ordinance, all Residential Zoning Districts and B-5 (Residential Commercial) zoning districts and any Special District used for residential purposes. Adjourned Meeting No. 33 — December 12, 2005 t 7� CITY COUNCIL MINUTES increases will drive residents away. One alternative is a city or county income tax to minimize a property tax. Those on fixed or low income would not be adversely affected. The burden of taxation would be more fairly distributed among the population. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing. E-2 A Hearing to Consider a Proposed JOBZ Business Subsidy for Benchmark Electronics, Inc. Having no one wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing. Councilmembers Marcoux moved, Nowicki seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 617- 05 entering into a JOBZ Business Subsidy Agreement with Benchmark Electronics, Inc. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. E-3 A Continued Hearing on Debris Removal Assessment for 408 Tenth Street S.E. Having no one wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing. Councilmembers Marcoux moved, Nowicki seconded, to approve the Debris Removal Assessment for 408 Tenth Street S.E. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. A Continued Hearing on Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Section 63.2241 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning districts are permitted to have banners. President Hanson had received a call asking that the language be clarified for one building with 24 units. Mitzi Baker, Planning Department, asked the Council if they would like to see banners allowed in a complex with 30 units for broken into five or six buildings. Councilmember Carr said that it may appear to be discriminatory for individuals owning a 6-plex or two 10-plexes that cannot use a single banner; those under 24 units. He said that he could see one banner per building; it should be determined by zoning. Councilmember Marcoux said she did not agree that banners be allowed on individual buildings but that if a complex, perhaps with more than one building and ten units in each, are contingent and they total 24 or more that they be allowed one banner. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing. Councilmembers Marcoux moved, Nowicki seconded, to table the item and request staff to revise language and bring back to the Council with a prepared ordinance. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 3� MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS PARK &RECREATION �_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: HAWTHORN HILLS PURCHASE AGREEMENT PREPARED BY: RSUTHERLAND The proposed co -developed project at Hawthorn Hills is a unique opportunity to partner with the private sector for the public good. This project has been discussed for a number of months and has involved numerous staff meetings and public meetings to date. With construction occurring on the south side of 48d' Street, the extension of sewer and water to the valley and the reconstruction of 481h Street as part of ROCOG's Master Plan, development will be occurring in Hadley Valley. The proposal from Dick Argue to partner with the City on the co -development of the Hawthorn Hills Golf Learning Center property is a great opportunity to create a unique golf facility that will enhance what is already there and other development that will occur south of 48t' Street. There has been a lot said about the process to date and I cannot think of another project that the Department has been involved in that has included as many staff meetings and public meetings. Included have been two Park Board meetings, a neighborhood meeting, and three Committee of the Whole meetings. City and township residents have had numerous opportunities to provide input on this proposed concept. Three of the major complaints to date was a belief that the City had made a commitment that the land would only be used for a golf course or recreation for the next 100 years, that the City bought the land below the market value back in 1989 and that the public bidding process was somehow violated during this process. The property was purchased above the market value and in order to acquire the land, additional funds had to be secured to make this happen. Furthermore, when the property was purchased, the land owners were told that it was our desire to build a golf course but that we could not commit the City or future generations that this would be the only use. Under this proposal, a golf course will be built, but not an 18 hole golf course. In response to the residents concern about the lack of competitive proposals during this process, the Hawthorn Hills proposal was put on hold for one month while the City solicited proposals from the public. There were no proposals received regarding a project at Hawthorn Hills other than from Mr. Argue. The key components of the purchase agreement include the following: * The developer will at his cost of $3 million build the new Hawthorn Hills Golf Learning Center. This will include a new clubhouse, maintenance building, driving range, learning hole, chipping station and a nine hole executive golf course. The City has determined the standard at which these amenities will be built. * The developer will pay the City of Rochester $1.5 million from the sale of lots at Hawthorn Hills. * The developer, working with the Rochester Area Foundation, will establish a Park Foundation with the potential of $500,000 being allocated to this Foundation for park purposes. * The developer will be required to pay all fees associated with a project of this type. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: �� Request for Council Action Hawthorn Hills Purchase Agreement April 17, 2006 Page 2 *In exchange for the development of the new learning center, the developer will receive approximately 80 acres on which he can build houses. *The minimum value received by the City ($3,000,000 + $1,500,000) totaling $4.5 million for the land sold to the developer is $54,000 per acre. At the present time, the golf learning center requires a tax support of approximately $85,000 to $90,000 a year. From the time the golf learning center opened in 1999, $622,121 has been transferred from the 3 municipal courses to cover its operational costs. The new learning center will require approximately a $20,000 increase in its operating expenditures but will have a significant increase in revenue opportunities. This is based on a number of factors. These include: * The driving range will be relocated and no longer will golfers be looking into the sun from 5 to 7:30 p.m. * The new chipping area that is being planned will require people to rent golf balls to use this area. At the present time, golfers just retrieve their balls from the small chipping green that exists. * The nine hole executive course will generate approximately 10,000 rounds a year. This will be a significant increase not only in rounds but what is charged to play the holes. * With the development of the new learning center, the operation will go from a five month operation *^ seven month operation as far as usage. At the present time, there is a dramatic decrease in play at Hawt Hills in September and October. There is no question that there will be new development occurring in Hadley Valley irregardless of this project. We live in a different time where resources are limited and our ability to fund projects is greatly reduced. We are extremely dependent on creating partnerships that create win -win projects. The residents of the Hadley Valley area have raised a number of issues that need to be addressed. It is my belief that many of these issues will be addressed as part of the zoning process and the EAW worksheet that is required. A copy of the purchase agreement is attached. The Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department and City Administration recommend approval of the purchase agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the purchase agreement. 403 EAST CENTER Rochester. PON 55904 May 25, 1990 5071281-6160 Dr. Donald Layton 2515 Hadley Valley Road N. E. Rochester, MN. 55904 Dear Dr. Layton: Roy SUtlIWnd S,p,m end at Perlin 5 aea:aavon Caved K md--C efd peaor of NOS PoW C. Lw Oeee:or of Re .Iw : Ilery C:-Wvg 3b ,= of Very Ci Center :red !A'r'bew 0 re of aeaaem C^ tw Gym^ G.'Me'Jliln C K!I of Gan o rm slap Cast W of Fare6Uy ai+ Services SW.m=r The idea of a golf course on the Hawthorn Hills site is indeed an exciting concept. I believe it is something we all want and would be a benefit for all. It is very difficult to respond with a yes or no to all of your conditions. I believe some of these issues need to be addressed by each party's attorney. I truly believe we are in a position to make a golf course in northeast Rochester a reality. The following is a response to your proposal of April 27th. The city intends to build a golf course. They are not willing to commit future generations to a decision made in 1990. We have every intention of keeping the land as a golf course for years to come. The city cannot agree on the item regarding obstruction of development. of Hawthorn Hill 12th Subdivision. They have an obligation to enforce existing laws. The city will agree to pay the cost of the survey if the landowners can determine the west and northwest corner boundries. The projected requirements for land at the west and northwest extremes must be resolved before the survey takes place. The developers need to determine what land they need for their one acre lots. We need some stakes in this area prior to the survey. The item regarding the retention of title and control by Hawthorn Hill of Lot 1, Block 4, Hawthorn Hill 2 is agreeable with the city. The development of a gravel drive between Hawthorn Hill Road and John Mahon's garage is agreeable to the city. Board of PAGE 2 ➢r. Donald Layton Response to April 27 Proposal The city is glad that the sellers do not object to the cart path item. In regard to the drainfield from potential homesites in Hawthorn Hill 12, this item needs further review. The city does not object to sellers retaining control of the Mahon house until such time as Edwward and Cart Mahon elect to stop living there, at which time the total control of the property reverts to the city. The city agrees that they would have use of all outbuildings except the free—standing garage on the Edward Mahon property, and can dispose of or utilize them at their convenience. The item regarding the well water is ok to the city. The item regarding the use of the drive or yard to maintenance facilities by the city is agreeable. The city agrees to not modify the agricultural use of the property in 1990 without reasonable compensation to the current operator and to Hawthorn Hill Associates. The item regarding the HawthronHill Road outlet to 48th Street needs further review. This would be part of the survey. The item regarding the fulfillment of any parkland donation requirements is not possible. This does not fall under the dedication. Regarding the frontage costs for easements and utilities, this item needs more clarification. The item regarding the Park Board's position on future development of a Hadley Valley Sanitary District is not possible. The last item, and possibly the most important, is the dollar amount. The city will increase its offer to $360,000. This is over our budgeted amount as well as the appraised value. Please give our offer serious consideration. Ve would be happy to sit down with you and your partners at your convenience. Sincerely, Roy Sutherland Superintendent jk cc: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator Ronald Seeger ,21 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 - 4" STREET SE - ROOM 150 ROCHESTER,MINNESOTA 55904 (507) 281-6160 FAX: (507) 281-6165 MEMORANDUM TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold City Administrator FROM: Roy Sutherland Superintendent DATE: January 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Hawthorn Hills Development Project ..............................................................................I The proposed Hawthorn Hills Development Project is a unique opportunity to co -develop a piece of park property. Opportunities like this come along once in a lifetime and this is truly a win -win situation for the Park Department and the citizens of Rochester. There are a number of factors that make this a great project. These include: ➢ Sewer and water will be extended by the City of Rochester to Stock Lumber by December of 2006. ➢ The Park Board has reviewed the proposed development plan and has approved it unanimously. ➢ 48' Street NE is going to be rebuilt as part of the ROCOG Master Plan sometime in the future. This project calls for the developer to pay these reconstruction costs. ➢ The reputation and the track record of the developer and ' is partners is outstanding. Page 2 of 2 > Much of the area south of 48"' Street NE is already under development or will be in the near future. > There is a Storm Water Master Plan for this area already approved. ➢ The Hawthorn Hills Development Project will require an EAW worksheet to be completed prior to development. ➢ Sometime in the near future, 55"' Street NW is going to be extended to the 48'h Street NE intersection. > The City will receive approximately $5 million in value for the land that will be developed. > The developer will spend approximately $3 million rebuilding the Golf Learning Center into a world class facility. In addition, the City will receive approximately $2 million from the sale of lots in the development. > The only property that will be annexed as part of this project is the City parkland. ➢ It is our belief that the new expanded Learning Center will lower the operational tax support of the center. ➢ In addition to the $5 million the City will receive from this project, the Rochester Area Foundation will also receive a percentage of the profit. > The project will generate mullions of dollars in an expanded tax base. ➢ The Learning Center as proposed will help create the next generation of golfers that use the three City courses. ➢ Money generated from the sale of lots will be used to start the Park Foundation. > Tbis is truly a win -win project. �3g PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this _ day of 2006, between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (hereinafter "Seller") and Hadley Valley Partners of Rochester LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter "Buyer"). WITNESSETH: 1. Seller agrees to grant and convey to the Buyer by warranty deed, approximately 207 gross acres as approximately shown on the Attached Exhibit A. Of this land, approximately 118 acres will be reconveyed to the Seller with the golf related improvements designed and constructed by Buyer as hereinafter identified. The final acreage amounts shall be approved by the Park Superintendent and shall be based upon the approved General Development Plan, Final Plat (final plat is required prior to conveyance of the property), and Final GradineDrainage Plans, all of which must be approved by the City Engineer and the City Council. The deed language shall indicate that the conveyance is conditioned upon the Buyer's compliance with all conditions of this purchase agreement and that the Buyer shall reconvey to the Seller those portions of the development property for which the appropriate reimbursements and improvements described herein have not been made. 2. Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to purchase the property based on consideration that includes a combination of golf course construction and future cash payments identified herein. 3. Buyer's consideration for the lands received is as follows: a. Buyer shall provide payment to the Seller in the amount of not less than $1,500,000. Payment shall be made in the following manner: i. Owner shall provide: 1. Beginning the earlier of January 1, 2010 or unit sold in phase 11 of the development (phase 2 is anticipated to have 150 lots), per lot/unit payments of $10,000 shall be paid to the Seller upon conveyance of each lot/unit or upon connection of the lot/unit to sanitary sewer or water, whichever occurs earlier. 2. Payments shall be provided until the $1,500,000.00 total minimum payment has been paid. ii. In all events, all per unit payments and any remaining balance of the $1,500,000 owed to the Seller shall be made within ten (10) years of execution of this 1 agreement. If Buyer fails to make such payment, Buyer shall reconvey to Seller all lots, units, or unplatted parcels for which the payment has not been made within this ten (10) year period. Buyer shall ensure that all lots, units or parcels reconveyed to Seller are free of any liens or encumbrances. b. Buyer shall take the following actions on the lands to be reconveyed to the Seller for golf course purposes: Buyer shall construct, at Buyer's sole cost and expense, a 4,000 square foot golf course maintenance facility and a 2000 square foot Golf Learning Center (after receipt of proper permits from the necessary agencies) at a location within the golf course property to be mutually agreed upon by the Seller and Buyer (general location is identified on Exhibit A). The cost of construction for the two golf course buildings shall not be less than $350,000 and not to exceed $400,000.00. Details of the entire golf facility are outlined on Exhibit B; and ii. Buyer shall have designed, by a City -approved golf course designer/architect, and have constructed (after receipt of proper permits from the necessary agencies), the nine hole golf course, both design and construction to be at Buyer's sole cost and expense and meeting the general specifications as outlined on Exhibit B and as approximately shown on the attached Exhibit C; and iii. Buyer shall have designed, by a City -approved golf course designer/architect, and have constructed (after receipt of proper permits from the necessary agencies), the golf teaching facilities and practice facilities, both design and construction to be at Buyer's sole cost and expense meeting the general specifications outlined on Exhibit B and as approximately shown on Exhibit C; and iv. Buyer shall have designed, by a City -approved golf course designer/architect, and have constructed (after receipt of proper permits from the necessary agencies), a driving range, both design and construction to be at Buyer's sole cost and expense and meeting the general specifications identified on Exhibit B; and V. Buyer shall have construction expenses for the above golf course facilities of not less than $3,000,000 vi. In all cases all of the Golf Course Facilities identified on Exhibit B shall be completed by June 1, 2008 unless otherwise specified on Exhibit B. 4. The Buyer shall not request nor receive final plat approval by the City Council and/or shall not develop any portion of the area defined as Phase II, as shown on Exhibit A, until all items in paragraph 3b. have been approved and accepted by Seller and the Buyer is current on payments owed to the Seller as outlined in 3a. 5. The City shall be responsible for the deed tax payable to the Olmsted County Treasurer for lands conveyed to the Buyer and for lands received from the Buyer. The Buyer shall be responsible for all other costs associated with the conveyance of the properties identified herein and recording of the deeds. 6. The closing of the sale of the property shall take place on the date the Buyer provides those documents and items identified herein. 7. Seller shall deliver to Buyer actual possession of the property on the actual date of closing, provided that Buyer and Seller have complied with all of their obligations hereunder. Prior to closing Buyer shall provide the following to Seller for review and approval by its City Attorney: a. Letter(s) of Credit or Performance and payment bonds (both of which must meet the approval of the City of Rochester) obligating the surety to the performance of all design and construction activities identified in paragraph 3, the letter of credit or performance bond for the benefit of Seller and the letter of credit or payment bond for the benefit of all parties providing labor or materials for the design and construction of the golf course facilities identified in paragraph 3. b. In the event the City has not been paid its full amount as outlined in paragraph 3a. Buyer shall have on record from the lender a commitment for process on collateral / security redemption in the event the project deteriorates whereby the lender would need to `call' the note and or collateral / security. The following general process shall be outlined in the commitment: i. The lender will first proceed against the Phase I lots and the Borrower and Co - Borrowers for collection of outstanding loan balance. ii. The lender will then proceed against the Phase II residential land. iii. City may at any time buyout the Buyers obligations on the Phase I or Phase IT land and make current the outstanding loan payment amounts to cease the Lender's redemption process. in such event the Buyer would deed all Phase I and Phase 11 property to the City of Rochester and said purchase agreement would be null and void. c. An executed Development Agreement. d. Actual transfer of title of the property shall occur no later than April 1, 2007. In the event the Buyer has not commenced closing of the golf course or commenced construction on the property, as defined herein, by April 1, 2007 the transfer of the property shall not occur and this agreement shall be considered voided. 8. Buyer is responsible for all development related charges. Development charges shall not apply to the golf course property that is to be recom eyed to the Seller. 3 9. Seller is responsible for the payment and release of all taxes and special assessments, if any, which are outstanding on the property, with current year property taxes, if any, prorated to the date of closing. 10. Buyer shall keep the existing practice area, range, and facilities open as long as possible in 2006. Four weeks notice is required to close the existing golf operations. Buyer will keep at least one practice hole and the golf shop open until July 5, 2006. 11. Upon execution of this agreement, Seller shall furnish Buyer, within 30 days, an abstract, which abstract shall be available for Buyer and its Attorney to examine in order to determine marketable title to the property. Buyer shall be allowed ten (10) days after receipt of such abstract for examination of title, making of any objections thereto, and notifying Sellers in writing of the nature of such objections. If any objections to title are not made and Sellers notified, such objections shall be deemed waived. If any objections to title are made and Sellers notified, Sellers shall be allowed up to the date of closing to cure such objections. If such objections are not cured prior to the date of closing, Buyer may either: (1) Elect to declare this agreement null and void, in which case neither party shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other parry; or (2) consummate the transaction contemplated by this agreement in the same manner as if there had been no title objections but withholding from the cash portion of the purchase price referred to in this agreement a reasonable cost, as estimated by Buyer and Sellers, correcting such objections, in which event the transaction contemplated by this agreement shall consummate on the date of closing; and when the objections are cured, an appropriate adjustment shall be made between the parties hereto to the end that Buyer shall be reimbursed his reasonable costs of curing the objections. 12. Provided the Buyer has owned the property for a period of at least 1 year and construction on the golf course has been completed, Buyer shall have a new abstract created for the property to be reconveyed to the Seller (golf course property) and delivered to the Seller within 10 business days. Buyer shall then immediately convey the golf course facility to the Seller by warranty deed. The property shall be free of any liens or encumbrances. 13. Seller shall not suffer the property or any structure or improvements thereon to become subject to any lien, charge or encumbrance, and shall indemnify Buyer against all such liens, charges and encumbrances. 14. The parties hereto agree that time and time of payment are of the essence of this agreement. 15. If the Development Agreement, General Development Plan or Zone Change (as applied for by the Buyer), are not approved by the City within 8 months of this agreement being signed, this agreement may be voided by the Buyer. In any event, if Buyer closes the golf course or commences construction on the property, as defined herein, this agreement cannot be voided at the discretion of the Buyer. The City reserves its right to review and approve/deny the Buyers applications consistent with the practices and policies governing the development of property in the City of Rochester. I \ 41 16. This agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 17. This agreement, together with the development agreement identified herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification, or change of the terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. 18. Numerous provisions of this agreement are incapable of completion prior to closing. The terms and conditions of this agreement survive closing and transfer of the Property. 19. Buyer shall be responsible for all costs, including attorneys' fees, should the Seller determine it necessary to commence legal action to gain Buyer's compliance with the terms of this agreement. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hands and seals as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation By Its Mayor Attest: Its City Clerk HadleV Valley Partners of Rochester LLC By_ Its By_ Its 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by Ardell F. Brede and Judy Scherr, the Mayor and acting City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation, for and on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF AINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2006, by and the and respectively, of Hadlev Valley Partners of Rochester LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, who acknowledged that they were authorized to execute this document for and on behalf of the company. This document drafted by: Rochester City Attomey's Office 201 4' Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 (507)285-8066 Notary Public 7 PV EXMBIT B. MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND LEARNING CENTER 1) The construction of the Maintenance Facility and Learning Center building and facilities shall be completed no later than September 1, 2007, and shall be subject to the following: 2) City Administrator shall review and approval of the design details & construction documents. 3) Restroom Facilities 4) Include a potable water source with a commercial wash tub/basin and hose bib. 5) Include a driveway suitable for providing access for commercial deliveries. 6) Parking lot shall be sized to accommodate the Golf Operations and teaching facility and shall contain a minimum number of 100 standard parking stalls. 7) Receipt of proper permits from the necessary agencies. GOLF COURSE FACILITY 1) The Golf Course Facility shall be completed by Spring of 2008. 2) The design and specifications for constructing the New Nine shall minimally meet the standards of the USGA & City and conform to the course description that is attached as Exhibit C. Modifications may be made to the design and standards upon written approval Superintendent of Park and Recreation of the City of Rochester. 3) shall consist of at least Par 31 (9 golf holes) pursuant to PGA standards 4) shall be at least 2000 yards long as measured from the furthest tee markers, pursuant to PGA standards, 5) shall include greens consisting of approximately 5,000 square feet inclusive of a herringbone drainage system, full irrigation, and a construction design of a "California style" with turf grasses identified on the attached Exhibit. Modifications may be made to the design and standards upon written approval Superintendent of Park and Recreation of the City of Rochester. 6) Fairways shall be irrigated for full coverage and shall include turf grasses, as identified on the attached Exhibit, on top of 6" of suitable topsoil. 7) Rough areas shall have partial irrigated coverage and shall include turf grasses, as identified on the attached Exhibit C, on top of 6" of topsoil. 8) Periodic hazards, ponding, sand traps, and Wetlands shall be included to enhance the golf play. Hazards shall be designed consistent with PGA standards. 9) Landscaping shall be added as needed to restore and/or complete the effect for buffering and/or beautification of the overall course feel. 10) Installation of 7 feet wide Bituminous Paths in high traffic areas consisting of at least 4 inches of Bituminous on an adequate base in locations approximately shown on the Attached Exhibit C (Bridge Crossings, Roadway Crossings, and locations where more two holes converge). 11) Installation of bridge crossings approximately as shown on the attached exhibit. PRACTICE HOLES AND GREENS 1) Practice Holes and Greens shall be playable by April 15, 2008. One teaching Hole consistent with the golf course construction requirements approximately yards long approximately as shown on the attached Exhibit C. 2) 100 3) One Practice Green consistent with the golf course construction requirements except for the size of the Green shall be 10,000 square feet shown on Exhibit C. 4) One Short Game Practice Area consistent with the golf course construction requirements shown on Exhibit C. DRIVING RANGE 1) Driving Range shall be playable by April 15, 2008 2) Driving Range shall be approximately 400 feet wide (at the tee box) to approximately 400 feet wide at the far end of the range. 3) The minimum length of the range landing area shall be 950.00 feet. ternatively, the deth of the Tee ox 4) be allowed to be 85 feet deep t(75dfeet of aturale by 100 feet dturf and 110 feet of artif cal turf meeting hcould Tee e Park and Recreation standards). 5) Construction shall be consistent with golf course standards (similar in construction and vegetation as the remaining part of the course) and standards outlined herein. 6) Additionally, the Driving Range facility will be made to be suitable for use as a Snow Tubing Hill during winter time. CONSTRUCTION 1) Owner will construct (after receipt of proper permits from the necessary agencies) the New Course, Practice Green, Teaching Holes, Short Game Practice Area, Driving Range and associated facilities. Owner will be responsible for all expenses related to construction, operations, and maintenance of the golf course through the City's acceptance of completed areas of the golf course & teaching 10 �A facility, at which time the City will assume full responsibility for control and maintenance of those Golf Course Facility areas. Areas of the golf course facility which are completed and ready for turning over to the City shall minimally include groups of holes/facilities in a logical locations to allow ease of access and maintenance without proceeding through the remaining areas under construction (examples of some logical areas include all of the practice facilities lying north of the proposed roadway, all of the golf holes lying south of the proposed road and north of the creek, all of the golf holes lying south of the creek). 2) City's final acceptance of the entire Golf Course and Teaching Facility shall occur no sooner than after final seeding of the entire golf course by the seeding/irrigation contractor and consist of and be based upon the following: i) City/Owner; Golf Course Architect/Contractor shall have performed a field inspection(s) to verify completion of the work elements (to a quality expected for a golf course), verification of stability of disturbed areas, verification of purchase and delivery of required equipment for an operational golf course (ie tee markers, ball washers, benches, waste receptacles), and verification of proper vegetation growth. ii) Golf Course Architect has prepared a final report detailing the Operations & maintenance of the final facility, detailing the correction of construction related items, included construction records, included inspection logs, included lien waivers, and providing an "As Built" plan for the irrigation system, green drainage system and the storm water management facilities. iii) All work elements have been completed and corrective items completed pursuant to the execution of Certification by the Golf Course Architect, 11 EXHIBIT C (Course La out 12 EXHIBIT C (Course Layoutl i3 EXHIBIT C ([:nurse Lavout) 14 193 EXHIBIT D Sample Letter of Credit IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT APPLICANT: XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX BENEFICIARY: City of Rochester Department of Public Works 201 4`s Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904 REGARDING: XXXXXXX EXPIRES: ?OCCXXXX (Unless extended pursuant to terms and conditions herein) AMOUNT: $XXXXXXX Mr. Richard Freese, PE City Engineer City of Rochester Department of Public Works 201 4 h Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Freese: We hereby issue for the account of XXXXXXX and in your favor, this Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of SXXXXXXX available to you by draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. This Letter of Credit shall guarantee the performance and payment of the Developer relating to the following item: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit dated XXXXXXX of XXXXXXX." b) Be signed by an authorized representative of the beneficiary, City of Rochester. c) Be accompanied in writing by an authorized representative and (1) stating that XXXXXXX (the "Developer') has defaulted in its obligations under a certain contract between XXXXXXX and the beneficiary, and (2) certifying that the amount drawn is required by the beneficiary to fulfill xX'3 obligation to complete the contract to complete d) Be presented for payment at )CCXDCXXXXXX on or before 3:00 p.m. on the expiration date stated above (unless said date has been duly extended). e) This letter of credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless 60 days prior notice is given to the City Engineer by certified mail of its intent not to renew. City agrees to terminate and return the original Letter of Credit after the XXXXXXXXXXX is completed and approved. If notified by the City after City's receipt by the Bank for the termination of the LOC, ) shall renew said letter of credit without further process and continue the LOC in full force and effect. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, this Letter of Credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Commercial Documentary Credits (1993 Revision) International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500. This agreement shall be construed and interpreted under Minnesota law. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon representation. Sincerely, 14 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Au NDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES G. 1 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. MEETING DATE: 4/17/06 ITEM NO. G TERRY BY: An Ordinance Rezoning 75.63 Acres From The R-1 Zoning District To The M-1 Zoning District, And Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known As The Zoning Ordinance And Land Development Manual Of The City Of Rochester, Minnesota. Said property is located West of Highway 52 and North of 65th Street NW. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). None Scheduled G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. Second to: