Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIUBOARD CHAMBERS V GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 11 MAY 1, 2006 REGULAR 7:00 P.M. VLFD6F OF ALLE-GMCE PAGE 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 3-4 D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes 5-8 2) Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission 9-16 3) Proposed Revisions to the Emergency Management Joint Powers Agreement 17-18 4) Architect Selection Committee 19-20 5) 2006 Compensation for the City Administrator 21-22 6) Revocable Permit — Boulevard Trees along 3rd Avenue NW adjacent to Crenlo 23-28 7) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous City Activities 29-48 8) Sound Amplification Requests 49-68 9) Continued — Sound Amplification Requests 69-70 10) Accept bid for 2006 Season Supply for Bituminous Materials 71-72 11) Approval of Accounts Payable 73-74 12) Council Approval of Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local #49 Street Maintenance 75-76 13) Pay Equity Implementation Report 77-80 14) Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan — Badger Hills Subdivision 81-84 15) Initiate an Amendment Official Street Map #12 to remove the alignment for the southerly extension of Garden Drive (to be changed to Maine Avenue SE) 85-86 16) Advertisement of Bids: Lift Station No. 4 Replacement and Force Main, J7739 87-88 17) Advertise for Bids: (J7210) 3rd Avenue NW from West Center Street to 2nd Street NW Council Agenda Monday, May 1, 2006 Page 2 of 3 89-90 18) Advertise for Bids: (J7245) Intersection Improvements TH14 (East) and CSAH 22 (30`h Ave S.E.) 91-92 19) Advertise for Bids: (J2574-06) Construct/Expand Parking Lot Civic Center North Lot 93-94 20) Advertisement of Bids: Hadley Valley Trunk Sanitary Sewer to Serve Sewer Service Area 29A Phase 2, J7744 95-96 21) Construction Engineering Services: East Zumbro River Interceptor, J2175 97-98 22) Preliminary Analysis and Design Services: Parkwood Hills Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer, J7754 99-100 23) Professional Engineering Services: Reconstruction 15t Avenue from Center St. to 2nd Street S.W. (J-7749) 101-102 24) Engineering Services — Wetlands: Engineering Services to Delineate Wetlands on various projects 103-104 25) Engineering/Environmental Services Contract: (J2261) Asbestos and Hazardous Material Sampling of buildings located at 1330 & 1332 71h Street NW 105-106 26) Award of Contract: (J4611) M6-05 Construct Pedestrian Ramps in Various Locations 107-108 27) Award of Contract: (J7747) Reconstruct 2nd Avenue S.W. from Center Street to 1st Street S.W. 109-112 28) Parking Ramp Rates/Group Parking Rate Request by RCVB 113-114 29) Change Order #2/Revenue and Access Control Equipment for Parking Ramps 115-116 30) Revocable Permit: Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. Parking Lot on City Property 117-118 31) Consideration of Bids: East Zumbro River Interceptor, J2175 32) Award of Contract: (J4013) Construction of Harvestview Regional Storm Water Management Ponds 33) Additional Assessment - CGMC E) HEARINGS 119-166 1) General Development Plan #268 by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 51h Addition (formerly proposed as Creek View Estates) 167-212 2) Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 51h Addition (formerly proposed as Creek View Estates) 213-232 3) Amendment to Harvestview II Special District #16 233-250 4) Amendment to General Development Plan #241 known as Harvestview II 251-266 5) Amendment to Final Plat #03-11 to be known as Main Street Development by Maine Street Development Company of Rochester LLC 267-284 6) Final Plat #05-27 by Freedom Development & Consulting and Lumber One Avon to be known as ValleySide Estates Four 285-288 7) Vacation Petition #06-03 by Nathan Miller to vacate a portion of a utility easement at 1434 15`h Avenue N.W. Council Agenda Monday, May 1, 2006 Page 3 of 3 289-308 8) Continued Hearing on 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. 309-322 9) Text Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 60.175 regarding Fees of the Rochester Planning and Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to adjust fees pertaining to zoning permits and development applications beginning in 2006. 323-326 10) Obtain Public Comment on the Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to the Mayor's Veto Authority F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 327-328 H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/l/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PER10D CITY ADMWSTRATOR A EM 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 fast to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. OUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 5/l/06 CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS D-1-31 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) Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission 3) Proposed Revisions to the Emergency Management Joint Powers Agreement 4) Architect Selection Committee 5) 2006 Compensation for the City Administrator 6) Revocable Permit— Boulevard Trees along 3`d Avenue NW adjacent to Crenlo 7) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous City Activities 8) Sound Amplification Requests 9) Continued — Sound Amplification Requests 10) Accept bid for 2006 Season Supply for Bituminous Materials 11) Approval of Accounts Payable 12) Council Approval of Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local #49 Street Maintenance 13) Pay Equity Implementation Report 14) Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan — Badger Hills Subdivision 15) Initiate an Amendment Official Street Map #12 to remove the alignment for the southerly extension of Garden Drive (to be changed to Maine Avenue SE) 16) Advertisement of Bids: Lift Station No. 4 Replacement and Force Main, J7739 17) Advertise for Bids: (J7210) 3rd Avenue NW from West Center Street to 2"d Street NW 18) Advertise for Bids: (J7245) Intersection Improvements TH14 (East) and CSAH 22 (30th Ave S.E.) 19) Advertise for Bids: (J2574-06) Construct/Expand Parking Lot Civic Center North Lot 20) Advertisement of Bids: Hadley Valley Trunk Sanitary Sewer to Serve Sewer Service Area 29A Phase 2, J7744 21) Construction Engineering Services: East Zumbro River Interceptor, J2175 22) Preliminary Analysis and Design Services: Parkwood Hills Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer,J7754 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 May 1, 2006 23) Professional Engineering Services: Reconstruction 15t Avenue from Center St. to 2"d Street S.W. (J-7749) 24) Engineering Services — Wetlands: Engineering Services to Delineate Wetlands on various projects 25) Engineering/Environmental Services Contract: (J2261) Asbestos and Hazardous Material Sampling of buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7th Street NW 26) Award of Contract: (J4611) M6-05 Construct Pedestrian Ramps in Various Locations 27) Award of Contract: (J7747) Reconstruct 2"d Avenue S.W. from Center Street to 15t Street S.W. 28) Parking Ramp Rates/Group Parking Rate Request by RCVB 29) Change Order#2/Revenue and Access Control Equipment for Parking Ramps 30) Revocable Permit: Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. Parking Lot on City Property 31) Consideration of Bids: East Zumbro River Interceptor, J2175 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5 DATE: 5/l /06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM—� . Organizational Business Mayor's Office ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment to the Police Civil Service Commission rmcrwrccu o Mayor Brede I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the: POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Donald Barlow - will fill the expired term of Michelle Leak. His term will expire April 1, 2009. 607 Chalet DR NW PERSONAL INFORMATION Name iai h^7 i- E,'Sa i `y--, Ward 6 Address roc 7 QhAft l�2 NW Zip Code SSyto i Phone (H) Z42 • l I(a0 (B) ('FAX) 53(a qb E-mail How long have you been a resident of Rochester? Co 7 l Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving on any of the City's advisory boards? le— No i` ve , ex?lain: Name of Employer: 2aC.i' sln< CC.-yn(.") Occupation: S �zr �nC�IfS3tc W�r�.vw� i t j� S� Education :lg5i dbl U�� Ctz�� l J,ti,t�/1I SGR.�, �� �� �! 5, Community Sen/ice,'Activitles: Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or or anization or in your occ ation: r G 0f C -b S� -Se,--CrJn -Ice -- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you feel you are qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) previously indicated. What do you believe you could contribute if appointed to an advisory board? How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a- -Board or Commission? I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following evenings (circle): Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes_ No �—< if yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest? Yes _ No X If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper. As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsi ility and personal/ rgfessional interests? r n c , 4�GP As required by Citv ordinance. if appointed to a City advisory board, you must complete a disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk. You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates. Thank you for your interest in serving on an advisory board for the City of Rochester. Date! 17 FEb 2 CQ 6CJ�AA- ` — 5ignature REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROPOSU) Kr.v12 70TNT POWERS AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MEETING DATE: 5/1/06 D-3 SKVENVOLD The Emergency Management Commission, at their April 19, 2006, meeting, took the following actions: Appointed Joe Loftus as the Emergency Management/Homeland Security Director. This appointment is subject to the approval of the City Council and County Board. 2. Recommended that Section 2, Subd. 2(f) (1) of the Joint Powers Agreement be amended to allow the Emergency Communications Coordinator to remain as a City employee (see attached memo from Roger Peterson). 3. Recommended that Section 2, Subd. 1(a) of the Joint Powers Agreement be amended to provide that the Commission consist of 7 members instead of five. Pursuant to this recommendation, one additional Councilmember and one additional County Commissioner would be added to the membership. Councilmembers Carr, Marcoux, and Snyder are currently assigned as members of the Commission in addition to Mayor Brede. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion: 1. Approving Joe Loftus' appointment as Emergency Management/Homeland Security Director. 2. Amending Section 2, Subd. 2(f) (1) of the Joint Powers Agreement to allow the Emergency Communications Coordinator position to remain as a City employee. 3. Amending Section 2, Subd. 1(a) of the Joint Powers Agreement to provide that the Emergency Management Commission consist of 7 members, the Mayor and three Councilmembers and three members of the County Board. COUNCIL ACTION: MoGonby: Second by: to- 11 MEMORANDUM Rochester Police Department Administration DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Stevan Kvenvold — City Administrator FROM: Roger Peterson — Chief of Police SUBJECT: Emergency Management Joint Powers Agreement The Joint Powers Agreement between the City and County for the Emergency Management (Civil Defense) function has been in place since 1962. This agreement was revised in October of 1995 for the purpose of placing the Emergency Program Manager under the supervision of the Sheriffs Office. The agreement is attached for reference. The Joint Emergency Management Commission recently approved restructuring the Emergency Operations Center staffing to reflect the need for two separate positions; one which would function as the Homeland Security Director for Olmsted County and one which would function as the Emergency Communications Coordinator. It was envisioned that the Homeland Security Director remain under the supervision of the Sheriffs Office and the Emergency Communications Coordinator would be assigned to the Public Safety Dispatch. Because Public Safety Dispatch is a function of the Police Department, the Police Department is charged with the responsibility of staffing and managing the Emergency Communications Coordinator position. The present needs of the Emergency Operations Center and the Police Department require that a police officer be assigned to the position for the following reasons: The departure of the former EOC Director The position requires considerable technical expertise possessed by only one officer who is currently on staff with the Police Department The function requires extensive knowledge of public safety communications and agency interaction possessed by Police Department staff Staffing this position in this manner requires that Section 2 subdivision 2(f)(1) of the agreement be amended. Section 2 subdivision 2(f)(1) currently states in part, "The Emergency Program Manager shall serve at the will of the Commission and shall, during the period of this at -will employment, along with any other personnel hired to provide services under this agreement, be considered employees of Olmsted County, subject to all applicable personnel policies and guidelines." �1 0 Steven Kvenvold April 24, 2006 Page Two It is requested that the phrase "along with any other personnel hired to provide services under this agreement' be stricken in order to accommodate the Emergency Communications Coordinator position which would remain an employee of the City of Rochester. It is requested that Section 2 subdivision 2(f)(1) of the Emergency Management Agreement be amended to read as follows: "The Commission shall have the exclusive authority to appoint the Emergency Program Manager and designate his/her immediate supervisor subject to the approval of the County Board and the City Council. The Emergency Program Manager shall serve at the will of the Commission and shall, during the period of this at -will employment be considered an employee of Olmsted County, subject to all applicable personnel policies and guidelines." Further it is requested that it be approved that the Emergency Communications Coordinator would remain an employee of the City of Rochester. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Enclosure ,a4eld 4"/z3/tq3 AGREEMENT An Agreement between the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and the County of Olmsted, Minnesota providing for the establishment of a common Civil Defense organization to be known and designated as the Rochester - Olmsted County Office of Emergency Management and for the joint exercise of powers in the organization and operation of such common Emergency Management organization. WHEREAS, the City of Rochester by ordinance No. 1137 adopted by the Common Council on March 19, 1962 and approved by the Mayor of the City of Rochester on March 22, 1962 has established an Office of Civil Defense under the supervision and control of a Director of Civil Defense; and, WHEREAS, the County of Olmsted by Resolution adopted by the Board of county Commissioners on May 10, 1961 has established a Civil Defense organization under the direction and control of a Director; and, WHEREAS, the City of Rochester, acting through its Common Council, and the County of Olmsted, acting through its Board of County Commissioners, have agreed to organize, administer, and exercise certain Emergency Management powers jointly. NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby mutually agreed between the City of Rochester and the County of Olmsted as follows: SECTION 1. DURATION The term of this agreement shall begin on January 1, 1996, and shall remain in effect for consecutive one year periods until otherwise terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of this agreement or until otherwise amended by agreement of the parties. SECTION 2. PURPOSE Subdivision 1: The City of Rochester and the County of Olmsted both being political subdivisions within the meaning and limits of Chapter 12 of Minnesota Statues, do hereby create and establish a joint commission to be known and designated as the Rochester -Olmsted County .joint Emergency Management Commission whose membership, officers, meetings, procedures, rules, powers and duties are as follows: (a) Membership: The Commission shall consist of five members as follows: The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Olmsted, the Mayor of the City of Rochester, one member of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Olmsted appointed by the Chairman of said Board, and two members of the Common Council of the City of Rochester appointed by the Mayor. Upon the election or designation of a Mayor of the City of Rochester or a Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, such October 17, 1995 r �3 Mayor or Chairman shall immediately become a member of the Joint Emergency Management Commission without further action, and shall replace their predecessors, if any. For the purpose of this agreement, persons duly and legally acting as Mayor or Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered as the Mayor or Chairman during the period the Mayor or Chairman is temporarily absent or a vacancy exists in such positions. (b) Powers: The Mayor and Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners shall have the power to fill vacancies which occur among members under their respective appointment authority, and shall have the power to remove, with or without cause, any member under the respective appointment authority provided a successor is also appointed at the time of removal. Each member of the Joint Emergency Management Commission, including members removed by the Mayor or the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, shall hold office until his successor is designated or appointed. Subdivision 2: The Joint Emergency Management Commission shall have the power to create such sub -committees or citizen advisory committees as it deems necessary or convenient, and to direct and control said committees or sub -committees in the performance of their assigned tasks and functions. The Commission reserves the right to dissolve such sub -committees or committees or replace any of the members thereof at its discretion, with or without cause. The officers of the Commission shall be as follows: (a) President: The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners during odd numbered years and the Mayor of the City of Rochester during even numbered years shall be President of the Joint Emergency Management Commission and shall preside at all meetings. In the absence of the President or in the event of a temporary vacancy, the Mayor or the Chairman of the County Board, whoever is not then President, shall be "president pro tem" and in his absence a "president pro tem" shall be elected by the other members of the Commission to preside. (b) Secretary: The Emergency Program Manager, or his duly appointed staff shall be the Secretary of the Commission and shall keep a record of all meetings and proceedings of the Commission. The Secretary shall transmit the recommendations of the Commission to the Board of County Commissioners for the County of Olmsted and the Common Council of the City of Rochester and shall perform such other duties as are usually performed by the Secretary of a deliberative body. In the absence of the secretary or in the event of a temporary vacancy in the position of Emergency Program Manager, a "secretary pro tem" shall be elected by the members of the commission from their membership. October 17, 1995 (c) Meetings: The Commission shall hold two regular yearly meetings in March and October of each year. The commission may invite and solicit reports from any appointed committee or sub- committee. (1) Special Meetings: The President or any two members of the Commission shall have the authority to call special meetings of the Commission. Notice of special meetings shall be given in such manner and within such times as required by law and as determined by the members of the Commission. (2) Quorum: Three members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum to transact business, at least one shall be a member of the County Board. (d) Rules and Procedures: The Commission shall adopt a set of rules to govern its own meetings and procedures. The rules may be amended from time to time, but only upon notice to all members that proposed amendments shall be acted upon at a specified meeting. (e) Vote: Each member of the Commission including the President shall have one vote on all matters acted upon by the Commission in it's advisory capacity to the Rochester City Council and the Olmsted Board of Commissioners. (f) Duties: (1) The Commission shall have the exclusive authority to appoint the Emergency Program Manager and designate his/her immediate supervisor subject to the approval of the County Board and the City Council. The Emergency Program Manager shall serve at the will of the Commission and shall, during the period of this at -will employment, along with any other personnel hired to provide services under this agreement, be considered employees of Olmsted County, subject to all applicable personnel policies and guidelines. (2) Except as provided in sub paragraph (1) above, the JointEmergency Management Commission shall act only in an advisory capacity, making such recommendations to the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners and The Common Council of the City of Rochester as it deems advisable or appropriate; and making such studies, investigations, analyses and recommendations as it is requested or instructed to make by the said Board or Common Council. In its advisory capacity, the Commission is charged specifically with the responsibility of liaison between the Office of Emergency Management and the Board of County Commissioners and the Common Council and with recommending the annual budget for the office. October 17, 1995 3 SECTION 3. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS Subdivision 1: There is hereby established a special joint county - city fund to be known as the Emergency Management fund. Into this fund shall be placed the proceeds of taxes levied for Emergency Management, money transferred from other funds, gifts, and other revenues of the Emergency Management agency. The City of Rochester shall pay two-thirds and the County of Olmsted shall pay one-third of the funds attributable to joint annual operating costs. The County's share shall be derived from property taxes or other sources levied on property outside the city limits of Rochester. From this fund shall be made expenditures for the operation and maintenance of the office of Emergency Management and all other expenditures for Emergency Management Programs. All receipts and expenditures shall be processed through the Olmsted County Finance System and regular accounting, disbursement, purchasing and other financial procedures of the Federal government, State and County shall apply insofar as practicable; but budgeting requirements of both County and City shall apply except in any case when their application will prevent compliance with terms and conditions of a federal or state grant of money or property for Emergency Management purposes. Subdivision 2: The Commission shall have the duty and responsibility to recommend which expenditures for Emergency Management programs and projects, within the authorized budget shall be charged to the County or City or jointly in accordance with criteria established by the Commission acting in an advisory capacity. Subdivision 3: The Emergency Program Manager shall, at each annual October Joint Emergency Management Commission Meeting, present to the Board of County Commissioners and the Common Council, through the Joint Emergency Management Commission for the information of said bodies and the public, a comprehensive report of the activities of the office of Emergency Management during the year. Subdivision 4: The Emergency Program Manager shall prepare and submit a preliminary budget request to the City and County Administrators by July 15th of each year and present this budget request along with the City and County Administrators recommended changes at each annual October Joint Emergency Management Commission meeting, for the purpose of recommendation and/or modification for formal presentation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Common Council. SECTION 4. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Subdivision l: This agreement shall continue in force until such time the County Board of Commissioners and the Common Council determine in joint session that the provisions contained herein are no longer essential in providing for the common protection of the public peace, October 17, 1995 health and safety, and for the preservation of the lives and property of the people of the County and City; or at such time that the City of Rochester or County of Olmsted shall give timely notice of intent to terminate this agreement. Written notice of intent to terminate must be given at least one year and one day prior to termination. Subdivision 2: In event this agreement is terminated in accordance with the provisions set forth in Subdivision 1 above, the Joint Emergency Management Commission shall determine the disposition of all properties that have been acquired by joint procurement by the City or County. Properties acquired by the City or County on their own initiative, whether or not assigned by federal or state matching funds, shall remain the property of said city or county, except for those items of property in which the federal or state government shall have retained title.;while transferring possession. Jointly owned properties shall be disposed of in such manner that the parties to this agreement shall be reimbursed at a rate equal to the percentage of contribution to this joint County -City Emergency Management fund. Subdivision 3: The Joint Emergency Management Commission shall have the duty and responsibility to insure that equitable distribution of jointly held property shall be completed not later than ninety days after the date set for the dissolution of this agreement. The responsibilities of said commission, in this respect, will terminate upon the completion of the distribution of said jointly held property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement have caused the same to be executed on the day of 1 1995. CITY OF ROCHESTER,.MINNESOTA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF OLMSTED BY BY ITS MAYOR - ITS CHAIRPERSON ATTEST ATTEST CITY CLERK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR e; 1wpWk0.q. jt2 October 17, 1995 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5(1/06 er.ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING TIO ITEM NO. CONSENT ________JADMINISTRATION REM DESCRIPTION: ARCHITECT SELECTION COMMITTEE PREPARED BY: DOUG KNOT In the event that we receive state bonding approval for the Bioscience Development Center, staff recommends the appointment of an architectural selection committee for the project. The recommended selection committee includes the following individuals: Mayor Brede Council President Hanson Gary Neumann Richard Freese Sandy Keith, representing the Rochester Downtown Alliance Gary Smith, representing RAEDI Don DeCramer, representing Mayo Clinic The City would oversee a selection process that involves obtaining qualifications statements from 8 to 10 design firms; short listing the pool of potential firms for the purpose of obtaining detailed proposals; conducting interviews; and, making a recommendation on a final selection to the Council. Because of the time needed to complete this process, we are requesting that the Council formally establish the committee at this time. Each of the above named individuals has agreed to serve on the Committee. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Appoint the above -named individuals to serve as the architect selection committee for the Bioscience Development Center project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. -to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: sr 9 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2006 COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: PRESIDENT I have reviewed Mr. Kvenvold's 2005 performance as City Administrator with City Counciimembers and am recommending that Mr. Kvenvold's 2006 compensation be established as follows: 1. An increase of 2% to Mr. Kvenvold's authorized compensation which establishes Mr. Kvenvold's 2006 authorized salary at $139,130. Due to the State compensation limitation for certain public employees, Mr. Kvenvold's actual 2006 compensation will be limited to $138,023. 2. The granting of the same personal leave time as provided to the City's department heads. 3. Continuation of the $500,000 term fife insurance policy COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion establishing Mr. Kvenvold's 2006 compensation as stated above. 41 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: ORIGINATING DER Consent Agenda City Administrator — Boulevard Trees along 3m Avenue NW adjacent to Crenlo MEETING DATE: 5/l /06 T. Spaeth The City has been requested to approve a revocable permit for the installation of 7 metal frames at grade within the 3`d Avenue NW right-of-way for the purpose of putting in 7 boulevard trees. The trees will provide additional landscaping along that part of the street where an industrial use and residential uses co -exist. The applicant has discussed this matter with the City Forester and Public Works. Staff does not object to the request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Request City Attorney to prepare a revocable permit for the 7 frames within the 3`d Avenue NW right-of-way using the standard language and conditions. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: /)?0" Installation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Install frame as outlined below Install 7 trees supplied by the City Backfill holes with black dirt to T below asphalt Fill 5 1/2" remainder of hole with pea gravel, as shown below Install 7 tree grates supplied by Crenlo "Backfill" grate holes with pea gravel Clean work areas of all debris �,rfltT na I RAWMA7t RECEIVING AROT 11151 f)71 � i C CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY CLERK & MISCELLANEOUS CITY MEETING DATE: 5/1/06 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. CIRCUS (ALL COUNCIL APPROVAL 4/19/06) Rochester Jaycees PO Box 516 Rochester, Mn. 55903 George Cardon Circus 5/2/06 Mayo Civic Center DANCE —TEMPORARY Masque Youth Theatre and School, Inc. 14 4`" St SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Fundraiser Dance 5/13/06 FIREWORKS DISPLAY Rochester Golf and Country Club 3100 West Country Club Road SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Annual 4t' of July Fireworks 10:00 PM to l l :00 PM Rochester Post Bulletin %John Withers 18 15t Ave SE Rochester, Mn 55904 Annual 4"b of July Fireworks Silver Lake Park 7/4/06 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: qt� LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 MAY 1, 2006 FIREWORKS SALES IN STORE Apollo Conoco —1025 0 St SE Big Lots, Inc —1607 Hwy 14 east Cub Foods —1021 15`s Ave SE K-Mart — 201 9`h St SE Mills Fleet Farm — 3551 South Broadway Pump N Munch 4110 —1607 South Broadway Pump N Munch #11 — 82 36a' Ave NW Sam's Club #6427 — 3410 551s St NW Severson Conoco —1401 North Broadway Shopko South — 2820 Highway 63 South Shopko North — 3708 Highway 63 North Super Target — 3827 Marketplace Dr NW Wal-Mart Store #1971— 3400 55" St NW Wal-Mart Store 42812 — 25 25"i St SE TENT SALES PHANTOM FIREWORKS SALES AT: Cub Foods —1021 15' Ave SE TNT FIREEWORKS SALES AT: Wal-Mart S Parking Lot — 25 25's St SE Shopko N Parking Lot — 3108 Hwy 63 N B.J. ALAN COMPANY Crossroads Center — 1201 South Broadway Petco — 4200 Hwy 52 North VAPOR OF SMOKE Hy-Vee Food Store — 500 Crossroads Dr SW Menards North — 5150 Hwy 52 North Hy-Vee Store — 500 37 h St NW Hy-Vee Store —1315 6s' St NW GAMBLING — TEMPORARY Rochester Community & Technical College 851 30`s Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Raffle 9/l/06 AT RCTC LICENSES, BONDS AND MICELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES , PAGE 3 MAY 1, 2006 Gift of Life Transplant House 705 2"d St SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Raffle 7/10/06 AT Rochester Golf & Country Club 3100 Country Club Road SW Minnesota Habitat Fund Pheasants Forever 5955 118" Ave NW Byron, Mn. 55920 Raffle 5/11/06 AT Fraser Construction 3725 Enterprise Dr SW GAMBLING — PREMISE RENEWAL (ALL COUNCIL APPROVAL 4/19/06) Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie 2228 409 1" Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 VFW Post #1215 166d'StSW Rochester, Mn 55902 RVAC Integrity Heating & Cooling 2137 9d' Ave NE Rochester, Mn. 55906 MASTER INSTALLER James Andrew Gay 2137 9"i Ave NE Rochester, Mn. 55906 Scott Oberg 575 Birchwood Court St. Charles Mn 55972 OUTDOOR DINING RENEWALS Bilotti's Italian Restaurant — 304 1" Ave SW City Cafe — 216 1'` Ave SW Daube's Bakery —14 — 3rd Ave SW Mac's Restaurant — 20 1" St SW Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches — 9 3:d Ave SW Starbuck's Coffee — 20 2°d St SW LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITYB ACTIVITIES PAGE 4 MAY 1, 2006 PEACE PLAZA FOOD CART Richard Murphy 402 4" Ave SW Pine Island, Mn. 55963 SEWER & DRAIN Shea Construction 2324 Co Rd 102 NE Eyota, Mn. 55934 Barth Construction, Inc. 349 Meadowview Dr St. Charles, Mn. 55972 Eastside Services 6212 Salem rd SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 SIGNS Baraboo Tent and Awning PO Box 57 Baraboo, Wi. 53913 Todd Hoffman Design Co. 4970 Service Dr Goodview, Mn. 44987 Kaufman Sign Company 2714 E 33rd St Mpls Mn 55406 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Steve Morris Concrete Construction Inc 25518 County Hwy 34 Kasson, Mn. 55944 MISCELLANEOUS Rochester Track Club PO Box 6711 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Running Race Event 5/13/06 6:00 AM to 12:00 Noon Soldiers Field LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 5 MAY 1, 2006 Mn State Harley Owners Rally, Inc. %Scott Gerr 814 7`h Ave SW Faribault, Mn. 55021 Motorcycle Parade 6/ 17/ 2006 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Alliance of Chicanos, Hispanics and Latin Americans 1504 13`h Ave NE Rochester, Mn 55906 Cinco de Mayo Walk 5/6/06 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Mayo Park Federal Medical Center 2110 East Center St PO Box 4600 Rochester, Mn. 55903 5K Fun Run 5/24/06 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM Silver Lake Bike Path Galen Lohrenz 407 1" Ave SW Pine Island, Mn. 55963 Chairman of the Cruise Motorcycle Group Benefit for Ronald McDonald 6`h Annual Motorcycle Cruise 7/23/06 RCTC to Ronald McDonald House Team Rochester 1815 38`h St NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Prayer Festival 5/6/06 12:00 Noon to 6:00 PM Soldiers Field Veterans of Foreign Wars 166`hStSW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Buddy Poppy Days 5/12 — 5/13, 2006 Church World Service Inc. 4120 Windsor Hills Lane SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Rochester Area Crop Walk 10/8/06 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Tim & Susan Burriss 5315 Nicklaus Dr NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Out of the Sun Run 5/19/06 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM Start & Finish at Holy Spirit Church a1 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING aq / DATE: 05/01/06 &GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK ITEM DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT 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. Rochester Track Club PO Box 6711 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Running Race Event Soldiers Field Carlos O'Keily's 4825 Hwy 52 North Rochester, Mn. 55901 Cinco de Mayo Party 5/13/06 6:00 AM to Noon 5/5/06 3:00 PM to Midnight Whistle Binkies on the Lake 247 Wood Lake Dr SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Grand Opening 5/20/06 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM Boomers Lounge LLC 3737 40°i Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Street Dance 5/20/06 6:30 PM to 10:30 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the sound amplification permits as presented �Ii o COUNCIL ACTION: MoBon by: second by: to: �� PLICATION # I Ll PERMIT # 4010 COUNCILDATE: SJl`D(o DATE RECEIVED - (e l d (e RECEIPTNUMBER,S77-5 AMOUNT PAID OU APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: I o (-,yay6c k- C to f ) ADDRESS: V o) Un,& r) 1` I f 1 `-t_.t_ c fLl I �l 1 - i ,v ✓ l� , i..�- TELEPHONE NUMBER: 603-) 7_ S24- Q 114 CELL PHONE NUMBER: CC /l 1 Z - (- Z 1 S e) CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: d n i'eJ - hE of yn TELEPHONE NUMBER: /4,- S PHONE NUMBER: EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: 11 l ,( a AL l A/ 6 rt I a vil 1 DATE(S) OF EVENT: I2.06G , _ DAY(S) OF WEEK: 570, 1 LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: Sol nl I2 l7 %$ 4 a !) Ple-Ar d L DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: - UOl r iZ 6k4 y M4XEAUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY 3dU i HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED L ISTRlIf'10N START TIME: -7 q " END TM E: A(00 e-) SOUND REQUEST APPLICATION REQUESTED ITEM D-8 Maximum Sound Waive Maximum of 85 Decibels Allowable 10:30 PM Rochester Track Club X Carlos O'Kelly's X Whistle Binkies on the Lake X Boomers Lounge LLC X 3� ATTACH 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. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) �oiZT,4�G-e- 161Li'TS N Z P(c/UtG S/i-VL. IT 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNEE STATING THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT INCLUDE CRONYD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROLAND"�OLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. a Qyscm zQ J CP [ 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN TIM VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) 11+IS IS A 13(IIC.f*0&A/ ' t+ s©un�� De�� "i C�ar��I �'+4r� F)1AA J icy( E. AIL-r— NO i /A( A BSI PF I i IXL RcL�i4 - 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MA30MUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WANE THE MAJOMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. I Signature ,q( ��n moo`, Su¢ 140' MI PERT FEE: $25.00 Act Y"OU WII.L NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS n YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: ,.o FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: 33� PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: CITY CLERKAPPROVAL: m x. 06 J =PPLICATION # &? ya 3 PERMIT # U D ! d COUNCIL DATE: 61ilo& DATERECEIVED 4/J//DG RECEIPT NUMBER 5 99 7 AMOUNT PAID as D v APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICA TION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: Ca -() 6 APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 eH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN-. 55904 APPLICANT INFORILATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: r'q - U - kc/%C ADDRESS: yfzs A.'.7 S2 N sssW TELEPHONE NiJ_NMER: SU %- Z 12 " 25 FU CELL PHONE NUMBER S'j7 - 2 S/- % 35 d CONTACT PERSON LFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Sy ? 2 Fl '2 S S J CELL PHONE NUMBER: EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: (f/ plea )0S/ �7 r DATE(S) OF EVENT: 5- S-U 6 DAY(S) OF WEEK: F, LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: p - A-C*s W v -52 DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: !_ «e0kL," MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED ��� y o TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY 2J) - I HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED ✓ l" IM Na OF Ovsi L/y0 - START TM4E: -'�7 • OU x.ell , END TEAF: /2 r O U�1 rW . 3� ATTACH 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. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AMID THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) o,fsl% 01 4 hS J�% 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S 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 INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. Ct UWLp _J_o� 4. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) SNr�onJ�/ � GOM/wr� � /�C,J /vCSJ /2Lsr✓�'��'<< 2 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMIJM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. Signature of Applicant FA lep PERMIT FEE: S25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMIMSTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: Q wZ CN a".3 i iJ� t I- co'.- 1 &S Q 1 I-II-o.6 (SIGNATURE) sJ- 4vJe 5 S-<C. V. -J:, _ �� c M 9M C/ n �i� J GCE( er 4�A'7" ; q 14 C-J FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: 31 - ANNING.DEPARTMENT: CDAWENTS: TE: ! CITY CLERKAPPROYAL: "J� n �i �� i \ i `I � � � � v r \� APi LICATION # tz-2qlpl DATE RECEIVED PERMIT # a / RECEIPT NUMBER G 0 I 'OUNCILDATE: AMOL7VTPAID a5• APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Yd tj— I s�)I CELL PHONE NUMBER: cP 0- l �I Y a--' CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: 1 .0 TELEPHONE NUMBER: �1d� l'I CELL PHONE NUMBER d,56-60 S- EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: J DATE(S) OF EVENT: _-5--�a —(2 DAY(S) OF WEEK: LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: MA)M" NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED � TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY A ' HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED 4't. Llc 14. <y(—d -,A, START TEIAE: END TIME: 3C 41 NID ATTACH 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. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE 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 (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHMF'S 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 INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY C OWNERS. �1 %j� 4. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) L 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MA}OMMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WAIVE THE MA)GMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. % Z L/Signature of Applicant PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: CITY CLERKAPPROVAL: 21 PERNUT FEE: S25.00 YOU WILLDEPARTMENT PETED TO CHECK WITH RMITS IF YOU ARE H HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK I)jp.A.RTXENT AT PARK DEPARTMENT PROPE-6160 TO OBTAIN THE RTY. PARK PARK DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: Eik-1 )` A FIRE DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS: FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY (SIGNATURE) TURF) z 41' m OAO �\1 7 �°PLICATION PERMIT # DO / COL17VCIL DATE: DATE RECEIVED �I I aslo RECEIPT NUMBER AMOUNT PAID o�Jc• DU APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: ) 5 &J APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 47H ST, SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: _ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 7 Zy'3z Z�J CELL PHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: / 7 TELEPHONE NUMBER: V �T "32 CELL PHONE NUMBER: ��`1 ' G /I! K EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: /2 IlL&C ' i n T DATE(S) OF EVENT: Jd/7 Y % DAY(S) OF WEEK: f /I 1 I _ r n n „ laM et ;—,/,\ /i/n� LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED 00 TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAYk/ nn HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LMTED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED �: rr- START TIME: _('17 "? o R iY 1 - END TIME: _ / f) " � Q T-ld lie ATTACH 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. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE 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 Pe Additional Sheet If Necessa y)) ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S 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 INCLUDE CROWDECONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. //JJQQ l 4. PROVIDE 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. (Ilse Additional Sheet IflNecessary) 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. 1/ WAIVE THE MAXMIUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. Signature of Applicant Av( PERMIT FEE: S25.00 AT -6160 TO AIN THE DYOUWILL NEED EPARTMENT PETO CHECK WITH RMTTS IF YOU ARE LDII�TG YOUR JEARK T ON PAARK D PAR TTMENT PROPERT. REQUIRED PARK FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: 4' (SIGNATURE) POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: C?,?C/s G,, A,120 FIRE DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS: 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: TURF) CITY CLERK APPROVAL: 0 I 0 J 4 G CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: G o� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: gar 6 CITY CLERK - SOUND AMPLIFICATION EPT: PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT 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 1504 13th 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 20 4`h St SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Cinco de Mayo Celebration Restaurant Parking Lot 5/5/06 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM Mn State Harley Owners Rally, Inc. %Scott Gen 814 7`h Ave SW Faribault, Mn. 55021 Harley Rally 6/161h & 17`', 2006 8:00 AM to l l:00 PM Olmsted County Fairgrounds Team Rochester 1815 38th St NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Prayer Festival 5/6/06 Soldiers Field 12:00 Noon to 6:00 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the sound amplification permits as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Moton by: second by: to: APPLICATION # SQ J V 3 _ PERMIT # O(io i COUNCIL DATE: 'I I b DATE RECEIVED 21J V1J c- RECEIPT NUMBER AMOUNT PAID APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT SUBMIT APPLICATION TO CITY CLERICS OFFICE 1014 ST. SE. ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 DATE OF APPLICATION: 21 3 - C)e MdurnF nR(;d N77.4TlnVnRlNDIVIDUAL_ ADDRESS: PURPOSEOFEVENT: EVENT`` DATE:' LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: VY (�l tedr TIME: il� d91- � START.- ��. ��? FINISH: `+ -' - f THIS APPLICATION IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE R ULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER AND THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBYAGREES FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS FOR WHOM THISAPPLICATIONIS MADE THAT THE SAMEAREACCPTABLE AND WILL BE OBSERVED. THE CITY OF ROCHESTER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL ANY PERMIT. APPLICANT. ,�' °7, r` d �%I -'' "` ADDRESS: /l �Oy �✓ i` - ���`- HOME PHONE NUMBER: : `- BUSINESS JPHONE NUMBER: r CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT. Il �''� t`=' Phone No. .3''7" " L; ARE ANYADDITIONAL SERVICES WHAT KIND OF AMPLIFIED SOUND? BY ANY CITY DEPARTMENT? IF SO, F e le, , 1� r- PERMIT FEE: $25.00 PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLEASE CHECK WITH PARK DEPARTMENT FOR ANY PERMITS - 281- 6160 WILL THERE BE ANY MERCHANDISE OR FOOD OFFERED FOR SALE? YES NO k IF SO YOU WILL NEED TO REQUEST A PERMIT FROM THE PARK DEPARTMENT. 'ERMIT FEE: S25.00 AT -6160 TO OBTAIN DEOP.ART E T ETRMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR TVEENUE ON PAARK DEPARTMENT T PRPARK REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT: CO LL41fENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS. CITY CLERKAPPROVAL: FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 11L 6a ),to,,, " I,q NkC. (SIGNATURE) TUBE) DATE: TUBE) PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: CITY CLERK APPROVAL: (SIGNATURE) DATE: y Q % D APPLICATION # - y DATE RECEIVED 3��?7 �D Co A" / PERMIT # 0 0 G RECEIPT NUMBER 0UNCIL DATE: I 0 G AMOUNT PAID Jam. 0 APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: �3 42 % ID L APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4T" ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: dy 4+ 5 TELEPHONE NUMBER: - a -'�OC> CELL PHONENUMBER:-Z:" 3q`U' CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: 29 ) TELEPHONE NUMBER: hM�- - 2=t?- - 5-'' CX ) _ CELL PHONE NUMBER:. scl s -�� � EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: P-i i r ui u - DATE(S) OF EVENT: tYDC. DAY(S) OF WEEK: t J LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: T--t� ri to I fG6. S �r�cc, li DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE 01A 6 MA)MIUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIIvIZI-ED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED it i 1� 121 1i`tlx ('l START TIME: L2C� �ci END TIME: 1 0 '- 00 -p N� - 1. ATTACH 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. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S 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 INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 4. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) 9— L)w rcun Cl to?r)�-'..C3'` fli__ l6_col'tC C1,I e.I&A 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. i,Ls..U. —Zf� C\ WANE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to compl: with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval im , mi e pert that might bi granted in response to his application. ?ERMIT FEE: $25.00 DYOU WILL NEED TO cHEcK wrm EPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARET HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PARK DEPARTMENT AT 286160 TO OBTAIN PROPERTY- FOR ADMIMSTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: J- I A C -ki -4 FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: 3 , q.2 7 (SIGNATURE) PLANNING DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS: CITY CLERSAPPROVAL: 51 Parldog Lot DJ a Dos Amigos Restaurant Stag Sound to travel 111 Designated Event area 4m sc entrance closed Ao' Street Apr 2S 2006 8:47RM LE SUEUR COUNTY S073576375 p.1 } '-4RPL CA.270N # a-21{ y DATE RECEIVED PERMIT # flS RECEIPT NUMBER . 576q COUNCIL DATE: / AMOUNT PAID 2S.OU AuPPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICA ON: " , 47- d {/p AFPLICA i ION TO B SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S O FTCE,201 a ST. Mr, ROCHESTEA M1V: m904` APPLICANT IINTOPMATION ,AMi-1 k Avrl.lf7*{ ll (ik+ W I i4N I YATTON� %✓1N �Yf1'1'�1- '-V= kA!, 1'l wLRESS: 15iili--- TELEPHONE CONTACT PERSON TELEPHONE PURPOSE OF EMDI CELLPHONENUMBER: CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION [J'.L'4G EVE.T fT: '9! 67T 6 C-V CELL PHONE NUMBER 576-I `Z7I _9g7Z EVENT RVORhlATION, _ _ DATES) OF EVENT: LOCATION OF SPEC J UNE' lb - l Z O� lv DAY(S) OF WEEK: Eel 004 _5ATUaPAY . EVENT: &-m,5TC U C6urj (�; EA-1 P6 216V 0DS DESCRIPTION OF TANMENT TO BE PROVIDER. FRI 12iq t 16 4-r-- 14A-Q-Jr6KE MAXIMUM NUMB TO BE IN ATTENDAI HOW WILL ATTEN DANCE Lsr.. i� OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BEPERMITTED 4CF ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY l9 w BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED R4LA -Y A-ne J PE e . welsr. 13AJD START TIME: F2t KT-.lf IPm END TIME: Ffz 1 I 16 t WM 5AT ti PM_ f.a.3aPM 09 Ppr 2S 2006 8:47AM LE SUEUR COUNTY 5073576375 p.2 9.M- PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AND P2 ENnSE%-O .S E 7Rm FOR WHICH- IH PERMIT 19 SOUGHTSBE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF AND THEDIRC mTHE'l-M WILL TRAVEL.sou 3. ATTACH A TTEN ST) Sol A EVENT Tile Api that the- b 6e nted 7aEF-OF,?OLICF OR: THE CHIRPS DESIGNEE STAM40 FOR,WHICH THE -IS SOVGHT, IL AN—r� Pouc . :E Pl;-pTEC-m)N FOR kDjAcEN t,P90PERTY ow 1 APPLIPVM Tp PREVENT NOISE FROM THE I LWE OR WORK IN THE VICIMTY OF m 44L 5-u ]a IN M- f5wi- 14-6 .4 YQ- A4 VY JY, S' k One MA4d IM ALL0WAaL5,SOVbQ V ,NO A4AR E iiitX85 PE(;O-LSSy1EASURED AT THE PR DljFIZTY I.M OR VEIAJVAOLNPARY MAXIMMALLOWABLE SOUMIl.p UVBLAi4liiiiQUIii THE AMPLIFIED Silk 7vall�N ATE.Nb "Tkit Ta-Ar.-Mm-lf, i-xcat &tant hereby ft.5 ilut a copy of Rochester Cod of 'Oid� 1,17. h dd 0 . g4mcm mjx0proN application ad:sndZprs understand'tbs rtgdlib4ns- 0 ...7n tbtolnPly within tht Ordinaftcc and airy - con tons of Vpmval unposcd upon the poTni t ibat 'tnghtb ITTCS Se s aiPiibation. - - .nd PERMIT FEE: S25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 251-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS: ,_e FIRE DEPARTMENT: MWTENTS. TURF) no l AIVNLNG DEPARTMENT: COIWL IENTS: u1,-71 a6 CITY CLERK APPROVAL: Apr 25 2006 B:SOAM LE SUEUR COUNTY 5073576375 -OLMSTED COUNTY EAIRGRO U�L 4 r�TIL i57H ST e .n BtLG 1 BILc �o w f p AMA I yiAMY < � \ ABMA YOFSN / 8 R A rvll////l1%%ail I / N / u A DR � t BILL BLOL it 1 $21f A4AY AAE\'A y5 QIi N0.M ARJi0. EAST �� 1 BILL � �6 IA ST SE --- - U DATERECEITE'D 411 ialo APPLICATION# _�a38 PERMIT # DQ 21 RECEIPT NUMBER O UNCIL DATE: rh 1 o is AMOUNT PAID 25 APPLICATION FOR SO UND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT DATE OF .APPLICATION: 4- 2 r- 0(, APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TA ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ICAM 4LktE s L( ADDRESS: IVIS 325-M —, X07xkesrE .55lol TELEPHONE NUMBER: 5u-1 - 2fr4- 351 & CELL PHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: cu �� RE E EZ TELEPHONE NUMBER: Z K I - 1470 CELL PHONE NUMBER: -,9V 65) 7 EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: Cort.eDtinTe ?aF ,lsT DATE(S) OF EVENT: Mny ( 2.77u DAY(S) OF WEEK: I - -5-u apt�1 LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: Socpi�-cL + \ E LO DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: Pccous—�C- �F-OLK Wy-sl[ BACKG�2�:ti`) Mut:ic 70 7MF PEOPLE PiZAyI/ 1 S�I77� , ;' �17GYlC �17AY d� 1=4�YI7 CD 4J/i!� flZrin'I R MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY 360- HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED j Nls 15 LESS 7M Ar 7AZK CRPn[T� FOPLE t-'JLI, YAdE A Pl2ro C,,j-,7lp 4Ja ItJVIrAnGAI iaEV k+LL PIZ 3�At START TEVE: I'Ll�)p END TIME: 6'00 I? m, 1. ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND .AND PREMISES TO ,3E USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECLRITY INCLUDING CROWDCONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) TENTS l 2(l1 tox zo1 \\ 0111 de SeT UP ,PPg'ZT F' nn( nN"t A'VO7n lZ 4,.'1,H NO rcnD oz nh� SF feE,- OTHEi7 /17EA'-10N'Er) Ar3�)V, ,I�El+.7'i� Piz�VIDE/ ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF' S DESIGNEE STATING THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. _J.n o ' rl 4. PROVIDE 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. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) OiLL u5 A 7 616EL MIF E(( TO InAKE: Sv2C S�UAI7 (5 hi THE %iPP20 YrZ1ATE LEVY 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) X MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WANE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might bt granted in response to his application. 1/) _ NT AT AIN RMIT FEE: $25.00 PARK THE D DEPARTMENT D TO CH IF YOU WILL NEEECK Wr ARE THE HOLDING YOUR TVENUE ON PAARK DEPAR TTMENT PROPERTY'D PARK PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY vi f' 7 too-`'' y- L 7-04 - (SIGNATURE) TURF) \�q PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: CITY CLER%APPROVAL: Dan Berkland 1 12 000ro ti %ewr Consent Agenda REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department MEETING DATE: 5/l/06 111 V- lv ITEM DESCRIPTION: Accept bid for 2006 Season Supply for Bituminous Matenals Jennifer King The Rochester Public Works Department has received one bid for the 2006 SEASON SUPPLY OF BITUMINOUS MATERIALS. This item was approved at the April 3 council meeting to be re -bid based on decreased quantities. A bid was received from Rochester Sand & Gravel. The Department reviewed the bid proposal and recommends that Rochester Sand & Gravel be awarded the bid for this item. RS&G ITEM 1 2350 Bituminous Mixture LVWE 45030 Wear FOB Plant loaded in City Trucks $29.00/ton Est. Qty 6000 tons, Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 2 2350 Bituminous Mixture LVWE 35030 Delivered, laid and rolled into place. $33.50/ton Est. Qty 10,000 tons, Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 3 2350 Bituminous Mixture MVWB35035 Delivered, laid and rolled into place. $33.70/ton Est. Qty 10,000 tons, Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 4 2350 Bituminous Mixture NIVWE45035 Delivered, laid and rolled in place. $34.30/ton Est. Qty 10,000 tons, Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 5 Drive over Curb and Gutter, Remove and Replace, Est. , Qty 1500 LF $21.50/LF Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 6 B6-18 Curb and Gutter, Remove and Replace, Est. Qty 200 LF $10.00/LF Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 7 B6-24 Curb and Gutter, Remove and Replace, Est. Qty 1500 LF $21.50/LF Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. ITEM 8 Sod, furnish and install 3878 Type C, Salt Resistant, Est. Qty 500 SY $7.00/SY Accept bid offered by Rochester Sand & Gravel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of bids for the 2006 SEASON SUPPLY OF BITUMINOUS MATERIALS from Rochester Sand & Gravel and authorizing the Mayor & City Clerk to sign a contract with Rochester Sand & Gravel for the above named supplies and services. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: r. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: Consent Agenda Finance Department Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of $9,560,833.16 Accounts payable of $9,679,221.96 Total disbursements $19,240,055.12 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: MEETING l DATE: 5/1/06 ITEM NO. Dale Martinson Consent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Human Resources DEPT Council Approval of Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local 949 Street Maintenance MEETING 13 DATE 511 /06 ITEM NO. D- I�- Linda Gi1srud * Wages for 3-year agreement: 1/5/06 2.0% (retroactive) 1/4/07 2.0% plus employer contribution of $0.05/hour for up to 2080 hours annually toward IUOE Central Pension Fund 1/3/08 2.75% plus employer contribution of $0.10/per hour ($0.05 cents/hour from 2007 and an additional $.05/hour for 2008) for up to 2080 hours annually toward IUOE Central Pension Fund * Vacation accrual changes: add 8 hours additional accrual at two vacation accrual levels Years of Service Vacation Allowed 11-15 years 168 hours (previously 160 hours) 16-19 years 192 hours (previously 184 hours) * increase reimbursement for safety shoes and other safety clothing from $360 during previous three- vear agreement to $380 during new three-year agreement. Approved spring safety jackets may be urchased using safety clothing reimbursement. The Union agrees that the Street Maintenance ..tanager or his designee may require the employee to replace worn or unusable safety shoes at the employee's expense if all negotiated safety clothing reimbursement money has been spent. * The City will reimburse two City -designated employees within the bargaining group for the fee associated with maintaining the Hazardous Material endorsement on their commercial driver's license (CDL) * The changes proposed by the Health Care Task Force in regard to the employee contribution toward health care coverage (15% of the cost of family health coverage and 5% of the cost of individual health coverage) and percentage of unused sick leave (40%) to be contributed to the MSRS HCSP after ten years of continuous employment will be incorporated into the agreement. Attach MOU allowing union membership during the term of this agreement to designate a percentage of unused vacation or vacation saved, if any, to be contributed toward HCSP * An employee whose spouse, child or parent dies may use up to four (4) days of paid funeral leave with the supervisor's approval * Incorporate Traffic Aide as a job title covered by Local #49 Street Maintenance. The position is non exempt, non contract (NENC) at present and is held by Troy Robertson. Mr. Robertson has already received a 2% increase effective 1/5/2006 but would be eligible for the Local #49 Street Maintenance negotiated increases in 2007 and 2008. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: r .1k RCA May 1, 2006 Page 2 * Language change to Article 6 C. 2nd sentence: Not more than 110 hours of compensatory time (previous agreement called for not more than 80 hours of compensatory time) shall be carried forward from one (1) calendar year to the next. * Regarding the Central Pension Fund, the Union and the City agree to incorporate the following language as an Appendix: The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought against the Employer exclusively by a Union employee for contributing an amount that might otherwise be paid in wages to the Employee for purposes of making pension contributions per this article. The City requires a copy of the most recent Central Pension Fund Trust document to remain on file in the City Clerk's office. The Union agrees to assume the responsibility for enrolling IUOE union employees in the Central Pension Fund, providing all fiduciarily required Fund information, and providing the signed employee enrollment forms to City payroll staff in a timely manner so deductions can begin. The Union agrees that Local #49 representatives are responsible for advising retiring or terminating employees about their pension payout options. The Union agrees that when an unpaid leave of absence is requested and approved by departmental leadership for a Street Maintenance Local #49 employee, Union representatives are responsible for communicating employee's obligations to the Central Pension Fund during the unpaid leave of absence when no earnings are due the employee from the City of Rochester. The Central Pension Fund contribution deducted from the pay of all members of Local #49 Street Maintenance will be determined each calendar year by the membership and communicated to the Director of Human Resources by the Local #49 business agent on or closely after December 1 of each year. *A "Sanding Call List" shall be added as an appendix to the agreement. The present list shall be effective through 9/30/06, A new Sanding Call List shall be prepared by mutual agreement between the Street Maintenance Manager and Local #49 Street Maintenance each year before or on October 1 st each year. The list specifies the order in which employees must be called out for snow removal and related tasks. *Appendix D is maintained as a part of the collective bargaining agreement (winter safety jacket language). I COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the collective bargaining agreement. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING <S / DATE 5/1106 AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT ITEM NO. f' Human Resources t.- nsent PREPARED BY: EM DESCRIPTION: L. Gilsrud pay Equity Implementation Report The City of Rochester is prepared to file the Pay Equity Implementation Report. Human Resources staff has utilized the State -provided software to prepare the Report. The report contains information from the 2005 calendar year. The Pay Equity Compliance Report is an analysis of City of Rochester salary/wage data to determine if female job classes are paid consistently below male job classes of comparable work value (work points). Minnesota pay equity legislation is a method of eliminating discrimination against women who are paid less than men for jobs requiring comparable levels of expertise. Minnesota law goes beyond the familiar idea of "equal pay for equal work" where men and women with the same jobs must be paid equally. A policy to establish pay equity means: 1) that all jobs will be evaluated and given points according to the level of knowledge and responsibility required to do the job; and 2) that salary adjustments will be made if it is discovered that women are consistently paid less then men for jobs with similar points. Pay equity laws in Minnesota address only sex -based wage disparities and not other types of perceived wage disparities. Pay equity does not replace collective bargaining and does not address all compensation issues. The Report shows that: The City of Rochester has passed the Statistical Analysis Test — 83.8% This underpayment ratio number must be 80% or above The City of Rochester has passed the Salary Range Test — 100% This number must be either 0% or 80% or more to pass this test The City of Rochester has passed the Exceptional Service Pay Test — 0% This number must be either 0% or 80% or more to pass this test. Each Council member has been supplied with an electronic copy of the 20-page Report to review. Once the Mayor has been authorized by the Council to sign the Report, it will be submitted to the MN pay equity compliance officer and posted in accordance with State law in Human Resources, the Rochester Public Library, and sent electronically to each collective bargaining group representative. The due date of the report for the City of Rochester was advanced from 1 /31107 to 1 /31/06 by action of the State legislature to restore the reporting schedule after no governmental entities were required to report in 2004 and 2005. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize Mayor Ardell Brede to sign the report for submittal. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/l/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING �_ I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetiand Delineation and Replacement Plan — Badger Hills Subdivision PREPARED BY: John Harford, Senior Planner March 28, 2006 Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan: Badger Hills, LLC owns land located west of West Circle Drive and north of Valleyhigh Road, NW. The pro y includes a Type 2 wetland that is 0.7 acres in size and has proposed the filling of 0.41 acres. The wetland area is located in a draingeway. A portion of the wetland is proposed to be filled due to the location of a connecting street and required stormwater control structures. The road is necessary to provide for connections between the southern and northern portions of the subdivision and to the future 41" St., NW. The Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed the alternatives and found that they meet the minimum standards for sequencing. The TEP agrees that complete avoidance of the wetlands is not feasible due to the configuration and location of the wetland and future interconnectivity of the roadway network along this portion of West Circle Crive. The applicant proposes direct replacement on -site adjacent to the existing wetland through the creation of new wetland and upland buffer. The total wetland replacement is at a 2:1 replacement ratio and will exceed the minimum requirement of 0.82 acres by creating 0.35 acres of new wetland credits and 1.78 acres of buffer area on site and purchasing 0.1 acres off site from a wetland bank in Olmsted County. The BWSR staff and the TEP recommended approval of the wetland replacement plan. Planning Staff Recommendation:. The staff recommends approval of this replacement plan with two conditions: 1. that the applicant provide a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland document covering the replacement area as required by the wetland rules. The applicant should use the standard form provided by the BWSR. 2. that the applicant submit the Withdrawal of Credits form for the purchase of the wetland bank credits to the BWSR. City Council Action: 1. If the council agrees it should pass a resolution approving the replacement plan. Attachments: 1. Report from the applicant. Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. City Administrator's Office 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant 5. Consultant: Steve Lawler COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: r FA W €€1Z 7" A8MTER W ROMIREVISED BAI ROCHE ••••-••--- 212hlime, euma a¢7" ,w P.aeheslar,ue iwe.. u (307) 2054232 GOP 0172 Verna Badger Parcel/Badger Hills Rochester Common approved t72, on March 4, 2002 subject to 9 onshnrcaHos. The Plan by Council was dated REV REVISED January 22. 2007. The attached Plan dated REVISED February 19, 2003 is Intended to address condition a71 regarding future alignment of the westward extension of 410 Street NW. Other modifications to roadway alignments werealso cl.Road identified wilt be formalized through the Platting pAlignments on adjacent properties are conceptual only. GDP 0172 only includes the Verna n u0-door Hilt,. >i L 1� I 411 MI., laD 79 z D 0 0 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 91 DATE: 5-1-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. Z)--.15 CONSENT ITEM DESCRIPTION: Initiate an Amendment Official Street Map #12 to remove the PREPARED BY: alignment for the southerly extension of Garden Drive (to be Mitzi A. Baker, changed to Maine Avenue SE). Senior Planner April 28, 2006 When Official Street Map #12 was originally adopted, the primary reason for identifying a future roadway that extended from the westerly end of Garden Drive south to intersect with 48" Street SE was to ensure a future public road that would provide access to an area where multiple properties were affected. The Maine Street Development subdivision plat proposes to serve these properties with a roadway that differs from the Official Map in terms of right of way width, and alignment. There is no known objection to the alignment on that Plat, and It provides access to properties necessary to allow for orderly growth and development. The alignment and solution for providing access to the parcels in the area was supported and endorsed with the approval of the Maine Street Development Preliminary Plat. A Final Plat application for Maine Street Development is now under consideration. Since the Plat addresses the primary purposes of the alignment shown on the Official Map, but with a modified alignment and width, the alignment on the Official Map is no longer necessary. Amending the Official Street map to remove that right-of-way will allow the Final Plat for this area to move forward and will effectively provide necessary to serve the area. Council Action Needed: Initiate an amendment to Official Street Map #12, to remove the alignment for the future extension of Garden Drive SE, which will be platted as Maine Avenue SE with the Maine Street Development subdivision and which will include a modified alignment and design. 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 May 1, 2006 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by! -to' mi, e 6 c a = kg m M 4 ' ' W th- i [y6 E p ksk A gu J gzY xx c 8�„ v BkB� FY e F IF gabs W.O Z Ge�«. li€ # € Ig Y tlkk3 Y!!k � h Ek3Y s I° YpLH in 4 Z kz i ikg i kg=k i }� Y y.:•4 It yp: lti � I 0 z 8 11 I-W4U91+4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/1 /06 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM CONSENT AGENDA Public Works �� ITEM DESCRIPTION: -Advertisement of Bids: Lift Station No. 4 Replacement and Force PREPARED BY: P Main, J7739 J. Loehr i This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 and considered by the City Council on Monday, June 19, 2006 for the following project: Project No. M4-59.7739 "Construct Temporary Lift Station and Forcemain to Replace Existing Lift Station No. 4." The project is included in the 2006 - 2011 Capital Budget, Sewer and Water, Page 60, Item No. 6. The project is necessary to replace the existing Lift Station No. 4 that was constructed in 1978 as an Interim (temporary lift station). The lift station and force main are at or nearing sewer service capacity. The lift station and force main is unable to handle sewer flows from new developments in the northwest quadrant of the City. In addition the existing lift station mechanical and electrical components show increasing breakdown and failures. The lift station and force main have reached their useful life. The concept of installing a new temporary lift station and force main project in lieu of constructing a more costly gravity flow sanitary sewer tunnel was presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting of April 4, 2005. The new temporary lift station and force main will be utilized until such time that Sewer Availability Charges are collected and Sewer Utility funds are established to make the construction of a permanent gravity flow sanitary sewer tunnel viable. Council directed Public Works staff to proceed with a new temporary lift station and force main. The project is proposed to be funded by the Sewer Utility. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on June 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk: Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning May 12, 2006. Attachments: Notice of Bids Project Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING al / DATE: 05/01 /06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works rc>- 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: (J7210) 3`d Avenue NW from West Center Street to 2n1 Street NW This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project Proiect: City No. 6303-4-04 (7210) Reconstruct 3`d Avenue SW from West Center Street to 2nd Street NW PREPARED BY: D. Nelson Proiect Background: The project consists of reconstructing 3rd Avenue NW a concrete street from Center Street to 2"d Street NW. Work will include: new concrete pavement, new sidewalks, curb and gutter, signal system modifications, and rehabilitation of storm sewer. This project is included in the 2006 -2011 Capital Improvement Program, item #10, page 34. Funding for the project will be formalized before bids are awarded in Contribution Agreements executed with abutting property owners; Mayo Foundation and Kahler Hotels. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on June 14 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk: Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning May 12, 2006. Attachments: Notice of Bids i COUNCIL ACTION: Motto" by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/1/06 GENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works � — I g ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J7245) PREPARED BY: Intersection Improvements TH14 (East) and CSAH 22 (3CP Ave S.E.) D. Nelson This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Proiect: City No. M6-09 (J7245) Intersection Improvements to TH14 (East) and CSAH 22 (301" Avenue S.E.) Proiect Background: The project consists of constructing turn lanes, bituminous and concrete pavement, signal system modifications, and installation of storm sewer and sanitary sewer. This project supports the Rochester Towne Club Development. Funding for the project will involve City, County, and developer funds. CA Pu DRSE m. eDe�aE -;R?{SPWNEDR E UCR PRY SE y i SE _ PROJECT E RP SE®ri LOCATION �• S �.QO TEETBnE�SE I�' z� �W lq+y�rvDTRY5pR�E 8 F w EASM'WOip SE -' WflD 1U 5E f R65§ DMt cR SE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on May 19 at 11:00 AM. Attachments: Notice of Bids COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: MEETING q) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 05/1 /06 kGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p- t ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J2574-06) PREPARED BY: Construct I Expand Parking Lot Civic Center North Lot D. Nelson 1A This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Proiect: City No. (J2574-06) Construct I Expand the Civic Center North Parking Lot Proiect Background: The project consists of constructing bituminous surfacing, curb and gutter, storm sewer, landscaping, and parking lot lighting. This project will accommodate bus and large vehicle parking requirements. The project will be funded from Parking Enterprise funds. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on May 31 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk: Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning May 5, 2006. Attachments: Notice of Bids COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby. second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6� / DATE: 5/1 /06 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works p— ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertisement of Bids: Hadley Valley Trunk Sar Serve Sewer Service Area 29A Phase 2, J7744 Sewer to PREPARED BY: ha J. Loehrle.J This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 and considered by the City Council on Monday, June 5, 2006 for the following project: City Proiect No: M2-42-2-05 J7744 Hadley Valley Trunk Sanitary Sewer to Serve Sewer Service Area 29A Phase 2 The Hadley Valley Phase 2 project is included in the 2006 - 2011 Capital Budget, Sewer and Water, Page 60, Item No. 8. The project is necessary to provide sanitary sewer to the Hadley Valley sewer service area. The project is proposed to be funded by SAC Revenue Bonds. The Feasibility Report adopted by the City Council on August 1, 2005 requires that the developers of property within Hadley Valley representing at least 50% of the estimated project cost for each respective Phase must enter into Contribution Agreements with the City prior to the award of contract for the project. Public Works staff had discussions with representatives of various planned developments within the Hadley Valley Area. Contribution Agreements are being prepared for the owners of property in Hadley Valley for their consideration and signatures. Public Works is convinced that a sufficient number of Contribution Agreements representing at least 50% of the Phase 2 project costs will be signed prior to the scheduled June 5, 2006 award of bids. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on May 31, 2006 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk: Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning May 5, 2006. Attachments: Notice of Bids Project Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: ;ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ors - DATE: 5/1 /05 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works I 1 \- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Construction Engineering Services: East Zumbro River PREPARED BY: Interceptor, J2175 J. Loehr This is a proposal from WHKS & Company to provide Construction Engineering Services for the following local improvement project: Proiect No. 7700, J2175 "East Zumbro River Sanitary Sewer Interceptor from 37th Street NW to 13-1/2 Street NW". Since WHKS & Company provided the Design Engineering Services for the project and WHKS is capable of providing the desired level of Construction Engineering Services for this sanitary sewer project, the Department of Public Works recommends that WHKS be retained to provide Construction Engineering Services for the project. Compensation is proposed at the actual cost and expense fee structure with a not to exceed $169,472. An RCA requesting an award of contract for project J2175 is scheduled for May 1, 2006. Therefore, it is appropriate to enter into. Construction Engineering Service Agreements for the project at this time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of Construction Engineering Service Agreements with WHKS & Company to provide construction services for project J2175. Attachments: WHKS Construction Engineering Service Proposal Project Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/1 /06 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. 1) - CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Analysis and Design Services: Parkwood Hills Sub- PREPARED BY: trunkline Sanitary Sewer, J7754 J. Loehr This is a proposal from WHKS & Company to provide Preliminary Project Analysis for the following local improvement project: Project No. M6-10. J7754 "Parkwood Hills Sub-trunkline Sanitary Sewer." WHKS & Company is capable of providing the desired level of Preliminary Project Analysis and Design Engineering Services necessary to design a successful sanitary sewer extension plan to serve the Parkwood Hills area. The Department of Public Works recommends that WHKS be initially retained to provide Preliminary Project Analysis for the project. Compensation is proposed at the actual cost and expense fee structure. The estimated cost for Preliminary Project Analysis is $23,540. After the completion of the Preliminary Project Analysis and selection of design alternates and the scope of the project is determined the Department of Public Works will negotiate a Design Engineering Service Agreement with WHKS for the project. Compensation for Design services is proposed at a "Lump Sum" amount as negotiated for the project. The "Lump Sum" amount will be based on the extent of engineering services required for the project. The preliminary analysis and design services for the Parkwood Hills sub-trunkline sanitary sewer is required at this time to coordinate with a ravine and creek stabilization project that is currently being designed. Prior to constructing the Parkwood Hills sub-trunkline a Feasibility Report will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of an Engineering Service Agreement with WHKS & Company to provide engineering services for project J7754 as follows: a. Preliminary Design Analysis (actual cost and expense fee structure). b. Design Services ("Lump Sum" as negotiated by the Department of Public Works and approved by the City Administrator). Attachments: WHKS Preliminary Project Analysis Proposal Nt3p COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by. Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q DATE: 5/1/06 kGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ID -AJ I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Engineering Services: Reconstruction 15 Avenue PREPARE from Center St. to 2ntl Street S.W. (J-7749) D. Ne The following project is proposed for construction and is included in the 2006 - 2011 Capital Improvement Program, item #24, pg 36. Project: "Reconstruction of 1°t Avenue S.W. from Center St to 2nd Street S.W." (J-7749) This project will include new concrete curb & gutter and concrete pavement. The construction will conform to State Aid standards with a cost estimated of $750,000. Funding for the project will come from Municipal State Aid System (MSAS) funds, assessments of abutting property owners and Downtown Abatement funds. It's necessary to begin preliminary design efforts now to ensure coordination of this project with other projects in the area such as the 1st Street Plaza. The City requested a proposal to perform the professional services from Yaggy Colby Associates for this work. A proposal to complete the Preliminary Design was received from Yaggy, Colby Associates for $6,000.00. The Department of Public Works recommends we accept the Proposal from Yaggy Colby Associates. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Yaggy Colby Associates for Preliminary Design of 151 Ave S.W. from Center St to 2"d Street S.W. in an amount not to exceed $6,000.00. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by Second by: to: MEETING L()1 ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 05/01 /06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p- a-T ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services —Wetlands: PREPARED BY: Engineering Services to Delineate Wetlands on various projects R. Kelm This is a request for the execution of an Engineering Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts for the following projects: Project Name and Numbers: City Project J # Number Title No -Loss Delineation Total Reconstruct 19th St NW from Ashland Drive 1. J9707 6219-4-00 NW to CSAH 22 West Circle Drive $2,400 $7,400 $9,800 Extend Storm sewer 4409 Rossi Ct NW to 2. J6539 SWM-4-05 Kin s Run $2,400 $7,400 $9,800 Extend Storm sewer 2702 Century Ln NE to 3. J6538 SWM-3-05 back roe line $2,400 $7,400 $9,800 East Circle Drive Bike Trail from Alberta 4. ' J4944 7503 19-00 1 Drive NE to 16th Ave NE. $2,400 $7,400 $9,800 Grand Total $39,200 Proiect Background: McGhie & Betts Company is capable of providing the desired level of Wetland No -Loss Determination and Wetland Delineation Survey Report and Application Services necessary for the projects listed above. The Department of Public Works recommends that McGhie & Betts be initially retained to provide the Determination and applicability of a Wetland No -Loss Determination for each project. Compensation is proposed per project at the actual cost and expense fee structure not to exceed $2,400. After the completion of the determination, if wetland sites do exist the Department of Public Works recommends that McGhie & Betts be further retained to provide the Wetland Delineation Survey Report and Application for each project. Compensation is proposed per project at the actual cost and expense fee structure not to exceed $7,400. The $39,200 "Grand Total' amount is based on the extent of engineering services required for each project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to execute an engineering service agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. for the wetland no -loss determination and wetland delineation survey report and application for the projects listed above in an amount not to exceed $39,200. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: V(D) - 05/01 /06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: WORKS ITEM NO. p— CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering / Environmental Services Contract: (J2261) PREPARED BY: Asbestos and Hazardous Material Sampling of buildings located at 1330 R Kelm & 1332 71b Street NW The buildings located on 1330 & 1332 7 Street NW have been scheduled for de olition. Identification and removal of asbestos containing building materials and other hazardous materials is required prior to demolition. Proiect Name and Number: City No. 6316-4-97 (J2261) Proposed Project title: Demolition of Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7tn Street NW, Lot 1 Auditor's Plat D Original Project title: Reconstruct 16th Avenue NW from Civic Center Drive to 500ft North Proiect Background The roadway connection of 16` Ave NW from Civic Center Drive to 7tn Street NW project was included in the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program (item 13, page 32). The City purchased the land and associated buildings in anticipation of the roadway project. The final scope of the roadway project was eventually reduced to constructing only the southerly half in 2004. The northerly half of the project has remained unfinished and the existing buildings have deteriorated over time. These buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7" Street NW have been scheduled for demolition. Proiect Scope This is a proposal by McGhie & Betts, Inc., to provide professional environmental engineering services for: a. Performing a facility inspection, sampling and identification of all hazardous materials, including asbestos containing building materials. b. Prepare a basic removal plan and specification. c. Provide removal oversight management if required. McGhie and Betts, Inc. is familiar with the City's requirements for the preparation of hazardous material removal plans and specifications. Therefore, the Department of Public works recommends that McGhie & Betts, Inc., be retained by the City to provide these services for this demolition project. Compensation is based on an actual cost and expense fee structure. McGhie & Betts, Inc., estimates these services at $7,500.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a environmental engineering services contract, for Asbestos and Hazardous Material Sampling and Identification with McGhie & Betts, Inc. Attached: Location Ma COUNCIL ACTION: motion ny: second by: to: \dK� Project Location Map For Demolition of Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7th Street NW GENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J4611) M6-05 Construct Pedestrian Ramps in Various Locations This is a request for a resolution to award contract for the following project: Project: CITY PROJECT No. M 6-05 (J4611) CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN RAMPS IN VARIOUS LOCATION MEETING 1n!05, DATE: 05/01 /06 ITEM NO. Wellner Prolect Background Since the spring of 2004 the City of Rochester has entered into agreements with developers whereby the city will install pedestrian ramps and the developers will pay the city for these installations. The pedestrian ramps will be installed shortly after the sidewalk is constructed for the comer lot. During the summer of 2006 many of the pedestrian ramps for which the city has received payment will require installation. Quotations have been received for the installation of the pedestrian ramps in various locations throughout the city. The funding for this project is with developer contributions received and coded to Account 4606. The following quotation was received: Total Quote 1. Doyle Conner Co. $ 51,272.00 Engineer's Estimate $ 42,600.00 Proiect Recommendation: 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, CITY PROJECT No. M 6-05 (J4611) CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN RAMPS IN VARIOUS LOCATION to Doyle Conner Co. in the amount of $51,272.00. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING !t- ' DATE: 0511 /06 LGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. �� CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J7747) PREPARED BY: Reconstruct 2"d Avenue S.W. from Center Street to 1st Street S.W. D. Nelson t j Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 19, 2006 for the following local improvement. Project Name and Number: Reconstruction of 2" Avenue S.W City No 6302-3-05, J-7747 from Center Street to I Street S.W. Project Background The Project work involves reconstructing 2"d Avenue S.W. from Center Street to 15' Street S.W. ending it in a cul-de-sac. The project is included in the City's 2006 — 2011 Capital Improvement Program, item #13, page 34. The costs of this project will be paid from contribution agreement charges to abutting property owners (Mayo Foundation and Sunstone Hotels) and from the Downtown abatement funds. The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Elcor Construction $363,622.55 2. Road Constructors, Inc. $368,688.40 Engineers Estimate $277,824.00 Proiect Recommendation: The low bid exceeds the Engineer's Estimate by more than $85,000 because last minute requests from Mayo and Kahler to accommodate their vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the construction period were not included in our engineers final estimate. The costs are reasonable for the work involved. As such, staff recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, (J 7747) Reconstruction of 2"d Avenue S.W. to Elcor Construction in the amount of $363,622.55 COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 16� 11 MEETING 05-01-06 DATE: AGENDA AGEN ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM NO_ I\ ITEM PARKING RAMP RATESI GROUP PARKING RATE PREPARED BY: REQUEST By RCVS A KNAUER A request was received from the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau (RCVB) to implement a group parking rate for overnight conventions of 250 or more attendees. The RCVB indicated that this would enhance the packages they offer prospective conventions. A $6 overnight rate is being proposed. The current overnight parking rate is $10 at four of the five ramps with the Center Street Ramp priced at $12. (These rates are still less than private ramps in the downtown.) We do not have estimates of how many overnight parkers are with conventions of over 250 attendees. RCVB estimates they will book 66,509 room nights to conventions of over 250 attendees in 2006. This includes all hotel rooms of which RCVB estimates 60% as booked in the downtown. A further breakdown of how many downtown hotel guests of such sized conventions that use city ramps was not provided. RCVB has booked over 72,000 room nights in 2007 for a about an 8% increase. RCVB is positive about additional growth projecting over 20% growth over 2006 by the end of 2008. Staff is also considering other revenue sources to offset the group rate discount. These proposals will be presented for Council consideration later this summer. The Group Rate Discount is based $6.00 per parker and applies to conventions occurring in 2007 and conventions booked in 2007 for future years. The discount rate would be reviewed and revised annually as needed to maintain the financial standing of the Parking Enterprise Fund. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION i� r-><��� Adopt the prepared resolution establishing a group rate of $6.00 per parker for conventions of over 250 attendees contracted through the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau (RCVB) with the following terms. A The group rate will apply only to conventions with 250 or more attendees contracted through RCVB. RCVB will account for and distribute the parking passes provided by the City and its management company Republic Parking Systems. RCVB will provide payment for parking for these conventions. The group rate discount program will begin on 1 /1/2007 and be based on $6.00 per vehicle parked in City parking facilities. The 2007 rate will apply to all conventions with 250 or more attendees occurring in 2007 as well as booked in 2007 for future years as attested to by a signed contract between RCVB and the group. The rate is subject to review and change on an annual basis. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: i Rnochues 1-11"s Convention & Visitors Bureau April 18, 2006 Rochester City Council C/o Stevan Kvenvold City Administrator tot 4th Street SE — Room 266 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Kvenvold & City Council Members: On behalf of the Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Rochester Amateur Sports Commission and the Rochester Hospitality Industry we encourage your support of implementing a new group parking rate for Rochester municipal parking lots. By offering a special $6 per day / overnight (24-hour period) parking rate to groups of more than 250 attendees, Rochester will be able to match competing destinations parking rates (see competitive analysis) and ultimately assist our efforts in encouraging group events, conventions, sporting events and meetings to choose Rochester as a host city. By supporting this new group parking rate initiative you will be supporting the growth of the current $22 million that these groups spend in Rochester on an annual basis. The Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau will work with Republic Parking and the City of Rochester on the specific details of the implementation and of this system, as well as the central clearing house for the issuance and billing procedure to streamline the efforts of our group parking system. We want to grow the number of people and groups visiting Rochester, we feel that current parking rates are a major issue directly with the groups either through direct parking rates and / or driving the hotel room rates up unnecessarily to our group visitors. Thank you for your time and support: We look forward to the continued team work that it takes to be successful as a growing visitor destination. Sincerely, Bruce Fairchild Brad Jones Myron Satz Ed Hruska Chairman Executive Director Chairman Executive Director Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau Rochester Amateur Sports Commission www.VisitRocheskrMN.com 111 South RroadwaY, Suite 301 ' Centerplace Galleria " Rochester, MN 55904 ' 1.507.288.4331 - 1,800,634.8277 ° Fax: 1,507,288.9144 m r O oc 2 R LL C O 7 N IL N r Y C 0 U N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 01 OD 10 1n 4 Cif N e- O e- V- V? di V► fH d> IA V! V► V9 V► ��l / Group Bookings *Over 250 in size In 2004 the Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau booked 107 groups representing 63,833 room nights. The attendees of these events and conventions will spend $15,617,952 in Rochester. In 2005 the Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau booked 114 groups representing 80,117 room nights. The attendees of these events and conventions will spend $21,080,300 in Rochester. Lost Business * Over 250 in size In 2004 the Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau lost 122 groups representing 89,419 room nights which represents $22,679,000 in lost direct spending in Rochester. In 2005 the Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau lost 89 groups representing 73,46o room nights which represents $17,822,000 in lost direct spending in Rochester. Group Parldng Rates Are a Barrier to Rochester Of the group events and conventions which we lost in 2004 & 2005: 211 groups or 36% cited Parking Rates as being an issue. These group events and conventions represented a potential of 67,632 room nights and a total loss of $16,587,000 Of the group events and conventions which we lost in 2004 & 2005: 51 groups or 24% cited Parking Rates as being a Major Issue. These group events and conventions represented a potential of 39,882 room nights and a total loss of $11,329>078 Future Group Events Impact* Over 250 in size In 2oo6: Rochester will host uo,668 attendees as part of groups with 250 or more. Currently those groups represent 66,5o9 room nights which represent $17,230,561 in direct spending in Rochester. Parldng Concessions & Subsidy Currently, 1 in 3 group events and conventions currently considering Rochester require a subsidy from either the Host Hotel or Convention & Visitors Bureau to offset the difference in parking rates that competing destinations and / or Hotels are offering. By offering a flat $6 per day/night group parking rate the Hotels & Convention & Visitors Bureau will be able to offer more competitive rates (from free - $6 per day) and remove one of our biggest objections to bringing group events to downtown Rochester. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5-01-06 DATE: tl?i AGENDA ITEM CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. PUBLIC WORKS D #2 / REVENUE AND EQUIPMENT FOR PARKING RAMPS. PREPARED BY: A KNAUER L, A contract has been awarded to Don Harstad Company Inc. for the purchase and installation of parking revenue/ access control (PARC) equipment to be installed in 4 of the city's parking garages. The locations include; Center Street, First Street, Second Street and Civic Center parking garages. The new equipment includes credit card in and out and an integrated software system for reporting and accounting, and automatic vehicle identification for contract parkers. Since award we have been considering enhancements to the hotel validation process. Staff is recommending these enhancements. They will increase the efficiency, accountability and convenience of the system. The systems were shown to the hotels and they expressed support for the changes. In addition staff is recommending illuminating the barrier arms on the gates. Following is a summary of the cost for these additional features. Hotel validation system $20,302 Illuminated barrier gates $ 2,805 ($165 each x 17) Total $23,107 (The 2006 CIP budgeted $720,000 for the project. The funds are provided from the Parking Enterprise Funds retained earnings. This amount also includes engineering and fiber optic connections. The fiber optic portion is under a separate contract at a cost of $7,936.75) REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution approving Change Order #2in the amount of $23,107.00 forthe enhanced hotel validation system and illuminated barrier arms regarding "Project J2580-06 Revenue and Access Control Equipment for City Parking Garages" with Don Harstad Company Inc., 7103 Highway 65 NE, Fridley, MN 55432-3302.. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �t� DATE: /1/06 _ GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. — CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works LLJJ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: C Lot on City Property A of Minnesota, Inc. PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. owns property (The North 34 feet of the West 18 feet of Lot 9; the North 34 feet of Lots 10 and 11; and Lot 12 less the North 42 feet there of, all in Block 2, Conley's Addition). They would like to construct a parking lot on City -owned property (Lot 2, Block 3, Conley's Addition). The Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. would perform all work and bear all costs associated with the installation, maintenance and repair of the parking lot as well as any damage that may occur. The subject parking lot cannot be for private use and will be open to the general public for parking purposes. The Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. shall proceed through the Land Development Manual/Site Development Plan process and meet all criteria for construction of a parking lot on the subject City -owned property as required by the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. has executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and liability protection for the City. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit with Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota, Inc. to allow for the placement of a parking lot in the City -owned property located at Lot 2, Block 3, Conley's Addition. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I (1 DATE: 1 ios 3ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. 03 l ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: East Zumbro River Interceptor, J2175 PREPARED BY: J. Loehr Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 20, 2006 for the following ocal improvement project: Project No. 7700, J2175 "East Zumbro River Sanitary Sewer Interceptor from 37th Street NW to 13-112 Street NW". The following bids were received: Elcor Construction $7,479,549.10 (Low Bid) SJ Louis $8,360,253.80 Lametti & Sons $8,573,770.00 Engineer Estimate $7,843,142.00 The East Zumbro River Interceptor project is included in the 2006 - 2011 Capital Budget, Sewer and Water, Page 60, Item No. 5. The project is necessary to provide relief to the existing 48" sanitary sewer interceptor that is located on the west side of the Zumbro River. The East Zumbro River Interceptor is the second phase of the trunkline sanitary sewer upgrade that begins at 371b Street NW on the north end and extends to West Silver Lake Drive at 12tb Street NE on the south end. The first phase of the project the 12t" Street sanitary sewer bypass was constructed in 2005. The East Zumbro River Interceptor will also provide for future growth of the southerly one-half of the City. The project is proposed to be funded by Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds, from reserves assigned to J8212 (previously collected Sewer Availability Charges for downstream capacity) and from Sales Tax appropriated to the Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) as portions of WQPP Sales Tax receipts are intended to upgrade the existing trunkline sanitary sewer system. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to Elcor Construction. Attachment: Location Map Budget and Assessment Schedule COUNCIL ACTION: 10otion by Second by to I g53 C 3 a 6i �Wo 66 � � � � 6& � � • g 81, log! uh ag 1110 �g as: .d ;$g I till I i jl�,�•I��I'i� lil III, II�Ciil�� ' i ll�fll 11I1. i.���i ���Ilii�li Ir W w tlEESE€°°[[SlEE SBE �iifi'i�" o �SS§SSf �E 3's SSfSSSiiiE 9 S! y a • ®®p %? 10'k03EDff C• 9925ft1 G#OC zA®� Fs; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/01/06 1 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 2 CONSENT AGENDA Public Works [) �3a ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J4013) PREPARED BY: Construction of Harvestview Regional Storm Water Management Ponds J. Wellner_ I Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., April 26, 2006 for the following local improvement. Project Name and Number: City Project No: SW-008 (J4013) Harvestview Regional Storm Water Management Ponds Project Background The Project is the construction of a storm water management pond complex of 3 new storm water treatment ponds. These ponds serve the developing areas within Section 7 lying south of the Douglas Trail and also the portions of Kingsbury Hills and of Wedgewood Hills that drain northerly across 55`b Street NW. The costs of this project will be paid from Storm Water Utility and is listed on page 68, line 13 of the 2006-2011 CIP. The project proposal required the bidding of a Base Project and Alternate 1 and Alternate 2. The alternate recommended by staff is the acceptance of the base project bid from Rud Excavating for $619,096. The following bids were received: Total Base Project Add Alternate 1 Add Alternate 2 1. Rud Excavating $619,096.00 $104,565.00 $629,250.00 2. Frattalone 652,508.00 76,940.00 467,250.00 3. Park Construction 744,549.10 90,805.00 621,750.00 4. Road Constructors 748,340.00 111,925.00 657,900.00 5. Griffin Construction 754,833.84 84,420.00 507,600.00 6. Frasier Construction 794,190.00 152,815.00 801,750.00 7. Reilly Construction 980,373.00 215,710.00 1,074,000.00 8. Frontier Construction 1,015,641.00 134,290.00 705,000.00 Engineer's Estimate $857,000.00 $133,700.00 $525,000.00 Project Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder for Base Project in the amount of $619,096.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, (J4013) Construction of Harvestview Regional Storm Water Management Ponds to Rud Excavating in the amount of $ $619,096.00. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/1/06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR t.33 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT - CGMC PREPARED BY: MAYOR BREDE The City of Rochester has been a member in good standing of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities for many years. The CGMC is the main legislative services organization for us on the topics of annexation, local government aid, Greater Minnesota specific economic development, environmental programs, and Greater Minnesota transportation funding. Thus far in 2006 this organization has done excellent work for us on those topics. Due to the extensive efforts needed on the constitutional amendment for transportation and the withdrawal from the CGMC of a large member last year, the CGMC is running a deficit and will need additional funds to complete its legislative work this session. Thus far they have received voluntary contributions of additional funds from some of the larger cities such as Winona ($5000), New Ulm, Mankato ($7000) and others. The Mayor, who is a CGMC Boardmember, and City Administration are recommending a $7500 additional assessment to assist the CGMC in their 2006 legislative efforts. Council Action Requested. Approval of $7500 from contingency for the CGMC 2006 legislative programs. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: HtQUtS l FOR COUNCIL AG I IUN 1'�1' DATE: 5-1-06 l 1 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING & l ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan (GDP) #268, by North American PREPARED BY: Realty to be known as Willow Heights Sth Addition (formerly proposed as Creek Brent Svenby, View Estates). The GDP proposes development of approximately 39 acres of land Senior Planner located along the north side of 40th Street SW, west of Willow Heights Drive SW and east of 91h Avenue SW with public roadways and single family lots. April 26, 2006 Note: At the CPZC meeting staff mentioned that comments were not received from RPU Environmental however comments were received on February 9, 2006. They were missed when the staff report was assembled. They are now included. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On April 12, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this General Development Plan. The applicant's representative, Ms. Michele Caron from RLK Incorporated, addressed the Commission. She stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions and also agreed with the re -infiltration subdrain and tiling requirement. Numerous property owners spoke in opposition of the proposal. Concerns raised by those speaking consisted of: • Shall be left as open space • Challenging site to develop Noise during construction C a, i L • Loss of wildlife • Housing market already oversaturated 4, facilities • Inadequate public ipztru • Steep slopes • Decorah Edge �J cu„Z IV • Wetland review needs to be done • Parkland is all swamp land 2, • Already is drainage problem in the area Former tree dump area (12 • Increase in traffic*'� ` I • Who takes responsibility for problem after the development is done • Springs and seeps on the property The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The Commission recommends denial based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence presented that would ensure that the public health and safety related to the environment would be ensured. Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend denial of General Development Plan #268 to be known as Willow Heights 5th Addition with the finding that there is insufficient evidence presented that will ensure that the public health and safety related to the environment will be ensured. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, you should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: r u wr oledge, x'r drf[vrr DATE: February 9, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Cook Environmental & Regulatory Affairs SUBJECT: General Development Plan #268 — Creek View Estates. RPU's Field Services Division has completed a review of the above -referenced General Development Plan. Several areas of concern are as follows: • The proposed development is located in the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and the Emergency Response Zone (ERZ) for RPU Well 31 (Figure 1). • Placement of the proposed roadway creates the potential for flooding of the well. • Release of contaminants within the ERZ during construction. • Incompatible land use within the ERZ. The following recommendations are made to help protect groundwater quality and reduce the risk of contamination of public water supply wells: 1. Storm water basins should be designed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Municipal Well 31. 2. Provide sufficient storm water drainage to prevent water elevations from coming within 2 feet of the floor elevation of Well 31 during a 100 year rainfall event. 3. Parking of equipment and the storage of fuels or other potential contaminants should be prohibited within the ERZ during construction. Best practices should be used to prevent contaminant release within the DWSMA during construction. 4. Land use within the ERZ should be restricted to residential uses. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 I Aim r A N _ o � m � : n ZLYKp. E a m — �. ENTERPRISE OR rpu wt plRegt. x't W11-tr Glossary of Terms W IP Program — Wellhead Protection Program - designed to help preserve and protect the quality of our local drinking water supply. TOT — Time of Travel - a distance and time measurement used to determine how long it would take for a contaminant reach drinking water supply. ERZ — Emergency Response Zone - based on a one (1) year TOT. Any contaminants spilled within the ERZ could start showing up at the well in less than one (1) year. WEPA — Wellhead Protection Area — based on a 50 year TOT. Any contaminants spilled within the ERZ could start showing up in the well in less than 50 years. SWCA — Surface Water Contribution Area — Some wells do not have a confining geological layer about them so it is easier for surface water to reach the well. The SWCA extends the WHPA to include surface water runoff if necessary. DW SMA — Drinking Water Supply Management Area — The DWSMA is the complete protection area combining the ERZ, WHPA, and SWCA, tying them to the nearest property/roadway boundaries. Aquitard — A layer of low permeability soil or bedrock that provides protection to the underlying aquifer. PCS — Potential Contaminant Source — Any business or individual that generates, stores, recycles or transports materials or substances that could contaminate ground water. Examples — gas stations, automotive quick lube facilities, dry cleaners, printing companies, chemical companies, paint manufacturers, photo processing labs, landfills, recycling centers, sewage treatment plants, sewage lines, septic tanks, feedlots, manure storage, fertilizer/pesticide storage/mixing, grain storage, road salt storage, auto body shop, machine/metal shop, plating facilities, scrap yard, asphalt plants, electronics manufacturing, furniture manufactunng/refinishmg, paper mill, pipeline, plastics manufacturer, fire training facility, golf course, hospital, laboratory, incinerator, storm water retention ponds. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 l �3 N DATE: April 10, 2006 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission Jay Burke, Chair, Leslie Rivas, Vice Chair, Vince Barry; Bob Haeussinger, Paul Ohly; Mike Quinn; Bruce Snyder Jesse Wallace Lisa Wiesnere Amy Blenken, City Council Representative FROM: Susan Valvoda-Swanson; David Swanson; Kate Greene; Chen Deruiter, Jeff Kruse, Shelly Kruse, Rick Brink, Blanche Brink, William Burt, Lisa Burt, B.J. Jones, Lauren Jones, Stephen Middendorf, Nathan Middendorf, Steve U1men, Ida Ulmen, Sandy Miller, Sarah Miller, Griffin Gartley, Renee Hartly, Roger Hartly, Mark Graybill, Tammy Graybill, Greg Ohnstad, Connie Ohnstad, Mike Canfield, Lisa Canfield (the remaining 113 households to be potentially added as this petition/letter gets circulated) RE: Plat #06-02 by North American Reality known as Willow Heights 5"' Addition Land Alteration Permit: As part of this development, the applicant proposes to excavate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 cubic yards of materials on the property and change the existing elevations more than 10 feet, Some of the material will be moved to the 41f Street SW improvement that is scheduled for this year. According to the applicant's project narrative "the site has design challenges imposed by the natural slopes and a difference in elevations of the surrounding properties of over 150 vertical feet. A change in elevation of over 10 feet will be required over approximately 30% of the project area in order to provide acceptable public roads and the park". 1) The activity could result in danger to life or property. With the proposed grading on the site, there are areas on the site that exceed the slope requirement that no site shall exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical incline over a distance of 30 feet. A different grading plan would need to be proposed that is able to meet the slope requirements. This provision may be waived or modified by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Engineer. Generally, the slopes may not be suitable for residential uses. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards as well as the reclamation standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department I and my neighbors oppose the approval of a substantial land alteration permit on the above listed property. It doesn't make sense to risk injury trying to grade and develop such difficult property. There are plenty of other sites more suitable for development north of Willow Heights and off of 40`h Street S.W. that are or have been before your committee already. Therefore, we request that approval for a land alteration permit be denied. ,a( The applicant is proposing slopes of 2:1 which do not We are also requesting that no meet the minimum design standards. The applicant will consideration be made for slopes need to request a design modification, along with the with a 2:1 ratio. applicable supporting documentation, to the City Engineer for consideration. If the slopes are not determined to be adequate the final grading plan will need to be revised to meet the maximum slope of 3:1. Decorah Edge and Property Damage: A second concern we have is the construction of permanent structures over the Decorah Edge. Structures built on top of or in the shale are at risk for significant water damage. Please see the attached PDF pages 1, 2. and 3. (These excerpts where copied from Olmsted County's slide presentation located at www cn nlmsted_mn_us/unload diriadmin/decorahedge.pdf.) I don't know why you would ignore such information. I have scanned in the plat drawing from the developer and color filled the area they delineated as the Decorah Edge in light blue and the two wetlands and our well in darker blue. Please see attached PDF page 4. 1 have also color filled in pink the 19 homes the developer proposes to be built on the shale of the Decorah Edge. We request that the Planning and Zoning Commission invite Terry Lee of Olmsted County to present information about the Decorah Edge before faking action on any of the developer's requests. We also request that no homes be built on the Decorah Edge. Footprint of the Well It is our understanding there is a law that exists to prevent the potential contamination of our well and its footprint. This issue was raised a couple of years ago when an individual wanted to mine the area south of 40th Street S.W. Construction and the addition of 61 new homeowners on this site risks potential pollution of our well, the source of our drinking water. Its our understanding that the water that flows east from our well affects the next well which is known as Rosehaven or Roseharbor. I had a discussion with the chair of Planning and Zoning on February 22, 2006. He informed a study was being conducted to see what level of pollutants pass through the Decorah Edge to the drinking water. Therefore, we request that this proposal be tabled until such study is concluded. At Risk Homes in Willow Court S.W. There are three earthen dams that hold water and slowly release it down hill into the large wetland north of Willow Court S.W. The developer's plat does not show all of these. It appears the plan removes these dams and their runoff path into the wetland. Any change in water runoff or underground water flow will affect these existing home owners. Therefore, we request no change to the existing water control system be approved, meaning the developer will not be allowed to develop any area i of the property that will result in a direct impact on the existing homeowners' property due to drainage and underground water flow. if the developer is allowed to pnxeed, we request independent review of the grading plan both prior, during and after any changes are made with costs to be borne by the developer. Springs: No springs have been identified in the developers plat. Homeowners in Willow Court S.W. have identified three potential springs and have photographed them for staff review. These springs are located in an around the proposed caul -de -sac off of 40"' Street S.W. Residents from Willow Court also have extensive tiling in their area that run almost year round, even in the winter, which they believe is indicative of the springs in the area. Wetlands: The new plat drawing is missing two small wetland delineations that were present on the plat drawing for Creek View Estates. There is an upper holding pond/swamp/wetland, not shown on the plat that lies just to the north of the proposed development. We request that all regulations that apply to the developer's plan that would affect the wetlands on Wrl/ow Heights 5th Addition be enforced where the proposed development would affect any wetlands on the adjacent properties. Friday, April 7, 2006, 1 spoke with John Hanford, wetlands specialist for Planning and Zoning. He informed that, no proposal has been submitted to him for review. Therefore, we request that no permit be granted for land alteration or any development prior to being submitted to the City of Rochester for wetland feview. Tree Dump Tree disposal area In the past a portion of the property was used a tree disposal site. It is staffs understanding that trees with Dutch elm disease were disposed of at this location. The applicant is aware of this and makes reference to the fact that a portion of the property was used to as a tree dump on page 2 of the GDP narrative submitted along with the GDP application. In addition, preliminary soil borings were submitted along with the application. Staff raises the question of what soil corrections are necessary to grading plan should show the locations and limits of the past tree disposal area, I have also color filled the two tree dumps in green that have been identified by the developer on the plat drawing. Please see attached PDF page 4. The developer proposed building four homes over the tree dumps. Having hiked this property for 19 years and fallen into a hole created by erosion and deterioration, we request that if development proceeds, that independent inspection be completed to ensure the tree dump has been removed and not just covered even more. r The Park: We are not interested in a park being located by the wetlands/swamp due to the wet area and prolific mosquitoes. I recently had the opportunity to talk with two of employees conducting soil borings looking for the tree dump. One commented how difficult it was last summer to try to mark the wetlands because they were being eaten alive by the mosquitoes. If this plat is allowed to be developed, the park needs to be in a windy location on one of the hills or it will not be user friendly. Please see attached PDF page 5 of the scanned in plat with the park in yellow. We recommend moving the park to the end of the cul-de-sac of Hill View Court S.W. marked with a yellow star. Tree Buffer. If the lack of foresight and the lack of good judgment prevails, and this area is allowed to be developed as proposed, we are requesting a 50 foot tree buffer made up of conifers, especially those well suited to bogs on the east side, surround the development. Please see attached PDF page B. We also request that the oak stand color filled in dark green remain undisturbed as much as possible. Open Space Designation: This property was shown as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan that was approved by the Olmsted County Board in 1976 after being reviewed the by Rochester Planning Commission and City Council. The staff reports prepared in the 1960's for adjacent plats discuss the issue that this area was previously used as a tree disposal site and also the location of runoff control structures. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies this property as'Open Space". There are a number of reasons why this property was probably designated as "Open Space". One is the fact that is property was shown as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan which was approved by Olmsted County (1974) prior to the adoption of the Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan in 1979. Another factor is likely because of the terrain of the property and the vegetation on the property make developing the property limited. A final factor was likely because of the fact that a portion of the property was used as a tree disposal site. Many of the property owners who bought homes adjacent to this proposed development where informed by realtors that there would be no development of this land. Many of us are upset that this was either misrepresented or is now subject to change. The "open space" is a primary reason why many of us purchased our homes in this area. Therefore, we request that the property remain designated as open space and be purchased as a wildlife or natural park in the near future. 11 April 12, 2006 Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Jay Burke, Chair 151 4th Street SE Rochester MN 55904-3710 Members of the Commission, The Zumbro Land Conservancy (ZLC) is a local grassroots citizens group whose mission is to preserve natural areas and open space in Olmsted County. Preservation of environmentally sensitive areas is an important "win -win" opportunity for the ZLC. Regarding the Willow Creek Heights proposal (GDP #268, PP#06-02), two points in the staff report deserve emphasis and amplification. 1. Since this area is designated as Open Space in the Rochester Land Use Plan, a different use should require extraordinary circumstances for approval. It is not clear that such circumstances exist. a. This site does not fill a critical need for infrastructure connections nor infill development. In fact, there are multiple significant challenges to successful completion of the proposal. b. If this site is not maintained as Open Space, will an equivalent replacement area be designated? What site would be better suited for open space than one with high environmental sensitivity and large development challenges, and that is already designated as Open Space in the Land Use Plan? 2. Preservation of the reinfiltrationkof groundwater interflows (lateral seepage) at this site, while important, is not sufficient. ra"5.) a. The topography and underlying geology of this site, in combination with its inclusion in the National Wetlands Inventory, indicate that focused groundwater recharge occurs at this site. In the natural state of sites such as this, pollutants are typically removed from the groundwater prior to reinfiltration. This pollutant removal process must also be preserved. If the pollutant removal process is bypassed, our groundwater will suffer additional contamination. The most likely source for this pollutant removal process is associated with the vegetation on the slopes. Preservation of this site as Open Space would allow preservation of the vegetation with the resultant natural pollutant removal as well as the natural reinfiltration processes. b. Wetlands supported by groundwater flows typically cannot be recreated. (How would a groundwater flow be created at some selected location?) Since the full function and value of a groundwater supported slope wetland cannot be recreated, it is not replaceable. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Jim Mosser ZLC Board Page 1 of 2 ZLC WiilowCrHts-GDP-PP Letter PnZ v1.20060412.doc 4/12/2006 5:39 PM Page 1 of I 1� Svenby Brent From: HARLEY BAKER [hafrbak@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:44 AM To: den nishansoncityhall @ ci.rochester.mn.us; ablenker@ci.rochester.mn.us; Svenby Brent Subject: Willow Heights 5th Addition On Tuesday, April 11, 2006, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission voted against the proposed development between Willow Heights Drive and 9th Avenue SW, north of 40th Street SW. This development it proposed by the owner, a Mr. Penz, and development Kottschade. As a resident of Willow Heights since 1979 on Lot 14 of Willow Heights First Addition, I also oppose this development. This area has been designated as "open space" since the mid-1970's when members of the Penz family purchased the land from Leo Herrick. Mr. Penz is aware of this, and is now trying to void this designation. There are numerous reasons to deny development of this area, as have been mentioned at previous meetings. Two others I would bring up are the access to the proposed park, which would adjoin my property on its NW corner. 1) There is no parking area for visitors to the park except on Willow Heights Drive. 2) Willow Heights Drive was platted and built when the property was in Rochester Township. The street does not now meet City of Rochester requirements for a street with the amount of traffic now on Willow Heights Drive. To have addition on -street parking would be dangerous. There have been several young families who have moved from the area because they do not want to raise children on such a busy street. In the area of my lot, the mail boxes, electrical tranformers, cable and telelphone boxes, and even street light pole, have been hit and destroyed several times in the past years. Not only in winter, when the hill is snow covered, but also in summer. The City imposes a "No Parking" order on the west side during the winter months. I support the citizens of Willow Court who appeared at the meeting, and I ask that you as our council representatives vote to oppose this development. Harley Baker 3833 Willow Heights Drive SW Lot 14, Willow Heights First Addition Rochester, MN 289-4159 Don't just search. Find. MSN Search Check out the new MSN Search! 4/19/2006 I ROcnsm-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Co,,,,r, or www.olmstedcounty.com/planning ■I-: :��ls c�.�ti w�■■■■» �iiiiia TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: April 6, 2006 RE: General Development Plan (GDP) #268, by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 5th Addition (fka Creek View Estates). The GDP proposes development of approximately 39 acres of land located along the north side of 40th Street SW, west of Willow Heights Drive SW and east of 9th Avenue SW with public roadways and single family lots. Planning Department Review. Applicant: North American Realty Franklin P. Kottschade 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Property Owner: Daniel Penz 1530 Greenview Drive Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: RLK Incorporated Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 40th Street SW, west of Willow Heights Drive SW and east of 91h Avenue SW Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 39 acres of land to facilitate development of single family detached dwellings. The GDP identifies public roadways and a public park. Existing Land Use: The property is undeveloped, heavily wooded and contains a ravine. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required throughout the development, on both sides of all public roads, as well as the north side of 401h Street SW. Specific obligations regarding pedestrian facilities to serve this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,200 in the westerly portion BUILDING CODE 507/205-B345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 50712B5-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 General Development Plan #268 April 6, 2006 of the property to 1,080' in the far southeast corner of the property. The development will generally in the southeasterly direction. The applicant has indicated that drainage from the development will be accommodated by piping it to the south side of 401h Street SW. At this time only a preliminary grading and drainage plan has been completed for the development. Prior to any grading taking place on the property the applicant will need to receive approval of a grading and drainage plan by the City of Rochester Public Works Department. The surface water drainage overflow to the east must be maintained to prevent the well from flooding. The applicant will be required to provide storm water management for the development. Spec'rfic obligations of the Owner, regarding storm water management, will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Any private facilities will require the execution of an Ownership & Maintenance Agreement. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the Final Plat as determined necessary through final construction and grading plan review or as determined in the Development Agreement. Transportation The development will have direct access to 40fh Street SW which is Access: currently in the process of getting reconstructed as part of the 40" Street Interchange project. Reconstruction of 40'h Street SW should occur this year. Once the construction is completed the development should have adequate access. The ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan recognizes 40'h Street SW as a Major Urban Arterial and the street design classification map shows this road as a 4 lane divided urban street with curb and gutter, extending potentially west to the 181h Avenue SW. The existing daily traffic is more than 7000 and projected to be 10,000 in 2035 as per the ROCOG travel demand model. The Long Range Bikeway Plan recognizes the existing bike path along north side of 40" Street SW but does not call for development of a parallel path on the south side. However, some type of pedestrian facilities consistent with city policy would be anticipated on the south side of 40'h Street SW. Bikeway and pedestrian facilities are in line with already approved traffic study completed for TH 63 project and Long Range Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan. The Street Design Classification Map and Functional Classification Map recognize 40'h Street SW as 4 Lanes divided Major Urban Arterial. The divided Roadway Median Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan (Table 4-12b) recommends minimum of 1/8 mile (660 ft) spacing for Directional Median Opening in developing urban zone on an Urban Arterial Road (401h Street SW). For full median opening, minimum of 1/4 mile (1320 ft) r Page 3 General Development Plan #268 \ April 6, 2006 spacing shall be required in the developing urban overlay zone. According to the MnDOT Right of WaX Plat No. 55-48 there is controlled access dedicated along 40' Street SW with a 60 foot wide access opening shown approximately where Lot 1, Block 2 is and a portion of the proposed roadway on the preliminary plat. The applicant will need to petition MnDOT to release that portion of the controlled access where the proposed roadway connection to 401" Street SW is shown. If MnDOT will not release the controlled access then the proposed roadway will need to be moved to the east to align with the current 60' foot wide access opening. Public Utilities: Utilities are available to serve the property and will need to be extended to serve this property. The property is within both the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which is available within Willow Court SW and the High Level Water System Area, which is available within 91" Ave. SW. The anticipated static water pressures in the lower area will range from 42 to 83 PSI depending on final grades. Anticipated static water pressures in the higher area will range from the mid 74 to 84 PSI depending on final grades. A surface water drainage swale within a public drainage easement must be created along the south side of Lots 1-5, Block 1 to drain the low area that will be created to the north east of Municipal Well #31. This is to prevent possible flooding of the well per Minnesota Department of Health regulations. The water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU. Sanitary sewer is available to the serve the development which is available in Willow Court SW. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. According to the Soil Survey, hydric soils do not exist on the property but wetlands have been identified on the National Wetland Inventory. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands and submitting the necessary information to the Local Government Unit. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation recommends that dedication requirements be met via the dedication of Outlot A which is identified on the preliminary plat. A development this size has a dedication requirement of approximately 1.8 acres. Based on the preliminary grading Outlot A there will be approximately 1.50 acres which will qualify as meeting parkland standards. Tree/Brush Disposal: The applicant is proposing that tree and brush will be disposed by chipping on site and salvaging and removing from the property. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of General Development Plan 4. General Development Plan Narrative Page 4 General Development Plan #268 April 6, 2006 5. Copy of the Willow Heights GDP approved by Olmsted County 6. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: There appears to be a number of issues that pertain to this property. The issues are listed below. • This property was shown as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan that was approved by the Olmsted County Board in 1976 after being reviewed the by Rochester Planning Commission and City Council. The staff reports prepared in the 1980's for adjacent plats discuss the issue that this area was previously used as a tree disposal site and also the location of runoff control structures. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Open Space". There are a number of reasons why this property was probably designated as "Open Space". One is the fact that is property was shown as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan which was approved by Olmsted County (1974) prior to the adoption of the Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan in 1979. Another factor is likely because of the terrain of the property and the vegetation on the property make developing the property limited. A final factor was likely because of the fact that a portion of the property was used as a tree disposal site. Tree disposal area In the past a portion of the property was used a tree disposal site. It is known that trees with Dutch Elm disease were disposed of at this location. The applicant is aware of this and makes reference to the fact that a portion of the property was used to as a tree dump on page 2 of the GDP narrative submitted along with the GDP application. The applicant will need to provide soil corrections in the area where the tree disposal area is encountered to create stable and suitable soils for public roadways and building foundations. Possible encroachments on the proposed parkland There appears to have been encroachments of garages and storage buildings onto the areas shown for public parklands. A survey will need to be completed to determine if this is correct. If so, all encroachments would need to be removed prior . • Grading slopes With the proposed grading on the site, there are areas on the site that exceed the slope requirement that no site shall exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical incline over a distance of 30 feet. A different grading plan would need to be proposed that is able to meet the slope requirements. This provision may be waived or modified by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Engineer. Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. If the general development plan is being processed concurrently with a rezoning request, the general development plan and the rezoning request must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the general development plan is being processed concurrently with an amendment to the land use plan map and a rezoning request, the land use plan map amendment, Page 5 General Development Plan #268 April 6, 2006 rezoning request and general development plan must be consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. If there is inconsistency between these documents, the means for reconciling the differences must be addressed. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies this property for "Open/recreation Space" uses. The proposed land use is generally in accord with the zoning of the property which is the R-1 (mixed single family) district. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. This GDP proposes low density residential, which would be compatible with the existing land uses (low density residential); however, this property was identified as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan that was approved in 1976 at which time the property was located within Olmsted County. Access to the property is proposed from 4e Street SW and from 9tb Avenue SW According to the MnDOT Right of Way Plat No. 55-48 there is controlled access dedicated along Ale Street SW with a 60 foot wide access opening shown approximately where Lot 1, Block 2 is and a portion of the proposed roadway on the preliminary plat. The applicant will need to petition MnDOT to release that portion of the controlled access where the proposed roadway connection to 4e Street SW is shown. If MnDOT will not release the controlled access then the proposed roadway will need to be moved to the east to align with the current 60' foot wide access opening. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The development will have direct access to 4e Street SW which is currently in the process of getting reconstructed as part of the 4e Street Interchange project. Reconstruction of 4e Street SW should occur this year. Once the construction is completed the development should have adequate access. The Street Design Classification Map and Functional Classification Map recognize 401h Street SW as 4 Lanes divided Major Urban Arterial. The divided Roadway Median Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Page 6 General Development Plan #268 April 6, 2006 t l3 Transportation Plan (Table 4-12b) recommends minimum of 1/8 mile (660 ft) spacing for Directional Median Opening in developing urban zone on an Urban Arterial Road (40`" Street SW). Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate it the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. The development will have direct access to 40' Street SW which is currently in the process of getting reconstructed as part of the 4dh Street Interchange project. Reconstruction of 40'" Street SW should occur this year. Once the construction is completed the development should have adequate access. The Street Design Classification Map and Functional Classification Map recognize 40t" Street SW as 4 Lanes divided Major Urban Arterial. The divided Roadway Median Spacing guidelines in the Long Range Transportation Plan (Table 4-12b) recommends minimum of 1/8 mile (660 ft) spacing for Directional Median Opening in developing urban zone on an Urban Arterial Road (4e Street SW). For full median opening, minimum of 1/4 mile (1320 ft) spacing shall be required in the developing urban overlay zone. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Utilities are available to serve the property and will need to be extended to serve this property. The property is within both the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which is available within Willow Court SW and the High Level Water System Area, which is available within a Ave. SW. The anticipated static water pressures in the lower area will range from 42 to 83 PSI depending on final Page 7 \ General Development Plan #268 April 6, 2006 grades. Anticipated static water pressures in the higher area will range from the mid 74 fo 84 PSI depending on final grades. A surface water drainage swale within a public drainage easement must be created along the south side of Lots 1-5, Block 1 to drain the low area that will be created to the north east of Municipal Well #31. This is to prevent possible flooding of the well per Minnesota Department of Health regulations. The water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU. Sanitary sewer is available to the serve the development which is available in Willow Court SW. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64,130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Pedestrian facilities will be required throughout the development, on both sides of all public roads, as well as the north side of 40'" Street SW. Specific obligations regarding pedestrian facilities to serve this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Land shown for public parkland appears that approximately 1.50 acres of the outiot will meet dedication standards. The 100' access to the park off of Willow Court SW appears to have been encroached upon by an adjacent garaga/storage building. Pending surveys will likely verify whether this observation is accurate or not. All encroachments would need to be removed prior to deeding the property to the City. The 20' access to the park off of Willow Heights Drives appears to have been encroached upon by an adjacent garage / storage addition. Pending surveys will likely verify whether this observation is accurate or not. All encroachments must be removed prior to deeding the property to the City. The existing stormwater outlet at the west end of this 20' access is causing significant erosion and should be piped across the proposed park and not surface flow. The 20' access should be graded to provide better pedestrian access to the park from Willow Heights Drive. The grading/restoration plan for the qualifying park areas should be subject to Park Department review. The outlot should be deeded to the City once the grading /turf restoration is completed or when the City wishes to begin development of the park. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. r Page 8 General Development Plan 9268 April 6, 2006 The elevations of this site range from 1,200 in the westerly portion of the property to 1,080' in the far southeast corner of the property. The development will generally in the southeasterly direction. The applicant has indicated that drainage from the development will be accommodated in stormwater ponds that would be constructed south of 40'h Street SW. At this time only a preliminary grading and drainage plan has been completed for the development. Prior to any grading taking place on the property the applicant will need to receive approval of a grading and drainage plan by the City of Rochester Public Works Department. The surface water drainage overflow to the east must be maintained to prevent the well from flooding. The applicant will be required to provide storm water management for the development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding,storm water management, will be addressed in the Development Agreement. With the proposed grading on the site, there are areas on the site that exceed the slope requirement that no site shall exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical incline over a distance of 30 feet. A different grading plan would need to be proposed that is able to meet the slope requirements. This provision may be waived or modified by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Engineer. In the past a portion of the property was used a tree disposal site. It is known that trees with Dutch elm disease were disposed of at this location. The applicant is aware of this and makes reference to the fact that a portion of the property was used to as a tree dump on page 2 of the GDP narrative submitted along with the GDP application. Staff raises the question of what soil corrections are necessary to create stable and suitable soils for public roadways and building foundations. The grading plan should show the locations and limits of the past tree disposal area. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the Final Plat as determined necessary through final construction and grading plan review or as determined in the Development Agreement. Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking place. According to the Bedrock Geology Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County the Decorah Shale is the first encountered bedrock on the portion of the property as well as the Prosser Limestone and Cummingsville Formations. In areas where the Decorah Shale is present the developer and consultants should consider incorporating subdrain and tiling in the engineering design for the Site. Development of this property may have an impact on groundwater supplies and re -charge for the City's drinking water supply. Development of this site should include re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows. Page 9 { ` \� General Development Plan #268 April 6, 2DD6 Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The intersection of the roadway from 40'h Street SW will need to intersect perpendicular to 40t' Street SW otherwise the lot and block layout appear consistent with the design standards. At the time platting these standards, lot, block, and street layout, will be reviewed in more detail. According to the MnDOT Right of Way Plat No. 55-48 there is controlled access dedicated along 40rn Street SW with a 60 foot wide access opening shown approximately where Lot 1, Block 2 is and a portion of the proposed roadway on the preliminary plat. The applicant will need to petition MnDOT to release that portion of the controlled access where the proposed roadway connection to 4e Street SW is shown. !f MnDOT will not release the controlled access then the proposed roadway will need to be moved to the east to align with the current 60' foot wide access opening. Recommendation: If the Commission decides to recommends approval of this GDP, staff would recommend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 1. The GDP shall be revised to include the entire property not just a portion of the property. 2. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 3. Aerial photography indicates that there are existing structure encroachments into the proposed City Park Outiot in two locations. These encroachments need to be addressed prior to future conveyance of the Outlot to the public. 3. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to final plat submittal. If the slopes proposed at 2:1 are not approved by the City the grading plan shall be revised so that the slopes are at least 3:1. Page 10 r /L 7 General Development Plan #268 `4 April 6, 2006 4. The public roadway connection to 40'h Street SW, at the location proposed by the applicant, is contingent upon the applicant obtaining a release of access control from MnDOT for this location. If access control is not released by MnDOT, the applicant shall move the proposed access so that it aligns with the 60 foot wide access opening identified on MnDOT Right of Way Plat No. 55-48. 5. 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 March 20, 2006. 6. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the owner shall examine the property for wetlands and submit the necessary information to the Local Government Unit for review. 7. The developer shall incorporate subdrain and filing in the engineering design for the Site for those areas where the Decorah edge is encountered. Development of this site should include re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows. r ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPART WORKS MENT F PUBLIC Rochester, MN 55904 201 a Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 2/13/06 REVISED APPLICATION 3131/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development Plan #268, for the proposed Willow Heights 5u Addition (fka Creek View Estates) development. The following are Public Works comments from 2/13/06 for the prior application referred to at that time as the Creek View Estates GDP. New comments are indicated in BOLD, while comments that have been addressed and / or are no longer applicable are indicated with 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off - site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The proposed pond lesatien indisatod en the GDP shou d be leaked at as review ea and , ed by Pubhe AZ w (NA: There are no on -site ponds being proposed on the revised plan). 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C\GDP268 Willow Heights 5th Addition (fka Creek View Estates) REVISED RENAMED 3-06.doc � ROCHESTER M;k TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTWOR SMENT F PUBLIC Rochester, MN 55904 201 4� Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Mark E. Baker . _ 5. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of 40`s St SW, with the exception of any public street access location approved for the GDP. --- 6—Aerial-photography indicates that there are existing structure encroachments into the proposed City Park Outlot in two locations. These encroachments need to be addressed prior to future conveyance of the Outlot to the public. 7. &em the prepased park . (NA: There is no private trail system being indicated on the revised plan). 8. The GDP area should be revised to include the entire property owned by the applicant. This item was inadvertently omitted from our prior review comments. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will include but are not limited: b Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD %w Water Availability Charge (WAC) — TBD :• Transportation Improvements - TBD Storm Water Management — TBD through the Grading Plan review process 4• Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C\GDP268 Willow Heights 5th Addition (fka Creek View Estates) REVISED RENAMED 3-06.doc Foster Stephanie From: Hanford John Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:25 AM To: Planning Referrals Subject: RE: Referral comments due for GDP#268 I have the same comments as before, that is, that the applicant will need to complete a wetland delineation of the property and submit the application to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to any grading of or construction on the property. John From: Foster Stephanie Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:55 AM To: Brad Oberle (E-mail); corey hanson; Darrel Hildebrant (E-mail); Dave Goslee (E-mail); David Morrison (E-mail); Denny Stotz (E-mail); Donn Richardson (E-mail); Doug Knott (E-mail); Floyd Whitaker (E-mail); Geneva Kellen (E-mail); Growden Randy; Harford John; Jeff Kappers (E-mail); Jim Mosser (E-mail); Joe Hensel (E-mail); Julie Schletty (E-mail); Khan Muhammad; Leslie Rivas (E-mail); Mark Baker (E-mail); Mike Engle (E-mail); Mike Nigbur (E-mail); Neal Clausen (E-mail); Nick Stone (E-mail); Reiter Charlie; Richard Freese (E-mail); Rick Wellik (E-mail); Ron Boose (E-mail); Rory Lenton (E- mail); Susan Waughtal (E-mail); Terry Spaeth (E-mail); Vance Swisher (E-mail); Whetstone Bruce Subject: Referral comments due for GDP#268 Comments must be submitted to our office by March 31, 2006. If you would like to send your comments via email, please email them to planning.referrals@ co.olmsted.mn.us. «File: REF REV SEMI' 03-20-2006 GDP#268.pdf >> If you have any problems opening this document, please let me know. Thankyou! Stc�lsar<e jloctez, Oe4 Sfzeecafiat l (toches{er-Glrnttctl Manning Dept. 2172 G.mp� DR SE 4t-100 R-el,este., MN 55904 507-285-8252 foster.stephanieeco.olmsted.mn.us The hand to reach for.. DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: March 24, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: General Development Plan (GDP) #268, by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 51h Addition. With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 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, ROO 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) North American Realty RLK Incorporated In q "p° Rochester, MR March 20, 2006 TO: Planning ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT RE: Willow Heights 5t' Addition GDP 9268 Parkland dedication requirements for the proposed ±61 unit development will be ±1.5 acres. Dedication requirements can be met via dedication of Outlot A which is identified as park on the GDP. 11 rpu,�- we plydgr. we deliver March 22, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: General Development Plan #268 by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 5`' Addition (previously called Creek View Estates). Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. This property is within both the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which is available within Willow Court SW and the High Level Water System Area, which is available within 9`' Ave. SW. 2. Anticipated static water pressures in the lower area will range from the low 40's to low 80's PSI depending on final grades. Anticipated static water pressures in the higher area will range from the mid 70's to the mid 80's PSI depending on final grades. 3. The surface water drainage overflow to the east must be maintained to prevent the well from flooding. 4. The water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per our requirements. 5. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �. 0644fl ��L�/i(� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety North American Reality RLK, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Foster Stephanie From: Debra Persoon-Bement[Debbie.Persoon @ dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, March 20, 200611:21 AM To: Planning Referrals Cc: Chris Moates; Fred Sandal Subject: No Direct Impact These proposals have no direct impact to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) roadways at the current time. However, Mn/DOt highly recommends that they be monitored for cumulative impacts. Mn/DOT assumes these developments fall within the criteria set forth in the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department's Thoroughfare Plan or other Subarea Plans. Amendment to General Development Plan #241 known as Harvestview II and GDP #190 known as Harvestview and Special District 016 known as Harvestview II and Special District #1 to known as Harvestview by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises Inc. The property is located along the north side of 55th Street Northwest, along the east side of 60th Avenue Northwest, along the south side of the Douglas Trail and west of 50th Ave. Northwest. Type 1 Performance Residential Development #06-09, by Lee Custom Carpentry. The applicant is proposing to develop 76 units of approximately 8 acres of land located north of Country Club Road, west of 23id Avenue Southwest on property legally described as Lot 2, Block 1 Grandville of Cascade Lake First. General Development Plan (GDP) #268, by North America Realty to be known as Willow Heights Fifth Addition. The GDP proposes development of approximately 39 acres of land located along the north side of 40th Street Southwest, west of Willow Heights Drive Southwest and east of Ninth Avenue Southwest with public roadway and single family lots. Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights Fifth Addition. The revised plat proposes to subdivide approximately 38.94 acres into 61 lots for Residential Development and 2 Outlots. The property is -located along the north side of 40th Street Southwest west to Willow Heights Drive Southwest and east of Ninth Avenue Southwest. Thank you - Debbie Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist Minnesota Department of Transportation 2900 48th Street NW Rochester, MN 55901-5848 Phone: (507) 281-7777 Fax: 507-285-7279 1 FA 1S3 Revised Project Narrative Willow Heights 5th Addition- Rochester, MN (Formerly proposed as Creek View Estates) Prepared By: RLK Incorporated March 15, 2006 For Type III Phase II General Development Plan Application Purpose: This re%rised application for General Development Plan (GDP) approval has been prepared for the property on the north side of 40" Street SW, between 11 "Avenue and Willow Court in accordance with Section 62.1100. The application is being submitted in conjunction with revised land subdivision permit (preliminary plat) and substantial land alteration appllications. The project has been revised to reduce the number of lots in order to address the issues and concerns identified in the staff report for the original submittal. Project Area: ± 39 acres Project Team: Applicant/Developer North American Realty 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone: 507-287-0909 Fax: 507-298-0658 Frank Kottschade, President Civil Engineer/ Landscape Architect: RLK incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 952-933-0972 Fax: 952-933-1153 Michele Jackson Caron, PE, Project Manager/ Engineer Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Existing Zoning: R-1, Mixed Single Family District Narrative Willow Heights S"' Addition RECEIVED MAR 16 2006 Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page I of 3 Existing Site Use: Partially wooded site with sloping topography and three small potential wetland areas. The site is currently undeveloped, and accommodates drainage runoff across the site from the adjacent residential areas_ Summary of Proposed Development: Current plans for the site includes single family homes on large lots that are in accordance with the R-1 zoning district. Lots are anticipated to range in size from 10,000 SF to 34,000 SF. The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is 6,000 SF. In addition, two outlois are proposed. Outlot B is for grade transition purposes and will remain as open space. Outlot A will include a public park and drainage / ponding easements for a pond and wetland, for an open area exceeding 4.8 acres. The proposed development will be accessed from both 9th Avenue SW and 40i6 Street SW via a public roadway. The park is proposed to be accessible for pedestrians from both Willow Court and the proposed public road through the development. The GDP is bounded to the north, east and west by existing residential development which is zoned R-1. The southern boundary is 40'" Street SW, which is currently being improved under a MnDOT contract. A City of Rochester well house property is located along 40'h Street abutting the west side of the subject parcel- If desired by the City, the project can accommodate a driveway to the well house property from the proposed public street. An application is being submitted for Substantial Land Alteration in conjunction with the preliminary plat, to remove a quantity of material greater than 100,000 cubic yards from the project and for a vertical change in elevation greater than 10 feet. Past Site Use and History: The site is undeveloped and has been used to route runoff from the adjacent development to the lower areas along 40'n Street to the south and into the wetland on the east side of the site. A portion of the site was used as a tree dump; additional soil borings will be completed as required to identify soil correction requirements during the final design stages of the project. Assessment of Site Conditions and Project Impacts: The following summary is provided in accordance with Appendix B, Paragraph E of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: The site has a change in topography of over 150 feet; the highpoint is located near the 9'" Avenue SW access in the northwest portion of the site and the property slopes down to the low area along 400' Street SW at the southern portion of the property and the existing pond area on the east side of the site. The project proposes to grade the site in an attempt to balance cut and fill quantities while providing necessary fill for the adjacent 40i° Street SW construction, resulting in a site development that meets building pad and driveway slope requirements for residential development. According to the geotechnical report (previously provided), the underlying site soils are capable of supporting foundation loads and are well suited for the proposed road subgrade. The existing layer of topsoil over the site and any organic materials encountered including remnants of the tree dump will be removed prior to grading and fill operations in the roadway and pad areas. On -site storm drainage design for the project is anticipated to be typical of residential sites. The drainage concept for the project includes routing the surface runoff into several storm ponds designed to meet code requirements and encompass typical drainage measures. A portion of the project area will be routed via Project Narrative Willow Heights 51' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 2 of 3 11 culverts beneath 40'h Street into a treatment pond on property owned by the Applicant adjacent to Willow Creek. The site drainage will be designed to be compatible with the proposed drainage improvements included with the proposed 40" Street improvements. Off -site drainage runoff that currently flows across the site will be routed through the on -site grading and drainage system. Public water and sanitary sewer utilities are located adjacent to the project area in Willow Court along the south boundary, within 9'" Avenue SW on the west, and within the 40'" Street SW right of way that have capacity for the proposed development. Final water main improvements will be coordinated with the water supply zones and requirements of Rochester Public Utilities. Erosion and sediment control measures have been proposed that will be implemented during grading and construction. There are no erosion problems anticipated with the project. Steep slopes will be stabilized as the excavation progresses. The final development of the project may be phased, depending upon market conditions and on -going negotiations with prospective builders. Attachments: General Development Plan Geotechnical Report (previously submitted) GC:willovr Creek Commons LLC2005-6WM\_Correspondmce\Rev GDP 3-15-06`Nam uve Rev GDP 3-15-06.dm Project Narrative Willow Heights 5"' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 3 of 3 ri ADDITIONAL MAPS 1 ----------------------------- -------------- *1 Y 36Wdtlilla-----------__ - I ' ei ' I 'e' ' I _• —�•� , `1 -'ail � ��\�\\\�'� � � j �`�\.� \\\��^ `e— � + P� O talk mill I ' i f .�— .... .. m 13 _ 4 To 6ffi4 To Pf f y_ .0 a : `^ did a9 �'d Awl- FI �E �qpG �� n ■ Y ']tl II II •ty��C !'I�G^d^ � � UP 11111111 NE1/4-NEl/4 f9S ADDITIONAL COMMENTS O ( ( Page 1 of 1 Svenby Brent From: Canfield Dental Arts [cdarts1001 @gwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:49 AM To: Svenby Brent; Baker Mitzi Hello, I'd like to make a few comments regarding the proposed development of Creek View Estates. First of all, it appears to be a difficult piece of property to develop.The Public Works Dept. will really need to do the due diligence on the information provided by the developer & RLK. The fact that RLK did their soil borings in August(one of the hottest & driest in years) is a little suspect.Are they required to provide a wider range of sampling ? I hope the city has a solid mechanism in place to hold the developer and/or the engineering firm accountable for potential problems that may occur(for new & existing homes). If problems occur after the development is started,and the GDP has to be altered,does the planning protocol start all over through the Planning Dept. ? I live on Willow Ct. SW, I think most of the neighbors would be fine with a walking and/or bike path between the two neighborhoods. Anything more would be an imposition of the developer or the city on an existing one - access street.lt would be poor planning and unethical.If another access is needed,it appears the developer could bisect the land between Willow Ct. & the other access he has on 40th st. Or he could just eliminate the proposed access on 40th and put the access somewhere around lot 6,7,8. Thanks, Mike Canfield � 11 L in nn4 0 Neighborhood's First Preference 1. Leave the proposed Creek View Estates development zoned as "open space". Neighborhood's Second Preference 1. Invite Terry Lee, expert on the Decorah Edge to present to the City Council. 2. No permanent structures over the Decorah Edge. 3. Inspected grading for drainage away from the Decorah Edge and Wetlands to avoid adding nitrates to our drinking water source. 4. Fifty foot tree buffer between existing properties and new lots. 5. No park south of the swamp/wetland, move to end of Willow Bluff Lane cul- de-sac and place between cul-de-sac and proposed bike trail/footpath. 6. Speed plateaus' installed on Willow Heights Dr. S.W. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2006 1� development of approximately 3! �[ Street SW, west of Willow Heighl roadways and single family lots. AND Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 5th Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated April 6, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Rivas asked what other subdivisions staff has required subdrain and tiling. Mr. Svenby replied that it has been recommended in other developments where the Decorah Edge has been encountered. For example, Stonehedge. At this time, the City doesn't have an Ordinance regarding development in the Decorah Edge. Ms. Rivas expressed concern with language discussing re -infiltration. Ms. Rivas expressed concern with not receiving any comments regarding well head protection. Mr. Svenby responded that staff did not receive any comments from RPU Environmental Services. He explained that nothing was received from Terry Lee either. Mr. Burke stated that the reclamation plan shows the required plantings on all the property lines and comers. He questioned if it was permissible. i Page 6 CityPlaminc and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Apn112, 2006 Mr. Svenby responded that it appears that it is planted in the right-of-way. He explained that the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual does not indicate where they have to be planted. Mr. Burke expressed concern with planting on the easements. He questioned if the plantings could be shown on the boulevard. Mr. Svenby responded yes. If this is the case, the reclamation plan would need to be revised to show this. Mr. Haeussinger discussed the slope of the development. He stated that a park should be located where everyone has reasonable access to it not a "pocket' park which is what this park would be. To walk a steep slope to get to a park is not reasonable. Mr. Burke stated that the Park Department has their requirements of where the park can be located. There have been pedestrian accesses that have been waived due to slope. The proposed development is almost to that possibility. Mr. Wallace asked what the rest of the sentence was on page 102 of the staff report regarding possible encroachments. Mr. Svenby responded that the language missing is "to deeding the land to the City". The applicant's representative, Ms. Michele Caron of RLK Incorporated (6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100, Minnetonka MN 55343), addressed the Commission. She stated that the developer was in agreement with all the staff -recommended conditions and agreed with the re -infiltration subdrain and tiling requirement. Mr. Haeussinger asked if drainage would go to 40"' Street. Ms. Caron stated that they are looking to get a preliminary design to public works. Ms. Caron explained their drainage, subdrain, and tiling plan. Mr. Burke asked how they proposed to control the drainage through the middle of the lots. Ms. Caron responded that there will be a homeowners association. The pipes are being shown where they think the flow is coming from. However, they may change once excavation begins. Discussion ensued regarding whether the slopes will be stable. Ms. Caron explained that once they get to the rock, City Public Works would visit the site to make sure that the rock is what they thought and discuss whether they need to change their plan. Mr. Jim Moser (residing at 3716 Arlington Lane SE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the Commission. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Zumbro Land Conservancy. He stated that the property has been designated as open space in the Land Use Plan. Therefore, proposal for a different use should have extenuating circumstances (which he does not believe exists). He discussed the importance of getting water back into aquifer bypasses. He stated that a pollutant removal process needed to be maintained. He summarized that a development challenged site should remain as open space, as indicated by the Lane use Plan. Mr. Moser's letter is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Page 7 l City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �Y Hearing Date: April 12, 2006 Mr. Matt Goshgarian (residing at 802 39"' Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He expressed concern regarding construction noise, loss of wildlife, and the fact that the housing market is already oversaturated. Mr. Jim Anderson (residing at 728 371" Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He explained the steep slopes of the area. He stated that, if the development is approved as presented, his property value would be affected. He discussed tree dumps that have occurred there. He stated that all developments have probably given promises of fixing drainage, but it doesn't always work out. There is mention of inadequate public facilities in the staff report. Therefore, he questioned how the development could move forward. The proposed park will be a large water puddle. He expressed concern with the drainage that will occur from the proposed development. In summary, the plans are full of "maybes" in his opinion. Ms. Susan Volvoda-Swanson (residing at 3715 Willow Heights Drive SW, Rochester MN 5590) addressed the Commission. She handed out a letter in opposition of the development, dated April 10, 2006 which is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. She expressed concern regarding grading and steep slopes. John Harford told her that no land should be moved until wetlands have been reviewed. She expressed concern that action will occur before Mr. Harford reviews the site. Mr. Terry Lee told her that he felt it wasn't his position to come before the Commission until being invited. She showed a map of the possible decorah edge. As proposed, there will be 19 homes located on the decorah edge. She showed the delineated wetlands on the development. She stated that there are a few areas that are not shown on the proposed development that are there. She showed where the tree dumps have occurred. There is also a dump of concrete (when the drive-in theatre was torn down). Ms. Volvoda-Swanson explained that Willow court already has drainage problems. There is nothing in writing for those individuals that will be affected. Ms. Volvoda-Swanson stated that the park would be next to the swamp and would be full of mosquito's, not to mention on a steep area. Ms. Volvoda-Swanson stated that, if the proposal is moved forward, a 50 foot tree buffer should occur around the entire development. She suggested that the entire development be maintained as a park and the people living around it could have a homeowners association to keep it cleaned up. She said that, when she bought her home, the realtor told her that the land would never be developed. Mr. Kim Savage (residing at 3716 9"' Avenue SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He expressed concern regarding increased traffic and ease of emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies. Mr. Tom Pileggi (residing at 718 37'h Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He stated that he doesn't think Mr. Kottschade is sure about the drainage since he is putting in slabs on grade instead of basements. Mr. Mark Graybill (residing at 3951 Willow Court SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. When he purchased his home, he was told that this area would be open space. He currently has subterranean drainage problems. He stated that he would like some facts stating what the risks are. His attorney has told him to ask for an environmental review. Page 8 W� City Planing and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2006 Mr. Burke stated that the County is looking at a Decorah Edge Ordinance. At this time, the City of Rochester has not begun this process. He explained that the developers have begun to take Decorah Edge into consideration in their development plans over the last few years and engineers are using best management practices in these areas. Mr. Graybill stated that there is hydnc soils on the site. There are too many issues that are not being addressed. Ms. Sandra Miller (residing at 3960 Willow Ct SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She expressed concern that there is no one that will take responsibility for problems after the development is done. She stated that Mr. Kottschade stated that it is the responsibility of the landowners and not his responsibility once developed. She showed a picture of where the park would be located (wooded area with a lot of water). She showed various other pictures of drainage problems on the property. She showed an erosion hole that has to keep being filled on Willow Court that a 10 year old boy went into a few years back. There are cattails because it is wet there all the time. She showed shifting land pictures of where the development would occur. There is moss in the trees from being wet all the time. She questioned why the developer would allow the city to dump trees and concrete on the property if they thought the land was developable knowing they would have to pay to have it removed at a later time. She expressed concern with blasting occurring within 100 feet of current homes. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Ms. Rivas stated that Spring Brooke Valley was continued until borings were done since there was serious concern with possible impacts. She stated that this is similar concern with the proposed development. She wanted more information about the decorah shale in the area to pinpoint specific locations. Also, she would like input from the City Engineers. Mr. Haeussinger expressed concern that RPU hasn't commented on the proposed development. Even with borings, the area should be left natural in his opinion. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the memorandLKi, dated March 27, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-OlmsioVIanning Department. i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-1-06 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. ` - r�J ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty to be known as PREPARED BY: Willow Heights 5`" Addition (formerly proposed as Creek View Estates). The revised plat Brent Svenby, proposes to subdivide approximately 38.94 acres into 61 lots for the residential Senior Planner development and 2 outlots. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for grading that exceeds 10 feet of cut or fill on the property. The property is located along the north side of 40" Street SW, west of Willow Heights Drive SW and east of 9" Avenue SW. April 26, 20D6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing April 12, 2006 to consider this preliminary plat to allow for a residential development. The Commission also reviewed a GDP for property. The applicant's representative, Ms. Michele Caron from RLK Incorporated, addressed the Commission. She stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions and also agreed with the re -infiltration subdrain and tiling requirement. Numerous property owners spoke in opposition of the proposal. Concerns raised by those speaking consisted of: • Shall be left as open space • Challenging site to develop • Noise during construction • Loss of wildlife • Housing market already oversaturated • Inadequate public facilities • Steep slopes • Decorah Edge • Wetland review needs to be done • Parkland is all swamp land • Already is drainage problem in the area • Former tree dump area • Increase in traffic • Who takes responsibility for problem after the development is done • Springs and seeps on the property The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.225 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The Commission recommends denial based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence presented that would ensure that the public health and safety related to the environment would be ensured. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the sixteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made. 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: seo dby: to: I �Yj r I . Wi 4pt>1!°OPj :f;il33s9I f :.y --��— xese xrrwwaluo. [ weVm �+.� xuaxa.l.axo.x gun 19NIT'ip Aif/NN1113Ld AtIV33d NVOMWV HAON 80� s��rox rdo w _J 5 y15 391pn• N/pi i 5 q NMI a -EPA it- EWbSE &tl pa `§ €Ziao o d 8Y6 :"€ gl �q o §xsx Ub Z € €g 4ya A 8 gW'€„l' `H Hp ��'qg vH €M .. nT w 144 c`ee4a�'x88 N O J v J3 Oo �� r• a =-- ,MA tp YLPm IXIII f iru xarwnrtatle °awl=� SLFLIDN M(1 Yl _may —rT � � TAT �^ /K. T T1 rr-r�-T:-r-�-rr- I I .�: ,.I+ I 'I'li;:`l y l -1•. I 'I- I� la 1..'I. Y-Y-' 1TTL'TLTLTLT-LTLIL-7L I ys swM� �emt ffiffiffi .. `mffi ffimffiffiffi ffiffiffiffiffi ffiffiffiffi"ffiffiffiffi`ffi�„5ffiffiffiLL^ ffiweffi ffiffiffiffi ,�'-� w'RI:E ja HE.^Qe8:11 pnl OGIB ry Z M:161q nL "ry w. am nm, -ry G YW�m ��� &iL M'L urVln ,vcun loxa. ii nrax°lu�sc 'I•��3�u5 xtnwm[ead �� ]O 13H�MOTfiM FA �A W'Y��. rz I WHIM F' I Intl I I —r1—T—r1—T_r_r—I 7—T—r1—T—rT' 1 I �I� II I 11 I I 1 1I I I I I I �JT I I _1I TL Tl Tl f TLTL-TL+1L LJ_J_1_�_� NT alV3»•rm� i i I � C17 u 0-1 It ��g� ;'`_' �; �n g�$ _ � r a' g@ � �; a` `R I I�' �II� III i ! ,•� e � `"S eau_.,,3E$ : 8 C �`Y• gg`�s qg. ^�� zo Y� I I! III I I SS`Ee I«�'. N�»"C tiNIL `• "E;s xe i;g xis �• € a� ®° ,. (II III y ��e€� ��� ��rs �. �sx� $� :� .�� xa xgF '� s $�@ ._ "� is ��I•I�i� ili' w Mix a Z ��y� BMW: a :e 4M - � g=a�a �3;� ���€€€ .sag °_ •� �� QR� a= aj�gg 2� noY a�i:� i1 gg jl) PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT inR4 •Vl Y31SiI MY ,rSR AMINIYRT3tld W/CL/M 8 �{ YT )yp CRq;• RNiY:t ws� e -L1°may _ u T-71-7T,T, Yt 31N41Y YW T T T T TT— —— —I-I - I—I— aasssaauasasma m¢a axa:sa ua¢ta tanaa a aa:u a Y?tEEf4$a f�°•: eia. ; sz ataa exae-a z atas axaata area as axa ntaat xtectce xxxaa >!'r'af EEEf Ef[f1fE Ef5 flEE.,'x lirgf_5 f4xxg exexeae taeaxa ee F c C v_t: e:ea:aer2ei � 3 7 ^-----r...... ... ............esae ROLSESTER-OLMSTED PLANNLHG DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY of www.DimstedCDunty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner jj� ■.g�ia-�rsf v;.o.].oir. w;Nn��Nn1 DATE: April 6, 2006 RE: Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 5th Addition (fka Creek View Estates). The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 38.94 acres into 61 lots for the residential development and 2 outlots. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for grading that exceeds 10 feet of cut or fill on the property. The property is located along the north side of 40th Street SW, west of Willow Heights Drive SW and east of gth Avenue SW. Plannina Department Review: Applicant: North American Realty Franklin P. Kottschade 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Owner: Daniel Penz 1530 Greenview Drive Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: RLK Incorporated Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works Department 2. Park and Recreation Department 3. Planning Dept— Wetlands 4. Planning Dept - Addressing staff 5. Planning Department Transportation 5. RPU - Water Division 6. RPU — Operations Division 7. Rochester Fire Department 8. MnDOT 9. Jim Mosser - Zumbro Land Conservancy Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (7 letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Proposed General Development Plan and Narrative 4. Copy of Proposed Preliminary Plat 5. SLA Maps and Narrative BUILDING CODE 5071285-3345 • GIS/ADDRESSINWIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGMNING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507287-2275 -� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 Development Review: Location of Property: Zoning: Proposed Development: G. Letter from Adjacent Property Owner The property is located along the north side of 40' Street SW, west of Willow Heights Drive SW and east of 9" Avenue SW. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester Zoning map. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 38.94 acres into 61 lots for a residential development and 2 outlots. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicated right-of-way for 3 new public roadways. The first proposed roadway is named "Eagle View Road SW" at 32 feet of driving surface on 66 feet of right-of-way. This roadway takes its access off of the north side of 40" Street SW. The intersection of this roadway with 40M Street needs to intersect perpendicular to 40tb Street SW. According to the MnDOT Right of Way Plat No. 55-48 there is controlled access dedicated along 40' Street SW with a 60 foot wide access opening shown approximately where Lot 1, Block 2 is and a portion of the proposed roadway. The applicant will need to petition MnDOT to release that portion of the controlled access where the proposed roadway connection to 4e Street SW is shown. If MnDOT will not release the controlled access then the proposed roadway will need to be moved to the east to align with the current 60' foot wide access opening. The second roadway proposed is named "Hill View Lane SW" at 32 feet of driving surface on 66 feet of right-of-way. This roadway proposes its access off of 9 Avenue SW and transverses through the site and connects with "Eagle View Road SW". The property has 100 feet of frontage on 9' Avenue SW, between 2 existing homes. The third roadway proposed is named "Hill Lane Court SW' at 32 feet of driving surface on 66 feet of right-of- way. This roadway takes its access from "Hill View Lane SW". All of the roadway names need to be renamed as the roadway names proposed are already in use elsewhere in the community. Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities will be required throughout the development, on both sides of all public roads, as well as the north side of 401" Street SW. Specific obligations regarding pedestrian facilities to serve this property will i III Page 3 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 be addressed in the Development Agreement. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,200 in the westerly portion of the property to 1,080' in the far southeast corner of the property. The development will generally drain in the southeasterly direction. This revised plat does not identify stormwater ponds on the site as was shown on the previously submitted preliminary plat. The applicant is 9roposing to piping stormwater to the south side of 40 Street SW. At this time only a preliminary grading and drainage plan has been completed for the development. Prior to any grading taking place on the property the applicant will need to receive approval of a grading and drainage plan by the City of Rochester Public Works Department. The surface water drainage overflow to the east must be maintained to prevent the well from flooding. The applicant will be required to provide storm water management for the development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding storm water management, will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the Final Plat as determined necessary through final construction and grading plan review or as determined in the Development Agreement. The applicant is proposing slopes of 2:1 which do not meet the minimum design standards. The applicant will need to request a design modification, along with the applicable supporting documentation, to the City Engineer for consideration. If the slopes are not determined to be adequate the final grading plan will need to be revised to meet the maximum slope of 3:1. According to MnDOT Right of Way Plat No. 55-48 there is a permanent slope easement along the north side of 40" Street SW. The width of the easement ranges from 30 to 100 feet in width and is shown on the preliminary plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. According to the Soil Survey, hydric soils do not exist on the property but wetlands have been identified on the National Wetland Inventory. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands and submitting the necessary information to the Local Government Unit. Page 4 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 The Decorah Edge geologic formation is found on a portion of the property. In areas where the Decorah Shale is present the developer and consultants should consider incorporating subdrain and tiling in the engineering design for the Site. Development of this property may have an impact on groundwater supplies and re -charge for the City s drinking water supply. Development of this site should include re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows. Public Utilities: Utilities are available to serve the property and will need to be extended to serve this property. The property is within both the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which is available within Willow Court SW and the High Level Water System Area, which is available within 9 Ave. SW. The anticipated static water pressures in the lower area will range from 42 to 63 PSI depending on final grades. Anticipated static water pressures in the higher area will range from the mid 74 to 64 PSI depending on final grades. A surface water drainage swale within a public drainage easement must be created along the south side of Lots 1-5, Block 1 to drain the low area that will be created to the north east of Municipal Well #31. This is to prevent possible flooding of the well per Minnesota Department of Health regulations. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 74 spillover -parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and driveways. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Land dedication with land identified as Outlot A Willow Heights 50. According to the preliminary grading plan, approximately 1.50 acres of the outlot will meet dedication standards. The 100' access to the park off of Willow Court SW appears to have been encroached upon by an adjacent garage/storage building. Pending surveys will likely verity whether this observation is accurate or not. All encroachments would need to be removed prior to deeding the property to the City. The 20' access to the park off of Willow Heights Drives appears to have been encroached upon by an adjacent garage / storage addition. Pending surveys will likely verify whether this observation is accurate or not. All encroachments must be removed prior to deeding the Page 5 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 property to the City. The existing stormwater outlet at the west end of this 20' access is causing significant erosion and should be piped across the proposed park and not surface flow. The 20' access should be graded to provide better pedestrian access to the park from Willow Heights Drive. The grading/restoration plan for the qualifying park areas should be subject to Park Department review. The outlot should be deeded to the City once the grading / turf restoration is completed or when the City wishes to begin development of the park. TreelBrush Disposal: The applicant is proposing that tree and brush will be disposed by chipping on site and salvaging and removing from the property. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 61.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alteration as part of a Type III application, such as a preliminary plat, subject to making findings established in Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. As part of this development, the applicant proposes to excavate approximately 400,ODO to 500,000 cubic yards of materials on the property and change the existing elevations more than 10 feet. Some of the material will be moved to the 40M Street SW improvement that is scheduled for this year. According to the applicant's project narrative 'the site has design challenges imposed by the natural slopes and a difference in elevations of the surrounding properties of over 150 vertical feet. A change in elevation of over 10 feet will be required over approximately 50% of the project area in order to provide acceptable public roads and the park". Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suggested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alteration, staff recommends the following findings to Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity could result in danger to life or property. With the proposed grading on the site, there are areas on the site that exceed the slope requirement that no site shall exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical incline over a distance of 30 feet. A different grading plan would need to be proposed that is able to meet the slope requirements. This provision may be waived or modified by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Engineer. Generally, the slopes may not be suitable for residential uses. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards as well as the reclamation standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. Page 6 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. Additional information is needed to determine if soil corrections are necessary to adequately support buildings and public roadways. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. The applicant has stated that access to site would be from 40'" Street SW and the materials being hauled from the site would be going for the roadway construction project adjacent to the property or to the applicant's property located south of 40" Street SW. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality. Erosion control and sedimentation measures will be required during grading activity. 5) The proposed grading work will affect the natural landscape on the property. Currently the property is heavily wooded and contains a ravine. With the proposed grading the majority of the trees and brush on the property will be removed to allow for the development of a single family development. As part of the reclamation plan the applicant is providing the required plantings per the reclamation standards found within the Land Development manual, 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed in within 24 months. 6) The grading is anticipated to be completed with 24 months. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. The grading plan submitted does not meet slope requirement that no site shall exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical incline over a distance of 30 feet. A new grading plan shall be provided that meets the slope requirement. This provision may be waived or modified by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Engineer. 10) A preliminary drainage study has been submitted that identifies proposed stormwater management facilities that will address surface water quality and will encourage infiltration for groundwater recharge. According to the drainage study stormwater runoff currently being routed across the site from the adjacent residential neighborhoods will be routed through the property in a manner that should not negatively impact the existing drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities. 11) According to the Sinkholes and Sinkholes Probability Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County there are no sinkholes on the property and the property has a low to moderate probability of containing sinkholes. A wetland delineation will need to be completed for the property and if wetlands are found the applicant will need to work with the Local Government Unit on any mitigation. A preliminary drainage study has been completed that encourages infiltration for groundwater recharge. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed in coordinated with the 40'" Street SW reconstruction project. It is anticipated that the grading work with be completed within 24 months. The duration seems appropriate for the size of the project. �q� Page 7 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. The applicant has submitted preliminary erosion control plans as part of this request. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner -contract process for this development. If grading is to occur prior to an owner/contract, a separate surety will need to be provided. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. Additional information is needed to determine it soil corrections- are necessary to adequately support buildings and public roadways. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable. 2) Not applicable. 3) Not applicable. 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable. 6) Not applicable. 7) Not applicable. 8) Not applicable. Staff Review and Recommendation: There appears to be a number of issues that pertain to this property. The issues are listed below. • This property was shown as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan that was approved by the Olmsted County Board in 1976 after being reviewed the by Rochester Planning Commission and City Council. The staff reports prepared in the 1980's for adjacent plats discuss the issue that this area was previously used as a tree disposal site and also the location of runoff control structures. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Open Space". There are a number of reasons why this property was probably designated as "Open Space". One is the fact that is property was shown as open space on the Willow Heights general development plan which was approved by Olmsted County (1974) prior to the adoption of the Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan in 1979. Another factor is likely because of the terrain of the property and the vegetation on the property make developing the property limited. A final factor was likely because of the fact that a portion of the property was used as a tree disposal site. \ Page 6 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 Tree disposal area In the past a portion of the property was used a tree disposal site. tt is known that trees with Dutch Elm disease were disposed of at this location. The applicant is aware of this and makes reference to the fact that a portion of the property was used to as a tree dump on page 2 of the GDP narrative submitted along with the GDP application. The applicant will need to provide soil corrections in the area where the tree disposal area is encountered to create stable and suitable soils for public roadways and building foundations. Possible encroachments on the proposed parkland There appears to have been encroachments of garages and storage buildings onto the areas shown for public parklands. A survey will need to be completed to determine if this is correct. If so, all encroachments would need to be removed. • Grading slopes With the proposed grading on the site, there are areas on the site that exceed the slope requirement that no site shall exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical incline over a distance of 30 feet. A different grading plan would need to be proposed that is able to meet the slope requirements. This provision may be waived or modified by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings, which must be considered by the Planning Commission, and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61,225 and 61.226, The staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria are met: 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said developmenL Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Aerial photography indicates that there are existing structure encroachments into the proposed City Park Outlot in two locations. These encroachments need to be addressed prior to future conveyance of the Outlot to the public. 3. Eagle View Rd SW shall intersect perpendicular to 40a' St SW. 4. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to final plat submittal. If the slopes proposed at 2:1 are not approved by the City the grading plan shall be revised so that the slopes are at least 3:1. tO Page 9 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 5. The public roadway connection to 4e Street SW, at the location proposed by the applicant, is contingent upon the applicant obtaining a release of access control from MnDOT for this location. If access control is not released by MnDOT, the applicant shall move the proposed access so that it aligns with the 60 foot wide access opening identified on MnDOT Right of Way Plat No. 55-48. 6. The roadways shall be renamed to names not already in use. T 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 March 20, 2006. 8. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the owner shall examine the property for wetlands and submit the necessary information to the Local Government Unit for review. 9. The applicant shall grade a surface water drainage Swale within a public drainage easement along the south side of Lots 1.5, Block 1 to drain the low area that will be created to the north east of Municipal Well #31. This is to prevent possible flooding of the well per Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 10. The developer shall incorporate subdrain and tiling in the engineering design for the Site for those areas where the Decorah edge is encountered. Development of this site should include re -infiltration of Intercepted groundwater flows. 11. Ownership and maintenance of Outlot B shall be addressed prior to the submittal of the final plat. 12. The applicant shall provide surety that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on the property. Page 10 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS Finding 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 6-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 resident 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 dimensions 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. Effective May 15, 1999 Page 11 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 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 as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodpiain 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 the city or county ordinance. Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 1 S or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. . b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed out and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: INI Page 12 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out. 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreation uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 6) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies; 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: l81 Page 13 Preliminary Plat 06-02 Creek View Estates April 6, 2006 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61 A 47 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. X%l REFERRAL COMMENTS ROCHESTER H;4,� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC Rochester, MN 55904 2010 Streetreef SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 559D4-3740 507-287-7800 FROM: Mark E. Baker FAX — 507-281-6216 DATE: 2/14/06 REVISED APPLICATION 3/31/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Preliminary Plat #06- 02, for the proposed Creek View Estates development. The following are Public Works comments from 2/14/06 for the prior application referred to at that time as the Creek View Estates. New comments are indicated in BOLD, while comments that have been addressed and / or are no longer applicable are indicated with . 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request tojoin with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developers and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off - site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The ..spew. -.end 1..eatien i di a L 9PP ti la be looked - Y..,Y.,..�.. r.,.... nnmay..- . grading plans haN,e been reN'ie :ed and appreN,ed b• n••�J lie War <T (NA: There are no on -site ponds being proposed on the revised plan). 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 4. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of 40th St SW, with the exception of any public street access location approved for the GDP. CADOcuments and Settings\plastost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\01-KICTPO6-02 willow Heights 5th Addition (fka Creek View Estates) REVISED RENAMED 3-06.doc ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Rochester, MN 55904 201 4' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-237-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Mark E. Baker 6. The feasibility f eenneetiRg Gree#s Edge LnSW and Greek View Ln SW 6. Aerial photography indicates that there are existing structure encroachments into the proposed City Park Outlot in two locations. These encroachments need to be addressed prior to future conveyance of the Outlot to the public 7. The prepesed pFivate rear yaFd trail should sonnect te Greek Vieve Ln aerass (NA- There is no private trail system being indicated on the revised plan). 9. Preliminary Construction Plan comments and Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer, 10. Eagle View Rd SW shall intersect perpendicular to 40'h St SW. 11. The proposed slopes of 2:1 do not meet minimum design standards. A written request for Design Modification, along with the applicable supporting documentation, must be submitted to the City Engineer for consideration. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will include but are not limited: :• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD Water Availability Charge (WAQ — TBD Transportation Improvements - TBD 8• Storm Water Management — TBD through the Grading Plan review process V Street Sins, as determined by the City Engineer CADocuments and Settings\easfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 C1PP06-02 Willow Heights Sth Addition (fka Creek View Estates) REVISED RENAMED 3-06.doc �qt rpu wr plydgr. we aWivrr March 22, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: Preliminary Plat #06-02 and a SLA Permit by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 5's Addition (previously called Creek View Estates). Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: I. Static water pressures in the lower (Intermediate Level) area will range from the 42 to 83 PSI. Static water pressures in the higher (High Level) area will range from 74 to 84 PSI. 2. A surface water drainage swale within a public drainage easement must be created along the south side of Lots 1-5, Block 1 to drain the low area that will be created to the north east of Municipal Well #31. This is to prevent possible flooding of the well per Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 3. Other revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with these comments. 4. Final construction plans will need to conform to standard City of Rochester Requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �%� 0644f1 1`''.e't �""'' , Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Gary Schick, Building & Safety North American Reality RLK, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 < Mm '. ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, MM DEPARTMENT DATE: March 20, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: Willow Heights 5th Preliminary Plat #2006-02 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 38.94 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 61 units Density factor. ............ .............................................. 0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.49 a Fair market value of land ............................................. na The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Land dedication with land identified as Outlot A Willow Heights 5th. As per review of the preliminary grading plan, approximately 1.50 acres of the outlot will meet dedication standards. The 1 DO' access to the park off of Willow Court SW appears to have been encroached upon by adjacent garage / storage building. Pending surveys will likely verify whether this observation is accurate or not. All enroachments to be removed prior to deeding the property to the City. The 20' access to the park off of Willow Heights Drives appears to have been encroached upon by adjacent garage / storage addition. Pending surveys will likely verify whether this observation is accurate or not. All encroachments to be removed prior to deeding the property to the City. The existing stormwater outlet at the west end of this 20' access is causing major erosion and should be piped across the proposed park and not surface flow. The 20' access should be graded to provide better pedestrian access to the park from Willow Heights Drive. The final restoration plan for the qualifying park areas should be subject to Park Department review. The outlot to be deeded to the City once the grading / turf restoration is completed or when the City wishes to begin development of the park. 0:1Park Deftation120061SW 28971WILLOW HEIGHTS S.DOC Rochester -Olmsted Plannim_ .apartment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904.4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 PRELIMINARY PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: March 30, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: RLK Inc. RE: WILLOW HEIGHTS FIFTH PRELIMINARY PLAT #06-02 A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. All three roadways in this plat need to be renamed as the roadways are already in use elsewhere. RECOMMENDATION: Work with our E911 addressing staff to verify new roadway names. Y The hand to ream for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: March 24, 20DS TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Preliminary Plat #06.02, by North American Realty to be known as Willow Heights 5'h Addition. 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) North American Realty RLK Incorporated Foster Stephanie From: Harford John Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:25 AM To: Planning Referrals Subject: RE: Referral comments due for GDP#268 I have the same comments as before, that is, that the applicant will need to complete a wetland delineation of the property and submit the application to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to any grading of or construction on the property. John From: Foster Stephanie Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:55 AM To: Brad Oberle (E-mail); Corey hanson; Darrel Hildebrant (E-mail); Dave Goslee (E-mail); David Morrison (E-mail); Denny Stotz (E-mail); Donn Richardson (E-mail); Doug Knott (E-mail); Floyd Whitaker (E-mail); Geneva Kellen (E-mail); Growden Randy; Harford John; Jeff Kappers (E-mail); Jim Mosser (E-mail); Joe Hensel (E-mail); Julie Schletty (E-mail); Khan Muhammad; Leslie Rivas (E-mail); Mark Baker (E-mail); Mike Engle (E-mail); Mike Nigbur (E-mail); Neal Clausen (E-mail); Nick Stone (E-mail); Reiter Charlie; Richard Freese (E-mail); Rick Wellik (E-mail); Ron Boose (E-mail); Rory Lenton (E- mail); Susan Waughtal (E-mail); Terry Spaeth (E-mail); Vance Swisher (E-mail); Whetstone Bruce Subject- Referral comments due for GDP#268 Comments must be submitfed to our office by March 31,200 If you would like to send your comments via email, please email them to planning.referrals@co.olmsted.mn.us. «File: REF REV SENT 03-20-2006 GDP#268.pdf >> If you have any problems opening this document, please let me know. Thank you! .Ste ska.-e 7oatrn. &esk Sic iaC�at 7 R. 6ster(JI SW planning fleet, 2122 c.r r. DR SE #100 R.Ai st"' MN 55904 507 285-8232 foster.stephanie@co.o Imsted.mn.us \NI Garness Jennifer From: Jim Mosser almosser@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 3:58 PM To: Planning Referrals Cc: fpknar@deskmedia.com Subject: Comment: GDP #268 & PP #06-02 (Creek View Estates) The site selected for GDP#268 / PP#06-02 is at the elevation and has the topography that is associated with the Decorah Edge. The entire area (less 5 lots) proposed for residences has been identified as wetland in the preliminary investigation, and there is anecdotal indications of springs. The above observations indicate that this site is likely to be an area of focused groundwater recharge associated with the Decorah Edge. Such areas should be left undisturbed to preserve the benefits they provide to Rochester's and Olmsted County's groundwater: nitrate & nitrite removal from upper - aquifer groundwater before reinfiltration to the lower aquifers (our drinking water supply). Areas of focused groundwater recharge frequently include surface wetlands. However, unlike riparian wetlands created by surface water, "Edge Wetlands" are supported by groundwater. Since redirection of groundwater flow to another selected site generally cannot be accomplished, replacement of "Edge Wetlands" is not logically feasible. Recommendation: attach conditions requiring 1) A thorough site investigation delineating any hydric soils underlain by Decorah Shale, not just statutory wetlands 2) No disturbance of any areas of hydric soils, as well as 50-foot buffers around them Jim Mosser ja? MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLCIANT 0 Revised Project Narrative Willow Heights 5th Addition- Rochester, MN (Formerly proposed as Creek View Estates) Prepared By: RLK Incorporated Revised March 15, 2006 For Type III Phase II Land Subdivision Permit/ Preliminary Plat Application Purpose: This revised application for a land subdivision (preliminary plat) approval has been prepared for the property on the north side of 40'" Street SW, between I I'" Avenue and Willow Court and is being submitted in conjunction with revised General Development Plan (GDP) and substantial land alteration permit applications. The project has been revised to reduce the number of single family residential lots from 74 (previously proposed) to 61 on this revised submittal, in order to address the issues and concerns identified in the staff report for the original submittal. The land subdivision application is for the Willow Heights 5th Addition, which totals approximately 39 acres. Project Team: Applicant/ Developer: North American Realty 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone: 507-287-0909 Fax: 507-298-0658 Frank Kottschade, President Civil Engineer/ Landscape Architect: RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 952-933-0972 Fax: 952-933-1153 Michele Jackson Caron. PE, Project Manager Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Proiect Narrative Project No. 2005-696-M Willow Heights Sd' Addition Preliminary Plat Revised March 15, 2006 Page 1 of 3 0 Assessment of Existing / Pre -Alteration Conditions: Information required by Sections 61.222. 61.223 and 61.224 criteria to be submitted with a T_vpe Ill. Phase 11 Land SubdiN ision is included on the plans and supplemented with the following. Existing Zoning: R-]. Mixed Single Family Residential District Proposed Zoning: No change Existing Site Use: Partially wooded site with sloping topography and three potential small wetlands/currenty undeveloped Existing Conditions: The property is R-1 zoning and undeveloped. Wetlands: A preliminary delineation has been completed for the existing wetlands on the site and will be reviewed for approval by the LGU during the 2006 growing season. Proposed mitigation will be permitted as part of the final site development and may include off -site credits. Utilities: Public water and sanitary sewer utilities are located adjacent to the project area in Willow Court along the south boundary, within 9" Avenue SW on the west, and within the 40" Street SW right of way that have capacity for the proposed development. A sanitary sewer trunk will be installed through the development. The public watermain will consist of an upper and lower zone. Final water main improvements will be coordinated with the water supply zones and requirements of Rochester Public Utilities. Traffic: A traffic study was completed for the project area as part of the MnDOT TH 63 project. Parking: Spillover parking will be accommodated within the on -site public roadways. Adjacent Land Use: The property is bounded to the north, east and west by existing residential development which is zoned R-1. The southern boundary is 40'" Street SW which is currently being improved under a MnDOT contract. Grading and Drainage: The site will be rough graded to residential lot pads as part of the preliminary plat process as shown on the plans. The proposed public access roads within the parcel will be rough graded, in accordance with City of Rochester requirements. A waiver will be requested from the City Engineer during final plat and grading plan review, for slopes steeper than 3:1, due to 2:1 slopes resulting after grading in the subsurface rock. Preliminary geotechnical investigation of the existing rock in the vicinity of the project indicate that the rock has adequate stability for 2:1 slopes. On -site storm drainage design for the project is anticipated to be typical of residential sites. The drainage concept for the project includes routing the surface runoff into storm ponds/ infiltration basins designed to meet code requirements, address the Decorah Shale drainage issues and encompass typical drainage measures. Temporary sedimentation ponds will be constructed with the mass grading operations at the Project Narrative Willow Heights 51h Addition Revised March 15, 2006 Project No. 2005-686-M Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 3 r. 00" start of project construction..A portion of the project area will be routed via culverts beneath 40"' Street into a lreatmertt pond/ infiltration hasin on property owned by the Applicant north of Willow Creek. The site drainage tt ill be designed to be compatible with the proposed drainage improvements included with the proposed 40"' Street improvements. Frosion and sediment control measures have been proposed that will be implemented during grading and construction. There are nu erosion problems anticipated with the project. Steep slopes will be stabilized as the excavation progresses. Preliminary Plat: A legal description has been previously provided. Description of Preliminary Plat: The Preliminary Plat Application is being submitted as a Type III, Phase Il Application. The revised Preliminary Plat proposes 61 single fannly lots, reduced from the previously proposed 74 lots. The lots are consistent with the existing R-I zoning district standards. Lots are anticipated to range in size from 10,000 SF to 34,000 SF. The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is 6,000 SF. In addition, two outlets are proposed. Outlot B is for grade transition purposes and will remain as open space. Outlot A will include a public park that is accessible for pedestrians from the adjacent neighborhood as well as from the on -site roadway, and drainage I ponding casements for a pond and wetland, for an open area exceeding 4.8 acres. The proposed development has been revised to accommodate a continuous road connection from 91b Avenue SW to 40'" Street SW, by reducing the number of lots to allow a greater roadway slope and acceptable driveway slopes. Roadway slopes are proposed to be as steep as nine percent, due to the extensive change in elevation between access points and driveway slope requirements. Vehicular access to the park is not proposed. The plat has also been revised to address the concerns and issues identified in the staff report prepared by the Planning Department. The Preliminary Plat document will provide for proposed public right of way for the roads serving the proposed residential development. The preliminary plat will establish the required public right of way and drainage and utility easements for the proposed public watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and ponds that are not located within public right of way. The final development of the project may be phased, depending upon market conditions and on -going negotiations with prospective builders. Attachments: Legal Description of Property (previously submitted) Preliminary Plat/ Plan Package G. Willo. Creek Camera LLC1,2005-666-M`_CotmspondenccR" Preliminary Plat Sobmitlal 3-15-06-Rrc Narrarivc Prel Plat 03-15-06.DOC Project Narrative Willow Heights Su' Addition Revr5edMarch 15, 2DD6 Project No. 2D05-686-M Preliminary Plat Page 3 of 3 Revised Project Narrative Substantial Land Alteration Permit Willow Heights 5th Addition - Rochester, MN (Formerly Proposed as Creekview Estates) Prepared By: RLK Incorporated March 15, 2006 For Substantial Land Alteration Permit For Review Concurrently with the Preliminary Plat Purpose This request for concurrent review of a substantial land alteration permit with the preliminary plat has been prepared for the Willow Heights 5'" Addition (formerly proposed as Creek View Estates project) in accordance with Section 62,1105 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. The project site is an undeveloped t39-acre parcel located on the north side of 401° Street SW, between 40'" Street and Willow Court. Revised applications for a General Development Plan (GDP) and land subdivision permit/ preliminary plat are being submitted concurrently with this request. It is anticipated that the applications will be heard before the Planning Commission on April 26, 2006. The proposed grading activities constitute a substantial land alteration as defined by the Zoning Ordinance due to the amount of excavation and grading required to provide fill material for the adjacent 40'" Street improvements, as well as to construct acceptable slopes on the proposed public roadways that will access 40" Street and 9'" Avenue as shown on the preliminary plat documents. The prcj eel proposes to extend the public streets from an existing residential district to a comparable residential subdivision and to grade an area suitable for the proposed public park. The site has design challenges imposed by the natural slopes and a difference in elevations of the surrounding properties of over 150 vertical feet. A change in elevation of over ten feel will be required over approximately 50% of the project area in order to provide acceptable public road slopes and the park. As required, material will be moved across 40" Street for crushing within the Willow Creek Commons project area. A Conditional Use Permit was obtained for substantial land alteration and quarry activities for the crushing operations on the Willow Creek Commons site. The hauling will be coordinated with the 40'" Street improvements contractor. As required by the Land Development Manual for the City of Rochester, the project will meet the requirements of Section 62.1105 of the Code as described below: I) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; Excavation activities will incorporate safety measures as required. Final plan design will meet slope and stability requirements per Code and will be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood and Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5° Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 1 of 8 zoning district. The majority of the construction access will be off of 40'" Street. including all hauling. Access will he coordinated with the 40" Street improvements contractor. 2) 1'r.stral, nmsc. dust, and.'or excessive on- or glJsite enviromnenutl inipac'is rut public' parks, roadways and re.sidemiai arras can he adequately mirhwied br the Applicam and a lidls- tletailetl plan is submitted hr the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to he user!. the cov of such moigcnion, the .source u(Jrtuds tor sut-ir mitigation. and adequate legal assurance that till o_1 such mitigation activities are carried our, Blasting will be completed in accordance with all regulations. All vehicles will be properly muffled. Erosion control measures are identified on the grading plan. The contractor will monitor the condition of off -site roadways on a daily basis and clean/remove any dirt from the paved surfaces caused by project traffic. Final measures will be proposed with the grading permit plans to be submitted for approval. With the proposed erosion control and sedimentation measures, there are no other off -site impacts anticipated due to the construction. 3) Tire use of trucks and heavy equipment rill not adversely impact the safety and maintenance ofpublic roads providing access to the sue, or such impacts will be mitigated; The contractor will monitor the condition of off-site'roadways on a daily basis and clean/remove any dirt from the paved surfaces caused by project traffic. 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; With the proposed erosion contra] and sedimentation measures, groundwater and surface water quality will not be adversely affected. There will be no impacts to au quality. 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; The project proposes to maintain the naturally sloped character of the site and area. The preliminary plat plans identify the roadway, park and grading improvements that will be constructed following the excavation. The reclamation plan includes tree plantings as required by Code. 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing orplanned development, publicfacilities, open space resources and other natural resources; Following the excavation activity, the project will accommodate a single family residential development that is in conformance with all existing R-1 zoning district requirements, and comparable to the adjacent residential developments. 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; Excavation activities will be completed in accordance with all regulations. The proposed development is comparable to the adjacent developments. Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights Sth Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 2 of 8 �P3 A) The sire plan provide% for adequate butlers and .wreening rcrn'-romrr! (r-om rarsit alr features of the excavation operation; The project will be minimalh Visible from the west and north sides of the properly due to the elevation difference of the graded property. 40'x Street is anticipated to be under construction during the excavation of this project: the property on the south side of 40"' Street is undeveloped and owned by the Applicant. The existing residential lots along the east side of the project will be screened from the project by tree stands. 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriaw restor-atron and stabilization of cur and fill areas; The proposed reclamation plan includes restoration and stabilization of the cut and fill areas to provide for public roadways, a public park and single family residential lots in character with the neighborhood. Appropriate erosion control measures are proposed. 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; A preliminary drainage study has been completed that identifies proposed stormwater management facilities that will address surface water quality and will encourage infiltration for groundwater recharge. Stormwater runoff currently being routed across the site from the adjacent residential neighborhoods will be routed through the project in a manner that will not negatively impact the existing drainage patterns or stormwatermanagement facilities. 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; There are no anticipated sinkholes. Minimal wetland impacts are proposed that will be mitigated as required by regulations. A preliminary drainage study has been completed that identifies proposed stormwater management facilities that will address surface water quality and will encourage infiltration for groundwater recharge. 12). The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; The duration of the excavation will be coordinated with the schedule of the adjacent 40'" Street construction project, as needed to provide fill material from this site. 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City Preliminary erosion control plans have been submitted with the preliminary plat documents for concurrent review. Prior to excavation, final plans will be submitted for approval for a grading permit. 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. The project will result in a residential use that is consistent with existing R-1 zoning district regulations and comparable to the adjacent neighborhoods. Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights Sib Addition RevsedMarch 15, 2006 RLK IncDrporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 3 of 8 15) 7lie proposed ocrivinr complies with the requirements of the adopted building umle- Building plans will be submitted for permit upon site plan approval that will meet the building code requirements. Proposed Excavation Activities The following excavation activities are proposed on the project site: Removal of earth from the site between 10,000 cubic yards and 20,000 cubic yards per gross acre, involving a change in pre-existing grades of 10 or more vertical feet (substantial land alteration). Disturbed Area The project will disturb approximately 39 acres. The applicant is North American Realty, Franklin P. Konschade, President. Amount of Material to be Moved Approximately 400,000 to 500,000 cubic yards of material will be moved as a part of the Creek View residential development. Assessment of Existing/Pre-Alteration Conditions Information required by Section 62.1106, Paragraph 2, is included on the plans and supplemented with the following. Existing Zoning: R-1, Mixed Single Family Residential District Existing Site Use: The site is partially wooded with sloping topography and three small potential wetland areas. The site is currently undeveloped, with off -site drainage flows being routed from the adjacent developed areas down the slopes across the site. Soil Types: See attached geotechnical report (previously submitted) Roadway Conditions: 40" Street adjacent to the site is currently under construction as part of the TH 63 improvement project by MnDOT. For the most part, hauling of material will occur directly onto the 40'" Street construction project to the south. Excess material may also be utilized on the Willow Creek Commons property south of 40"Street, including mining pond fill. Hauling will be coordinated among the associated contractors. Water Wells: There are no known water wells on the site. The Minnesota Department of Health has been contacted regarding any other wells within %: mile of the property. Floodplain: There are no 100-year flood fringe, floodway or shoreland districts within the project area. Wetlands: A preliminary wetland delineation has been completed on the site; three small potential wetlands have been identified. After start of the 2006 growing season, the delineation will be reviewed with the Local Project Narrative -Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5' Addition ReviseciMarch 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 4 of 8 Govemment Unit (l-GU) for approval. Proposed Welland impacts will be mitigated NA ith off=rile credits as appro%cd With future permitting. Utilities: A public sanitary sewer trunk line and public w:uermain are located on the site adjacent to the east boundary. Within the existing Willow Court SW' right of Way. The project proposes to serve the proposed lots from connections to the sanitary seW er in Willo%% Court SW. The lower proposed lots will be served by the connect inn to the public water main in Willow Court. Public water main and sanitary sewer are located in the existing 9"' Avenue SW right of way. ']'his sanitary sewer is too shallow to serve the development; the water main will be extended to serve the upper lots. To serve the westem portion of the lower cul de sac, a sanitary sewer trunk will be installed in the proposed 40" Street right of way along the southern boundary, from the existing manhole at the intersection of 40'" Street and Willow Court SW. Traffic: A traffic analysis was previously prepared for MnDOT for the design of the TH 63/40'" Street improvements that included this parcel and current zoning. Adjacent Land Use: The property is bounded to the north, east and west by existing residential development which is zoned R-1. The southern boundary is 4& Street SW which is currently being improved under a MnDOT contract. Grading and Drainage The applicantideveloper proposes to excavate approximately 400,000 to 500,000 cubic yards of material and move a portion of it to the 40" Street improvements project currently under contract by MnDOT, while rough grading the site for ultimate development in accordance with the preliminary plat design. Excess material may also be utilized on the Willow Creek Commons project south of 40 Street. The Grading Plan identifies approximate limits and proposed contours for the project. Resulting slopes will be stabilized as the project progresses in accordance with City requirements. Trucking of the material will most likely not require travel outside the limits of the two sites; haul routes on the public roadway system will be identified as needed. The project grading is expected to be concurrent with construction of the 40'" Street project. Grading of the site will occur in conjunction with the 40" Street construction during the summer of 2006. The majority of the project will be graded within 24 months subject to coordination with the completion of the MnDOT 40'" Street project. A waiver will be requested from the City Engineer during final plat and grading plan review, for slopes steeper than 3:1, due to 2:1 slopes resulting after grading in the subsurface rock. Preliminary geotechnical investigation of the existing rock in the vicinity of the project indicate that the rock has adequate stability for 2:1 slopes. Drainage for the impervious areas of the site will be routed to infiltration areas that will recharge the water table. Temporary sedimentation ponds will be provided to accommodate runoff during the proposed grading operations. Final design will be completed after approval of the preliminary grading and drainage design that is being considered with the preliminary plat application. Drainage design has been completed in accordance with the City of Rochester standards. Off site flows will be routed through the development and into the existing pond area located in the low area along the west property boundary or directly into the ditch that outlets the pond. The majority of the site runoff will be routed to the south Project Narrative —Application for Substantial (and Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5u' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M _ Page 5 of 8 and routed beneath 40"' Street via culverts into infiltration basins constructed on the south side of the road on property owned by the .Applicant. The site ultimately discharge, info Willow Creek. Temporary sedimentation treatment during excavation and for the graded site will be provided in temporary basins shown on the substantial land alteration plans: the ponds will be graded in the initial staecs of the earthwork activities. Swales will be graded as required to direct the site runoff into the ponds for sediment removal during the time period prior io storm seu er construction. Other erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented including typical measures as illustrated on the grading plan. Operations Plan per Section 61.140 The site plan illustrates the proposed project area, street layout and a potential stockpile location. Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m., as allowed by City Code. The grading plan identifies approximate limits of the area that will have a vertical change in elevation greater than ten feet, and possible blasting limits. A grading permit application will be submitted after approval of this application. The contractor shall stabilize the graded site through respreading topsoil and seeding. The proposed and existing ponds will provide sediment removal as required until final roadway and utility improvements are completed and homes are constructed on the site. Vegetation will be removed by typical clearing methods and disposed of by the contractor in a lawful manner. The Contractor will be responsible for implementation of dust and noise control plans. Dust control measures include watering of on -site haul roads. Noise control measures include operational mufflers on equipment to meet state and local noise ordinance requirements. Limited blasting may be required on an "as -needed' basis for excavation of the rock material in the portions of the project area as shown on the grading plan. if required, a signage plan for construction activities will be submitted as part of the grading permit application. Stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation control for the rough graded site are identified on the Grading Plan. Final drainage and erosion control improvements will be designed with the final plat application upon preliminary plat approval. Due to the proximity of existing residential development to the project area, site fencing and/or additional security measures will be implemented including a six-foot high security fence around any potential blasting area as required. Anticipated construction equipment includes backhoes, dozers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, scrapers, rubber tired rollers, and other construction equipment as required for completion of the project. The following sequence of progression is proposed: Install erosion control measures and excavate ponds; Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5'" Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 6 of 8 �d1 • Clear site within current excavation phase limits: • Strip topsoil and stockpile: • Cut material and process/screen: • Truck and scraper material to fill area: • Grade and compact engineered fill: Respread topsoil and seed area within 7 days of completion of earthwork activities: Adjust erosion control fencing and other measures after turf has been established. Lighlin2 is not anticipated to be required. Current plans may include off -site hauling of material to the adjacent 40" Street SW project and/or to the Willow Creek Commons project on the south side of 40" Street SW. All hauling coordination will be done between the associated contractors. With the proposed erosion control and sedimentation measures, there are no other off -site impacts anticipated due to the construction. The contractor will monitor the condition of off -site roadways on a daily basis and clean/remove any dirt from the paved surfaces caused by project traffic. The project will require water for use in dust control; water will be obtained from the existing pond on the south side of 400' Street. No electric, sanitary or communications utilities are anticipated to be required. Portable sanitary facilities will he provided. As required, generators will be used to power equipment. The nearest police station is located at 3" Avenue and 0 Street SE. The nearest fire station is located at 0' Street and South Broadway. Site access will be available via 40" Street and TH 63. Reclamation Plan and Report Requirements for reclamation are identified on the Grading and Reclamation Plan and in the above text. Permanent landscape and tree requirements are calculated based on the requirement of 8 deciduous and 8 coniferous trees per disturbed acre of area that will result in a change in elevation of greater than 10 feet, which includes approximately 15 acres of the f39-acre project area. Trees will be planted within the project area and/or on properties in the vicinity of the project that are owned by the Applicant/ Developer. Calculations result in a total 240 trees required as follows: 15 acres times 8 trees = 120 deciduous trees 15 acres times 8 trees — 120 coniferous trees Actual locations of the required trees will be determined with the final platting stage of project development as permitted. All erosion control, turf establishment and drainage facilities as required by the phased development and all applicable City requirements will be provided. Attachments Soil Borings (previously submitted) Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5"° Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 7 of 8 FA N Project Team Applicant/ Developer North American Realty 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade, President Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite IN Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email foknar@deskmedia.com Phone 952-933-0972 Fax 952-933-1153 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Michele Caron, P.E., Project Manager/Sr. Prof. Engineer Email mcarow-wAldnccom Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Email idietrich[@rWnc.com G:':Willow Creek Common 1-1.0,2005-666-M`_Cortespond=e\Revisal SrA 1-27-WRevised Narrative -subs n land A 01-27-06.dm Project Narrative —Application for Substantial land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heiahts Sth Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-6B6-M Page 8 of 8 2--- — 7 3Iis n ( _ r- 'o'7r 0 ON V3U WE& HA LU sh 'LU -all lift T T T- F-F-- 0 11-Lj -I' I. I. I - I'l / . I i.au w^veuz�r»v urn.+ 9ui0vap ltl3]rvGi —1'° .sez,aot 10 00 WON31W RL80N r larfcaatufnzaa Id NOIIVMVI�3N A E) wo If, --am 11W( REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 20 DATE: 5-1-06 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING M NO. i ]PREMRn ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Harvestview 11 Special District #16. BY: A. Baker,, / LLitzi �> April 27, 2006 NO'T� %1." J� 11 a /! 5 i S' ��{a� (ul �Yc yh Please see the attached staff memorandum and request from the applicant regarding additional changes to the Special District, which were filed after the Planning Commission meeting. City Planning and Zonina Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on April 12, 2006. Mr. Hauessinger moved to recommend approval to amend Special District #16 Harvestview 11, and Special District #12 Harvestview with the staff -recommended findings. Mr. McGwuine seconded the motion. The motion carried 6.3 with Ms. Rivas, Ms. Wiesner, and Mr. Wallace voting nay. Council Action Needed. The Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance amending Special District #16 (to add land and amend regulations) and Special District #12 (to remove land) reflecting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday May 1, 2006 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street BE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seondby: to: ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 cou." er DATE: April 27, 2006 www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner n4i� Rip�N hsenuaune api� �r4r RE: Additional Amendment to Harvestview, If Special District #16 Regulations The applicant is requesting additional changes to the written regulations of the Special District, which were not included in the amendment application when it was filed. The changes were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, but were not filed formally until after that meeting. These changes appear, primarily, to respond to a proposal to develop the comer of 551h Street NW and 50th Avenue NW with a medical clinic that does not comply with the approved regulations. The applicant is proposing to add the following language to the Urban Residential District, Town Center District, and Mixed Use District sections of the Special District. "Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 1.0 shall be allowed with a maximum building height of five stories with a landscape area of 20 percent " Each of the Land Use Districts in Harvestview II identifies Zoning Districts and standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to be used to be followed. Except where additional or varied regulations are specified in the Special District Ordinance, the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual applies. - The tables compare the NEW language introduced by the applicant following the Planning Commission meeting, with the underlying regulations of the LDM, which are referenced in the approved Special District. Urban Residential District: This District uses the standards of the R-2 District of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) for townhome development, and the R-3 standards for row house and multi -family style development, except as otherwise specified in the Special District. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GISe•ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNINGRONING 50V285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-6345 FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i Proposed SD R-2 Standards of the R-3 Standards of the Lan `ua a LDM LDM. Floor Area 1.0 Residential uses are not Both density and FAR Ratio: regulated by FAR, but rather regulation must be met by density FAR:. 63 to .70, up to .92 for a Type III Incentive Develo ment Permitted "Five Stories 35 feet 35 feet Building Hei ht: Minimum 2D % 40-52% depending dwelling 30-45% depending on Landscape type dwelling type Area: The SD already permits up to 5 stories for multi-tamily developments. Town Center District: This District uses the B-1 standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM), except as otherwise regulated in the Special District. Proposed SD B-1 Standards of the U)M Language Floor Area Ratio: 1.0 .50 for Type I (staff review) U to 2.0 for T e III Incentive Development Permitted Five Stories 30 feet Building Height: Minimum 20 % 12 % Landscape Area: Mixed Use District: This District uses the 3-5 standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM), except as otherwise regulated in the Special District. Proposed SD B-5 Standards, of the LDM Lannuacie Floor Area Ratio: 1.0 .25 for Type I (staff review) U to .50 for T III Incentive Development Permitted Five Stories 24 feet; or 35 feet for structures with residential Building Height: dwellings above ground level non-residential uses Minimum 20 % 15 % Landscape Area: Summary: The Incentive Development Permit process included in the LDM allows for the floor area ratio to be exceeded with the inclusion of certain design features, amenities and qualities that provide public benefit. The Incentive Development process allows the "incentives" provided by the applicant to be measured and criticized through public review and public hearings in determining if the "incentives" justify the additional floor area being requested by an applicant. Detailed site plans, landscaping, building elevations and building materials specifications are considered as part of that comprehensive process. The Harvestview II Special District (SD) has provided the developer a broad range of flexibility in establishing a mix of land uses and densities, and alternative roadway designs. The SD includes minimal public input in reviewing specific site plans, however. The SD Ordinance only requires a review by the Planning Commission, without a public hearing, for uses in the Town Center District and Mixed Use District. If the Mixed Use District areas of the development were zoned B-5, and not part of the SD, most uses would require a Type II Conditional Use Permit with notice to the public and the opportunity for a public hearing. The developer is already provided broad flexibility in not following that process. The additional design features incorporated into the Special District may have justified granting some flexibility to the developer. Additional flexibility in developing with greater floor area and height, may not be balancing the public interest in this case. It is questionable whether the additional flexibility being requested is warranted in the Town Center District with only a marginal increase in landscape area being offered as a "balance" (note: the OMC concept plan demonstrates approx. 19% landscape area). It does not appear appropriate or necessary in the Urban Residential District, and not appropriate in the Mixed Use District. The proposal would actually negatively impact the landscape area requirements in the Urban Residential district. 1 �`OCRECTER• ROCtiESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAKrWNT Df.R.......:...... ty4o 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 1 DO • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 :m COUNT. OF iwrw.olmstedcounty.comiplanning -:`•• �"' G 5 p0 R47ED-AUGUST' TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: April 6, 2006 RE: Amendment to Harvestview and Special District #16 known as Harvestview II and Special District #12 known as Harvestview by Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises Inc. The applicant is proposing to add the 4.2 acre lot on the corner of 55th Street NW and 50th Avenue NW from the Harvestview I Special District and add that portion to the Harvestview II Special District The property is located along the north side of 55th Street NW, along the east side of 60th Avenue NW, along the south side of the Douglas Trail and west of 50th Avenue NW. Property Information: ApplicantlOwner: Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises Inc. 342E NW Lakeridge Place #200 Rochester, MN 55901 Engineer: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The property is located along the north side of 55th Street NW, along the east side of 601h Avenue NW, along the south side of the Douglas Trail and west of the Harvestview development. The development is approximately 163 acres. Background Information: The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual allows for the establishment of Special Districts (SD) in order to permit a more flexible means of development where there are public benefits for doing so. Section 62.900 of the Land Development Manual includes the provisions related to the establishment of a Special District, and is attached for your information. The City previously approved Special District #12 Harvestview, and Special District #16 Harvestview II. Each of these includes an Ordinance, Exhibits, and a General Development Plan. The approved Special District #16 Harvestview it includes four Land Use Districts: Neighborhood Residential District, Urban Residential District, Town Center District and a Mixed Use District. BUILDING CODE 507285-8345 • GIVADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINWONING 507285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507285-8345 r 2 FAX 507287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Concurrent with this application, an application to amend the Harvestview II General Development Plan is being considered. Summary of Proposal: The current amendment proposes to modify the boundaries of both Special District 412 Harvestview, and Special District #16 Harvestview II to transfer approximately 4.2 acres of land located north of 551h Street, west of 50" Ave. NW from Harvestview I into Harvestview II. This transfer of land is the site of the previously proposed mixed use building that included a mix of commercial uses along with condominiums above the commercial and underground parking. The Plan also had an open space town square providing a green space amenity and serving as a gathering place for the neighborhood. The 4.20 acre site is proposed to be in the Town Center District of Special District #16 Harvestview II. The applicant proposes to abandon the previously approved mixed use building plans for this site, and proposes a single use office (medical clinic) building. The style of development differs significantly from the previous approval. In addition, the Ordinance is proposed to be modrfied slightly to accommodate adding the 4.2 acre parcel, and to modify a few of the regulations. Following is an overview of the Harvestview II Special District: This Special District (SD) proposes to be an affordable, comprehensively planned, pedestrian -oriented development with strong urban design as well as preservation of an environmental corridor. The following four land use districts are included in the SD: Neighborhood Residential District, Urban Residential District, Town Center District, and Mixed Use District. Primary flexibilities included in this SD include the following: • Modified road rights -of -way and cross sections - providing for narrower designs • Modified setbacks and lot sizes — promoting more dense/compact development • Mixes of land uses which normally would require zoning district changes Amendments to the Harvestview I and II General Development Plans are being considered concurrent with this application, which is intended to serve as guide to the development. Analysis: Staff has some concerns with this proposal. These concerns are not related to the Ordinance and boundary changes, but primarily with the amendment to the type and style of development proposed on the 4.2 acre site at the corner of 55'h Street and 5d' Avenue. Though a detailed proposal is not being considered for that parcel at this time, the conceptual Plan submitted does raise some red flags. Ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine if this proposal is suitable for approval, or if improvements need to be made to justify the Special District and to comply with the intent and purpose of it. • The conceptual site plan submitted by Olmsted Medical Center for the parcel being added does not appear to comply with the provisions of the Town Center District. A thorough review of the zoning requirement will be complete separate from this proposal, but it appears the Plan ignores provisions that would apply (i.e. height, floor area ratio, and pedestrian friendliness). The 4.2 acre parcel is proposed to be in the Town Center District of the SD, which refers to the B=1 (Restricted Commercial) performance standards. There are additional architectural and landscaping standards in the SD as well. Building Height: • The B-1 district (underlying standards to be used per SD) allows a maximum height of 30 feet; the concept plan for the 4.2 acre parcel labels the building as 64 feet in height. The previously approved project for the 4.2 acre parcel was regulated by the following height limits: Harvestview I - Building Height (Town Center District) (a) Building height of main building on south (facing in 55`h Street NW) shall be maximum 35'-0" (as measured to mid roofline). The height may be increased 5 feet to allow for flexibility with mechanical equipment associated with commercial and restaurant uses. (b) Building height on north (facing Town Square) shall be maximum 45'-0". The height may be increased 5 feet to allow for flexibility with mechanical equipment associated with commercial and restaurant uses. (c) Building height of main building corners (east and west ends) shall be maximum 47'-0" on south and maximum 57'-0" on north side. The height may be increased 5 feet to allow for flexibility with mechanical equipment associated with commercial and restaurant uses. Other: • The previously approved project for the 4.2 acre parcel was a pedestrian friendly mixed use development with underground parking, and a landscaped town square that would provide space for neighborhood gatherings, events and outdoor recreation. • The current proposal is for a single use building surrounded by parking with no gathering space and which does not promote a pedestrian friendly environment, along the entire perimeter nor within the site. • The Plan will need to incorporate sidewalk along the entire perimeter of the project, reduce the number of access openings to public road to the west, reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict points, and present a pedestrian friendly design both along the perimeter and within the site. • This amendment will eliminate the cornerstone mixed use project for the development and replace it with a single use building surrounded by parking, diluting the public benefits of this Special District. Prior to developing any portion of the SO, compliance with the SD, including its intent and findings and land use principles, will need to be demonstrated and verified. In particular, the following items extracted from the SO Ordinance will need to be incorporated to the Plan, in addition to other applicable regulations: • This Special District is established to foster the development of a comprehensively planned, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood; i • Requiring skillful architectural and landscape design in creating buildings and open spaces; • Strong urban and landscape design creates a sense of place; • Uses landscaping to accentuate the natural and built environment, establish visual connectivity and community identity and provides environmental and public health benefits; • The quantity, location and design of parking in Harvestview II reinforces the pedestrian - friendly nature of the community and encourages use of alternative modes of transportation while still accommodating vehicular traffic. If the developer of the 4.2 acre parcel, or any other parcel in the Special District, proposes a development exceeding the permitted floor area ratio (FAR), the Incentive Development process in the LDM would apply. Likewise, if a proposal does not comply with the regulations (i.e. setback, height, landscape area), the Variance process in the LDM would apply. The Special District is an Ordinance regulating land uses and performance standards, and only replaces the "LDM" to the extent specified in the Ordinance where more detailed or stringent regulations are identified. It the developer of the 4.2 acre site proposes a floor area ratio (FAR) higher than the permitted .50 of the underlying B-f District (as is the case), then an Incentive Development Permit application should be submitted and processed as specified in the LDM. The El-f District allows up to a 2.0 FAR through the Incentive Development Process. Variances may also need to be applied for concurrent with an Incentive Development. Findings for the Special District Ordinance: Refer to Sections 640.200 and 64Q210 of the attached Harvestview II Special District Ordinance for the intent, findings and principles. Action Needed: The Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing to consider the expansion of this Special District and make a recommendation to the City Council. A General Development Plan application is being considered concurrent with and as part of this Special District application. The Commission could consider these two items simultaneously. Separate action should be taken on the two applications, however. Prior to final action on this Amendment, the applicant will need to: • Coordinate with staff to provide a revised legal description to be included in the Amendments to both the SD 412 Harvestview, and SD #16 Harvestview 11 Ordinances. The 4.2 acre parcel being transferred must be included in the SD #16 Ordinance description of boundaries Section 640.100, and deleted from the SD 412 Ordinance description of boundaries. • Submit an amended Land Use Exhibit, showing the 4.2 acre parcel in the Town Center District of SD #16 • Amend the Harvestview II GDP to properly label the 4.2 acre parcel as being in the Town Center District, and to modify the boundaries of the GDP so that it is clearly included in the Harvestview II GDP. Following the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, public hearings will be scheduled with the City Council for consideration of the Special District and the General Development Plan. 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. 60.237 SD SPECIAL DISTRICTS: Existing Special Districts approved by Ordinance numbers 3443, 3404, 2726, 2516, 2247, 3385, 3468, 3497, 3503, 3520, 3534, 3604 and 3615 are 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 specific site/development plan review process, but does not specify the critieria by which to review the site/development plan, i the development will be reviewed under Section 61.148. When a Special District Ordinance requires a two-phase review, the development will be reviewed under Section 61.146 and either Section $2.708 (1) (for preliminary plans) or Section 62.708 (2) (for final plans). Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Developmenf Manual REFERRAL COMMENTS ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 3/31/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 559D4-3740 507-287.7600 FAX — 507-281.6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for AMENDED General Development Plan #190 & GDP#241 land Special Districts #12 & #16), for the proposed Harvestview and Harvestview II developments. The following are Public Works comments: The property proposed to be transferred from the Harvestview GDP#190 & Special District #12 to the Harvestview II GDP#241 & Special District #16 is included in the executed Harvestview Development Agreement and Supplemental Agreement. Execution of a Second Supplemental Development Agreement is required to address, in part, the Owner's applicable Transportation Improvement District contribution based on the current proposed use of the Property. 2. As proposed, the easterly access driveway to 56`h St NW does not meet recommended guidelines for corner clearance as outlined in the ROCOG 2035 transportation Plan (see Page 4-60). Modifying the proposed driveway to an "Exit Only" could address this issue. Alternatively a TIR should be prepared to determine if the access driveway location as proposed will negatively impact the operation / level of service on 50" Ave NW. 3. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development, and / or Final Plat submittal for and re -subdivision of the property. 4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 5. The private access to 55th St NW was previously identified as a one-way for southbound traffic. If this access is now intended for two-way traffic, the southerly parking lot access is to close to the intersection of 55 h St NW (needs to be 120 ft). Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are / will be addressed in the Development Agreements / City -Owner Contract a0ocuments and Settings\plasfoshLocal Settings\Temporary fntemst Files\OLK1 C\GDP190 AMENDMENT Harvestview GDP Amendment.doc 1 � / rpuf _.. x,r plydpe, wr M'wer March 21, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Amendment to General Development Plan #241 by Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. known as Harvestview H, GDP #190 known as Harvestview, Special District #16 known as Harvestview 11 and Special District #12 known as Harvestview to add 4.2 acres of land located at the NW corner of 50`s Ave and 556St. NW from Harvestview to Harvestview n to allow a medical clinic facility to be constructed there. Dear Ms. Foster: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. Static water pressures within this area will range from the low to the mid 90's PSI depending on final grades. The builders must install a pressure -reducing device near the domestic water meter as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code. 2. Any existing water main stub -out that will not be used must be abandoned properly at the main in the street per our requirements. 3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-290-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06,v� p Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety McGhie & Betts, Inc. Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. Rochester Public Utihties, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 � SD #16 ORDINANCE WITH PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS BOUNDARY OF AREA BEING ADDED TO SD #16 HARVESTVIEW II -~ L G WW C O F N 6 yy�p W > J � C 4 <G�W Cz 12 Page 2 City Planni nna and Zoning Con. -�sion Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2006 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Avenue NW. Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff reports, dated April 6, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker expressed concern with the style of development being proposed in the comer (mixed use building changed to single use). What has been presented to staff doesn't demonstrate that there is a compliance with the goals and policies of the special district. Ms. Baker explained that the City of Rochester Zoning oramance ana Lana ueveioamem Manual would still apply to the proposed special district. Ms. Rivas asked staff to clarify the change of the town center. Ms. Baker explained that the 4.2 acre area in the comer of the development was previously shown as a town center building with below grade parking. The amendment proposed removes this building and replaces it with a different use. Discussion ensued regarding flexibility with going through the special district process and what is gained by the process. Mr. Burke asked if the final proposal on the building would be brought before the Commission or only be reviewed by staff. Ms. Baker responded that the Commission previously requested that the special district ordinance language state that the Planning Commission review the plans, but not as a public hearing. She explained that the language was vague. Discussion ensued regarding the incentive development process. Ms. Baker explained that the applicant would have to come back to the Commission with and incentive development application to go through with their concept plan for the corner. The applicant's representative, Mr. Bill Tointon from McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He explained that market changes and economic changes have occurred. His opinion is that there are three areas of concern: 1. Building height and floor area ratio: There is only a 2 foot difference. The FAR is less than what was proposed for the town center. He suggested that they would move the � Page 3 / City Planning and Zoning Con_ _ssion Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2006 town center to a different area of the development. Providing some FAR height restricting in the language of the special district language should be sufficient. 2. Pedestrian friendly design: They will provide all necessary plans. The landscaping is almost 20 percent. 3. Changing use of the comerstone of the development: It would be smaller FAR and greater setbacks. The Site Development process will address issues brought forth. Mr. Tointon stated that the solution to the above issues is to add proposed language to more clearly define FAR and area height. The applicant's representative, Mr. Andy Masterpole from McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He gave the history of the development. He stated that the applicant does not support going through the incentive development process. It is their belief that the proposed special district is much stronger in incentives. The site plan would be reviewed by the Commission. Certain language can be put into the ordinance to address staffs concerns. He suggested the following language to the language for all uses to be: "A FAR of 1.0 shall be allowed with a maximum building height of 5 stories with a landscape area of 20 percent". Mr. Masterpole discussed the access points to the development. He explained that he did have discussions with the applicant regarding changing the comer to the B-1 zoning district instead of the special district. However, the applicant wanted to stay with the special district. Mr. Wallace asked how the grade would be handled. Mr. Masterpole stated that the building would be a walk out. There may be some retaining walls. Ms. Rivas asked how the architectural standards changed from the town center to the medical building. Mr. Masterpole responded that they would be similar. Mr. Haeussinger asked when the modified language would be submitted. Mr. Masterpole responded within the next few days. Mr. Burke asked if the change to the special district language would go before the Commission. Ms. Baker responded that, if the Commission moved the request forward, the Commission would not see it. However, the City Council would. Ms. Rivas asked if there needed to be additional amendments if they plan on moving the town center. Ms. Baker responded that where the applicant is proposing to move the town center is outside of the special district. She explained that it was not owned by the applicant. The applicant would need to come back to add it to the special district in the future. At this time, they are just stating their intent. Ms. Rivas expressed concern with the applicant following through with moving it to that location Page 4 3 City Planning and Zoning Corte _ssion Minutes /// Searing Date: April 12, 2006 Mr. Masterpole stated that they would be back before the Commission in one month with a preliminary plat for the corner in dispute. Ms. Janet Johnson (residing at 5928 60' Avenue NW, Oronoco MN 55960) addressed the Commission. The individuals living across the street from the development are concerned with not having the town center in the comer. A commercial building has the amount of parking spots determined by the building use. Therefore, there will be a large amount of blacktop. She expressed concerned if the retaining pond would hold up. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr Haexrssmger.frioved to r+commei d approval ofSpec;aIUstfict*I&Down as r rvesmewa!an Specra7s9�sfnef#12 novwn '_s aveskview yJve9 Ha�gel`owBSari"s nterpnses Inc With ihe'staff recommended findings IIAf_ McGuine seconded the moiion. Ms. Wiesner stated that she is not in favor of changing the special district. There were many promises made and they keep changing. Ms. Rivas stated that she was hopeful that it would be continued. She expressed dissatisfaction that it is a "drive to building". She expressed concern with architectural designs. She further expressed concern that the townhome owners were mislead that a town center would be across from them. Mr. McGuine stated that the town center is not economically feasible at that corner. He questioned if it was better to have an empty building or it moved to a better location. He explained that the citizens and developers need to be thought of in development. Mr. Pestka stated that he would think that aesthetics would be secondary in thought for CIVIC due to higher medical costs. Mr. Burke stated that it is his hope that whatever building that is put there is very aesthetically pleasing or they could loose a lot of faith with the community. I The motion carried S-3, with Ms. Rivas, Ms_ Wiesner, and Mr_ Wallace voting nay. v f Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Con_ ..ssiou Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2D06 ExecuUb-h f; Second uppllemertal Develgpment Agreement is`.required to address,,; ;in ai3, the woe? s app7 cable �Tansp©ria ri lmprovern district cor�tnbution based -on the currentproposetl use of the Property _ 3 As,prr>posed, if a easterly access driveway o 56" SVNW doesnot rueet recommended=gmdeseGniar corner clearance as out1med in:the7t0006 2035 trarisParia#►on'PSara see Page 4-60� fiAoijnng the,rnposet� .driveway to an "Ezit, -Grij "! could -address this issue ..Alternatively a IR sTiauld be �reparedto determine _ if'iia+i:_accessdnvewayioca ienas'proposed-wi7lnegaiively rmpacltt+aoperation1 N level visenrn a onfltb1ve It11N "_ The private access to STD" St NW was prewouslyxdenhfiedasa ooe way for -- scuthbound'tra-M The southerly parkirig dot acces5as-too close to the tntersectlon of 55m St N '_and must'be modified (to be mmlmum 92[I fit) _ AND Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated Apr' , 006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Plannin epa ent. Ms. Rivas asked what other subdivisions staff h required sub ain and tiling. Mr. Svenby replied that it has been recomm ded in other develo ants where the Decorah Edge has been encountered. For exampl , Stonehedge. At this ti the City doesn't have an Ordinance regarding development in th ecorah Edge. Ms. Rivas expressed concern with I- guage discussing re -infiltration. Ms. Rivas expressed concern ' not receiving any comments regarding II head protection. Mr. Svenby responded that aff did not receive any comments from RPU En onmental Services. He explained t t nothing was received from Terry Lee either. Mr. Burke stated that a reclamation plan shows the required plantings on all the roperty lines and comers. He qu tioned if it was permissible. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM E-3 MAY 11 2006 AGENDA Mayor & Council Stevan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING CHAPTER 64Q, AND AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 60.327 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HARVESTVIEW II SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter 64Q of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 64Q. HARVESTVIEW II SPECIAL DISTRICT 64Q.050. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Special District is to provide for zoning regulations that will be administrated in the Harvestview II Special District, as required in Section 62.900 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual). The following is the special regulations of the Harvestview II Special District. 64Q.100. BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND. This ordinance shall apply to the following described property located within the City of Rochester, County of Olmsted, State of Minnesota: That part of Section 7, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 7; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line thereof, 656.00 feet to the southwest corner of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 7 for the point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 39 seconds West, along the west line of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 897.87 feet; thence North 74 degrees 13 minutes 55 seconds West, 2049.61 feet to the west line of the East Half of said Section 7; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds West, along said west line, 1065.54 feet; thence North 40 degrees 49 minutes 14 seconds West, 34.82 feet; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds West, 45.65 feet; thence North 49 degrees 10 minutes 46 seconds East, 29.72 feet to the west line of the East Half of said Section 7; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds West, along April 14, 2006 1 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 said west line, 143.04 feet to the southerly line of the Douglas Trail (formerly the WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY); thence North 54 degrees 55 minutes 28 seconds West, along said southerly line, 1601.48 feet to the west line of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 7; thence South 00 degrees 14 minutes 09 seconds East, 1021.89 feet to the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7; South 00 degrees 14 minutes 09 seconds East, along the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7, a distance of 1319.64 feet to the northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 06 seconds West, along the north line of said Quarter Quarter, 1189.15 feet to the northwest corner thereof; thence South 00 degrees 19 minutes 07 seconds East, along the west line thereof, 1318.02 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds East, along the south line thereof, 704.24 feet to the west line of the east 483.00 feet of said Quarter Quarter Section; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 09 seconds West, along said west line, 396.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds East, 483.02 feet to the west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds East, 330.11 feet; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 09 seconds West, 19.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds East, 450.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 14 minutes 09 seconds East, 415.00 feet to the south line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds East, along said south line, 531.78 fleet to the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 7; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East, along the south line thereof, 370.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 26 minutes 47 seconds West, 408.03 feet; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East, 400.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 20 seconds West, 110.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West, 30.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 20 seconds West, 298.00 feet to the south line of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East along said south line, 1233.00 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting there from the following described property. Commencing at the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section7; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter, 568.84 feet for the point of beginning; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, 504.16 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, 553.42 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, 841.27 feet; thence southerly 219.71 feet along a non -tangential curve, concave easterly, central angle of 19 degrees 31 minutes 03 seconds, radius of 645.00 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 09 degrees 45 minutes 31 seconds West, 218.65 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, April 14, 2006 2 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 tangent to said curve, 337.93 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, 300.04 feet to the point of beginning. TOGETHER with Lot 1, Block 2, HARVESTVIEW FIRST REPLAT, Rochester, Minnesota. Containing 163.9 acres more or less. 64Q .200. LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND FINDINGS. Subd. 1. Harvestview II provides a compelling alternative to single -use zones by offering a dramatically different mixed -use and environmentally, socially, economically, and aesthetically advanced development design. Subd. 2. This Special District is established to foster the development of a comprehensively planned, mixed income, pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods. This is accomplished by promoting a variety of land uses, housing types, and densities, and by requiring skillful architectural and landscape design in creating buildings and open spaces. The sites unique location, with the Douglas Trail along the north boundary and adjacent to major streets on the other three sides, makes this an ideal place to create a district that avoids the negative impacts of suburban sprawl with an efficient, compact, mixed -use land plan. Subd. 3. This type of development is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Land Use Plan and Housing Plan, which encourages creating mixed -use, and higher density residential neighborhoods (at the intersections of major streets). 64Q.210. ESTABLISHMENT OF HARVESTVIEW II SPECIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Pursuant to Section 62.900 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, the Rochester Common Council hereby creates a special zoning district to be known as the Harvestview II Special District ("Special District"). The Special District shall be an overlay -zoning district designed to encourage the attractive and innovative development of the Site. As a part of this Special District, the property will be divided into four different districts (see Exhibit B). The regulations and guidelines set forth in this Special District shall prevail over the regulations of the noted underlying zoning district. Subd. 2. The determination of the need for the creation of this Special District is based upon the following findings or Land Use Principles: April 14, 2006 3 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 A. This Special District is established to foster the development of a comprehensively planned, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood. This is accomplished by promoting a variety of land uses, housing types, and densities, and by requiring skillful architectural and landscape design in creating buildings and open spaces. The Site's unique location, adjacent to the Douglas Trail and three major streets, makes this an ideal place to create a neighborhood that avoids the negative impacts of suburban sprawl with an efficient, mixed -use land plan. B. The location of Harvestview II fits within the City's Urban Service Area. Harvestview II is located west of 50th Avenue NW (arterial) and north of 55th Street NW (collector) and east of County Road #3 (60th Avenue N.W.) (future expressway). 50th Avenue NW and 55rh Street have recently upgraded or are in the process of being upgraded to handle a greater ca�acity of traffic. A future signal is planned at the intersection of 55t Street and 50th Avenue NW. All perimeter streets will have bicycle/pedestrian trails adjacent to them. The Douglas Trail is also adjacent to the development and is located along its north boundary. C. A mix of uses within the development creates opportunities for people to walk and interact. That combined with strong urban and landscape design creates a sense of place. The size and shape of Harvestview II plus the location of the town centers ensures that all destinations are within an easy walk and that the development functions as a mixed -use neighborhood. D. A range of housing types serves people with different income levels and housing needs while contributing to the vitality of the streetscape. E. Harvestview II provides open space and connections to open space to meet the physical and emotional needs of residents and residents of nearby neighborhoods. The storm water management and the drainage systems are incorporated as amenities and are an integral part of the development. Harvestview II uses landscaping to accentuate the natural and built environment, establish visual connectivity and community identity and provides environmental and public health benefits. G. The quantity, location and design of parking in Harvestview II reinforces the pedestrian -friendly nature of the community and April 14, 2006 4 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 encourages use of alternative modes of transportation while still accommodating vehicular traffic. The higher density is supportive of mass transit. 64Q.220. UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Except where otherwise specified, standards for the development of this district will be based upon the following: A. Neighborhood Residential District - Section 62.220 — R-1 Low Density Residential District. B. Urban Residential District — Section 62.240 — R-3 Medium Density Residential District. C. Town Center District — Section 62.300 — B-1 Restricted Commercial District. D. Mixed Use District — Section 62.330 — B-5 Residential Commercial District. 64Q.225 DEFINITIONS A. Zero Lot Line: A lot designed for either one dwelling unit of an attached one -family dwelling unit or a detached one -family dwelling unit with one side yard reduced or eliminated. B. Townhouse: An arrangement of single family dwellings separate or joined by common walls on not more that two sides with the uppermost story being a portion of the same dwelling located directly beneath at the grade or first floor level and having exclusive individual ownership and occupant rights of each dwelling unit including but not limited to the land area directly beneath the dwelling. C. Rowhouse Style Townhouse: An attached dwelling joined to at least three others in a row by common walls on not more than two sides. Rowhouses are generally urban housing types, usually on their own lots. 64Q.230. SUBDISTRICT REGULATIONS. April 14, 2006 5 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Le.gal Corrected: April 24, 2006 Subd. 1. There are four subdistricts established in this Special District, including a "neighborhood residential district," an "urban residential district," a "town center district," and a "mixed use district." The following regulations apply within the subdistricts established in this special district. Subd. 2. The following regulations apply within the area identified as "Neighborhood Residential District" ("NRD") on the Harvestview II General Development Plan. The NRD consists of three land uses: "single- family," "compact single family" and "zero lot line." A. Single Family (1) Unless otherwise specified in this special district, the regulations of the R-1 District shall apply within the NRD. (2) Permitted uses shall include all Type I uses permitted in the R-1 District. (3) Lot Development Standards. (a) Minimum lot size shall be 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep. (b) Five-foot minimum side yard setback. (c) Side street yard setback shall be 1 V-0". (d) The only exemption from the front, and rear setback standards would be eaves and other items as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. (e) Lots without alleys or rear -loaded garages, the driveway curb cuts will be no greater than 12' width for a 2 car garage and 16' width for a 3 car garage. (f) Fifteen -foot front yard setback. A minimum of 50% of the house shall be built to the front setback. Covered porches and garage sidewalls may be counted in percentage. Garages shall be setback a minimum of 20', unless side -loaded, then the minimum setback is 15'. (g) A maximum of 10% of the homes on a block, the garages shall be even with the front of the house and a maximum of 10% of the homes on a block may have garages that protrude beyond the front of the house. The remainder of the garages shall be behind the front of the house a minimum of 5'-0". Garage setbacks of 8'-0" to 12'-0" (or greater) behind the front of the house is preferable. Front flush and front April 14, 2006 6 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 protruding garage style homes shall be interspaced throughout each block and never two in a row. (h) Lots that have an alley will not be permitted a curb cut to the public street in their front or side yard (i) Street trees of a minimum 1-1/2" caliper size are required at approximate 35' intervals in all grass boulevard areas of public streets. Q) Trees and landscaping (shrubs, perennials, groundcover or turf) are required in all street median islands. Median street trees shall be a minimum of 1- 1/2" caliper spaced approximately 35' on center or ornamental tree species that shall be a minimum of 1" caliper spaced approximately 15' on center. B. Compact Single Family & Zero Lot Line (1) The "compact single-family" and "Zero Lot line" areas shall conform to R-2 zoning with the following exemptions: (a) Unless otherwise specified in this special district, the regulations of the R-2 District shall apply within the NRD. (b) Permitted uses shall include all Type I uses permitted in the R-2 District. (c) Lot development standards: (1) Minimum lot size shall be 35' wide by 90' deep. (2) Fifteen -foot front yard setback. A minimum of 50% of the house shall be built to the front setback. Covered porches and garage sidewalls may be counted in percentage. (3) A maximum of 10% of the homes on a block, the garages shall be even with the front of the house and a maximum of 10% of the homes on a block may have garages that protrude beyond the front of the house. The remainder of the garages shall be behind the front of the house a minimum of 5'-0". Garage setbacks of 6' to 8' (or greater) behind the front of the house are preferable. Front flush and front protruding garage style homes shall be interspaced throughout each block and never two in a row. (4) Five-foot minimum side yard setback. (5) Side street yard setback shall be 1 V-0". April 14, 2006 7 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Le. -al Corrected: April 24, 2006 (6) Lots without alleys or rear -loaded garages, driveway curb cuts will be no greater than 12' width for a 2 car garage and 16' width for a 3 car garage. (7) Lots that have an alley will not be permitted a curb cut to the public street in their front or side yard. (8) Street trees of a minimum 1-1/2" caliper size are required at approximate 35' intervals in all grass boulevard areas of public streets. (9) Trees and landscaping (shrubs, perennials, groundcover or turf) are required in all street median islands. Median street trees shall be a minimum of 1-1/2" caliper spaced approximately 35' on center or ornamental tree species that shall be a minimum of 1" caliper spaced approximately 15' on center. (d) Architectural Standards. A building must incorporate architectural styles, building materials and colors used in surrounding buildings. Blocks within the NRD shall provide for an adequate mix of architectural styles, as shown with residential character intent images relevant to the block, consistent with the overall architectural standards of the special district. Subd.3. Urban Residential District (URD). The following regulations apply within the area identified as "Urban Residential District " on the Harvestview II General Development Plan. The URD consists of three land uses: "Townhomes", "Rowhouse- Style Townhomes" and "Multi -Family". Residential uses shall include rowhouse style townhomes, townhomes, multi -family buildings (apartments or condos) units, and senior housing. A. Townhomes (1) The "Townhome" area shall conform to R-2 zoning with the following modifications: (a) Fifteen -foot front yard setback. A minimum of 50% of the house shall be built to the front setback. Covered porches and garage sidewalks may be counted. Garages shall be setback a minimum of 20', unless side loaded, then the minimum setback is 15'. (b) Five-foot minimum side yard setback. (c) Side street yard setback shall be I V-0". April 14, 2006 8 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April24, 2006 (d) Front yard setback on private streets shall be measured from face of curb for both "access roadways" and "limited access roadways." (e) Class "A" exposure setback shall be 20'. (f) Lots without alleys or rear -loaded garages, driveway curb cuts will be no greater than 12' width for a 2 car garage and 16' width for a 3 car garage. (g) Lots that have an alley will not be permitted a curb cut to the public street in their front or side yard. (h) Street trees of a minimum 1-1/2" caliper size are required at approximate 35' intervals in all grass boulevard areas of public streets. (i) Trees and landscaping (shrubs, perennials, groundcover or turf) are required in all street median islands. Median street trees shall be a minimum of 1- 1/2" caliper spaced approximately 35' on center or ornamental tree species that shall be a minimum of 1" caliper spaced approximately 15' on center. B. Rowhouse Style Townhomes (1) The "Rowhouse Style Townhomes" shall conform to R-3 zoning with the following modifications: (a) Front yard setbacks shall be 15'. A minimum of 50% of the buildings shall be built to the front setback. (b) Private patios, enclosed with fence/columns are allowed in the front yard setback. (c) Side street yard setback shall be 12'-0". (d) Class "A" exposure setback shall be 20'. (e) Street trees of a minimum 1-1/2" caliper size are required at approximate 35' intervals in all grass boulevard areas of public streets. (f) Trees and landscaping (shrubs, perennials, groundcover or turf) are required in all street median islands. Median street trees shall be a minimum of 1- 1/2" caliper spaced approximately 35' on center or ornamental tree species that shall be a minimum of 1" caliper spaced approximately 15' on center. C. Multi -Family (1) The "Multi -Family" area shall conform to R-3 zoning with the following modifications: April 14, 2006 9 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 (a) Front yard setback shall be 15'-0". A minimum of 50% of the buildings shall be built to the front setback. Steps, eaves, decks, and fence hedges for courtyards are permitted to encroach within the setback. (b) Rear yard setback shall be 20'-0" minimum. (c) Side yard setback shall be 10'-0" minimum. (d) Side street yard setback shall be 12'-0 '. (e) Maximum of five stories. (f) Street trees of a minimum 1-1/2" caliper size are required at approximate 35' intervals in all grass boulevard areas of public streets. (g) Trees and landscaping (shrubs, perennials, groundcover or turf) are required in all street median islands. Median street trees shall be a minimum of 1- 1/2" caliper spaced approximately 35' on center or ornamental tree species that shall be a minimum of 1" caliper spaced approximately 15' on center. D. Architectural Standards (1) Standards for all uses: (a) Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 1.0 shall be allowed with a maximum building height of five stories with a landscape area of 20%. Subd. 4. Town Center District. The "Town Center" permitted uses and appearance control standards shall comply with Section 62.310 for the B-1 Zoning District, unless regulated in this Special District. A. Site Development Plan and Site Plan Review: A site development plan for uses in the Town Center shall be prepared and submitted for review in accordance with the standard requirements of the existing Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the City of Rochester. The City Planning Commission will conduct a site plan review without a public hearing for uses within the Town Center to determine whether the plans are consistent with the overall architectural standards and character of this Special District. Proposed uses in the Town Center shall be reviewed in terms of the extent to which they comply with standards of this district established for architecture, signage, parking and landscaping. April 14, 2006 10 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 B. Except for drive-in facilities, convenience retail (with fuel sales), and medical facilities, a minimum of 50% of the building's front fagade shall be within five eleven feet of the street right of way. Where necessaryto accommodate spread footings and overhangs, the building setback may be increased, only to the extent necessary. C. Convenience -retail and drinking and entertainment uses shall be exempt from the hours of operation requirements of the B-1 Zoning District. D. Stacking requirements for drive-in facilities shall be reduced to five in -bound and one out -bound space per lane. E. Parking shall be on the side or to the rear of the retail uses. Besides on -street parking, no parking in front of the retail uses shall be allowed. On street parking in front or on the side of the lot shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirements. F. Except for restaurants, drive-in facilities and convenience retail (with fuel sales), a minimum two-story fagade is required. G. Office, personal service, and residential uses are also allowed on the upper levels. One off-street parking stall per residential unit is required and must be reserved. H. Underground parking and parking structures (maximum five stories) shall be allowed. Permitted uses shall include the following: (1) All Type I uses permitted in the B-1 District with the exception of the following uses: (a) Manufactured Home Park (b) Sales & Storage Lots (c) Parking Facility (as a principle use) (d) Sand or Gravel Excavation (e) Auto Center (f) Trade Shops (g) Use of Storage Containers (2) Additional uses permitted in the Town Center shall be as follows: (a) Residential — condos, and/or apartments at grade, or above retail/commercial. (b) Congregate Housing. April 14, 2006 11 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 (c) Convenience Stores. (d) Day Care facilities. (e) Drinking and Entertainment. (f) Bed and Breakfast. (g) Car washes accessory to a convenience retail use or automotive maintenance service. (h) Veterinary Services. (i) Emergency Services. Q) Temporary uses — art fairs, farmer's market, flea markets, neighborhood gatherings. J. Limitation on permitted uses: (1) Not more that one convenience retail use that includes sales of automotive fuels may be permitted in each Town Center District. (2) With the exception of transit transient accommodations (hotels) , resta� a uses a grocery stores, and medical facilities, individual businesses shall not exceed 20,000 square of floor area on the ground floor. K. Lot Development Standards (1) Facilities for refuse disposal and recycling shall be enclosed by solid fence or walls, and landscaping shall be installed around the perimeter (except in underground parking). (2) Utility boxes and water backflow prevention devices shall be located so they are visually unobtrusive and screened with landscaping as allowed. (3) Buildings shall be oriented to face the street with entrances and display windows at the street level. Extended awnings, canopies or large umbrellas shall be permitted and located to provide shade. A revocable permit will be required by the City whenever a canopy or awning extends into the public right of way. Restaurants shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes on sidewalks, including areas within the public right of way and in courtyards provided that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances are not impaired. (4) Bicycle -locking stands are required in each Town Center area. One stand, which holds a minimum of six bicycles, shall be provided for every 20,000 square feet of gross leaseable space. These stands must harmonize with the architectural of the retail area. April 14, 2006 12 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 (5) Street trees are required along the public streets of all mixed -use buildings at a minimum spacing of 35' on center. These trees shall be planted in tree grates or planting beds with a minimum size of 30 square feet and a minimum dimension of 5'-0". (6) Over -story trees will be required along all private streets and the rear of the buildings (facing parking lot) at a minimum spacing of 40' intervals. These trees shall be planted in open turf areas or in planting beds with a minimum size of 30 square feet and a minimum dimension Of 5'-0". L. Parking (1) Parking requirements for the Town Center District, shall use business center parking standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual only when the building has multiple uses in it or there is multiple buildings using one perking lot. Otherwise, parking requirements for the use as listed in the B-1 zoning district applies. (2) In commercial or office uses, which have shop fronts adjacent to sidewalks and streets, on -street parking directly in front of the lot shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirement. (3) Parking lot screening: (a) All parking areas containing more than six spaces (if not screened by the building from public roads and not including angle or perpendicular parking adjacent to public or private roads) must be screened with a hedgerow, or a 36" high berm, or a low wall (42" minimum height). These landscaped areas must be a minimum of 3'-0" wide. Where angle or perpendicular parking is adjacent to these areas, then the minimum width shall be 5'-0". Hedgerows shall be planted at a maximum of 4'-0" on center and shall reach a minimum height of 36" and a maximum height of 6'- 0". (b) Parking lots for apartments/multi-family units will not be required to be screened with a hedgerow. A landscaped area of trees and shrubs shall be provided to draw attention away from the parking area. April 14, 2006 13 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 f (4) Parking Lot Landscaping: (a) Parking areas containing more than 15 spaces and containing more than two contiguous or parallel rows of parking shall have internal landscaping within the parking area equal to at least five percent of paved area of the lot (including drive aisles plus driveways). (b) Paved areas do not include sidewalks, patios, or other paved areas not associated with vehicle parking or circulation. Planting areas must be distributed throughout the parking areas. They must have a minimum width of at least eight feet and be at least 100 square feet in area. (c) Each 100 square feet of required landscape area must contain at least one canopy tree or two understory trees (minimum size for canopy trees in 1- 1l2" caliper and minimum size for understory tree is one inch caliper). The landscape islands shall not be used for snow storage and any planting must be maintained in a healthy condition and appearance. These areas may contain external standard lighting fixtures. M. Signs (1) Signs should add interest to the street level environment. They can only unify the overall architectural concept of the building, or provide unique identity for a commercial space within a larger mixed -use structure. Signage shall be appropriate for the scale, character and use of the project and surrounding area. Signs should be oriented and scaled for both pedestrians on sidewalks and vehicles on streets. The following sign types satisfy these requirements: (a) Pedestrian -oriented blade and window signs. (b) Marquee signs and signs on over -head weather protection. (c) Appropriately sized neon signs. (2) Type B sign standards shall be used with the following modifications: April 14, 2006 14 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 (a) Free standing sign — maximum height 15'. (b) Projecting sign — maximum area — 20 square feet, maximum height —12 feet. (c) Graphics sign — maximum area of 10% of wall. (d) Auxiliary sign — maximum height —6'. (e) Advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. (f) All wall signage should be uniform in size. N. Architectural Standards. (1) Standards for all uses: (a) Floor Area Ratio (F.A. R.) of 1.0 shall be allowed with a maximum building height of five stories with a landscape area of 20%. (b) Each building shall avoid long, monotonous - uninterrupted walls or roof planes. The fagade of a building should be divided into distinct modules, no longer than 150 feet. (c) Mechanical equipment, electrical and communication transformers, cabinets and service areas shall be located out of public view where feasible or screened from public view with fences, walls or landscaping. (d) Dwellings and parking shall not occupy more than five floors above ground of any structure. (2) Standards for Convenience Retail Uses (a) Convenience retail uses shall locate automotive fuel service and drive-in service areas away from residences and toward the perimeter streets on the General Development Plan (60th Avenue NW and 55th Street NW). (b) Light from lighting fixtures and signage, and sound from sound -producing equipment shall be deflected away from residences. Music from sound producing equipment shall be prohibited on the exterior of the building. (c) Foundation landscaping (4' minimum planting bed width) and windows shall be provided along all building sides that are open to view from public streets. (d) Perimeter landscaping at least five feet in depth shall be provided along public and private roads between April 14, 2006 15 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legat Corrected: April 24, 2006 sidewalks and driveway or parking areas. Landscape berming is strongly encouraged. (e) Pedestrians must be able to safely access the building from public sidewalks on visually prominent crosswalks within drive areas to the building's front door. (3) Standards for Other Uses: Uses shall meet the intent of similar character represented in Exhibit "F" and shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards of this special district in addition to the following standards: (a) All sides of the building fagade shall be designed to provide architectural and visual interest. (1) A minimum of 50% of the building along a street right of way at ground level must be clear or lightly tinted windows, doors, or other treatment that are sufficiently transparent to provide pedestrian views into the building. (2) Awnings, covered walkway, open colonnades, or similar weather protection must be provided by at least 50% of the commercial (retail & service) uses that front the right of way. (3) Doorways, windows and other openings in the fagade of a building shall be proportioned to reflect pedestrian scale and movement, and to encourage interest at the street level. (4) Except for drive -in -facilities, a minimum two- story fagade is required. the Fight rvf-wcT (6) Exterior materials shall include brick, architecturally treated concrete, stone, tile, stucco, stucco -like panels and other cultured stone, and similar high quality architectural materials. (7) Buildings shall be oriented to face the street with entrances and display windows at the street level. Extended awnings, canopies or large umbrellas shall be permitted and located to provide shade. A revocable permit will be required by the City whenever a canopy or awning extends into the public right of way. April 14, 2006 16 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 Restaurants shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes on sidewalks, including area within the public right of way and in courtyards provided that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances are not permitted. Subd. 5. Mixed Use District: A. The "Mixed Use District" permitted uses and appearance control standards shall comply with Section 62,330 for the B- 5 Zoning District, unless regulated in this Special District. B. Site Development Plan and Site Plan Review: A site development plan for uses in the Mixed Use District shall be prepared and submitted for review in accordance with the standard requirements of the existing Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the City of Rochester. The City Planning Commission will conduct a site plan review without a public hearing for uses within the Mixed Use District to determine whether the plans are consistent with the overall architectural standards and character of this Special District. Proposed uses in the Mixed Use District shall be reviewed in terms of the extent to which they comply with standards of this district established for architecture, signage, parking and landscaping. C. A minimum of 50% of the building's front fagade shall be within five eleven feet of the street right of way. Where necessary to accommodate spread footings and overhangs, the buflding setback may be increased, only to the extent necessary. D. Parking shall be on the side or to the rear of the uses. Besides on -street parking, no off-street parking in front of the uses shall be allowed. On street parking in front or on the side of the lot shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirements. E. Except for restaurants, a minimum two-story fagade is required. F. Office and residential uses are also allowed on the upper levels. One off-street parking stall per residential unit is required and must be reserved. April 14, 2006 17 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 G. Underground parking and parking structures (maximum five stories) shall be allowed. H. Maximum size for a restaurant use is 6,000 square feet. Alcohol sales are permitted. The height allowed for a two-story building shall be 35 feet. K. Lot Development Standards (1) Facilities for refuse disposal and recycling shall be enclosed by solid fence or walls, and landscaping shall be installed around the perimeter (except in underground parking). (2) Utility boxes and water backflow prevention devices shall be located so they are visually unobtrusive and screened with landscaping as allowed. (3) Buildings shall be oriented to face the street with entrances and display windows at the street level. Extended awnings, canopies or large umbrellas shall be permitted and located to provide shade. A revocable permit will be required by the City whenever a canopy or awning extends into the public right of way. Restaurants shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes on sidewalks, including areas within the public right of way and in courtyards provided that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances are not impaired. (4) Street trees are required along the public streets of all mixed -use buildings at a minimum spacing of 35' on center. These trees shall be planted in tree grates or planting beds with a minimum size of 30 square feet and a minimum dimension of 5'-0". (5) Over -story trees will be required along all private streets and the rear of the buildings (facing parking lot) at a minimum spacing of 40' intervals. These trees shall be planted in open turf areas or in planting beds with a minimum size of 30 square feet and a minimum dimension of 5'-W. April 14, 2006 18 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 L. Parking requirements for the Mixed Use District shall use standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual for the use as listed in the B-5 zoning district standards. (1) Parking lot screening: (a) All parking areas containing more than six spaces (if not screened by the building from public roads and not including angle or perpendicular parking adjacent to public or private roads) must be screened with a hedgerow, or a 36" high berm, or a low wall (42" minimum height). These landscaped areas must be a minimum of T-0" wide. Where angle or perpendicular parking is adjacent to these areas, then the minimum width shall be T-0". Hedgerows shall be planted at a maximum of 4'-0" on center and shall reach a minimum height of 36" and a maximum height of 6'-0". (2) Parking Lot Landscaping: (a) Parking areas containing more than 15 spaces and containing more than two contiguous or parallel rows of parking shall have internal landscaping within the parking area equal to at least five percent of paved area of the lot (including drive aisles plus driveways). (b) Paved areas do not include sidewalks, patios, or other paved areas not associated with vehicle parking or circulation. Planting areas must be distributed throughout the parking areas. They must have a minimum width of at least eight feet and be at least 100 square feet in area. (c) Each 100 square feet of required landscape area must contain at least one canopy tree or two understory trees (minimum size for canopy trees in 1-1/2" caliper and minimum size for understory tree is one inch caliper). The landscape islands shall not be used for snow storage and any planting must be maintained in a healthy condition and appearance. These April 14, 2006 19 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 In (2) N. April 14, 2006 REVISED: April 21, 2006 areas may contain external standard lighting fixtures. Signs (1) Signs should add interest to the street level environment. They can only unify the overall architectural concept of the building, or provide unique identity for a commercial space within a larger mixed -use structure. Signage shall be appropriate for the scale, character and use of the project and surrounding area. Signs should be oriented and scaled for both pedestrians on sidewalks and vehicles on streets. The following sign types satisfy these requirements: (a) Pedestrian -oriented blade and window signs. (b) Marquee signs and signs on over -head weather protection. (c) Appropriately sized neon signs. Type A sign standards shall be used with the following modification: (a) Signs can be internally lit. Architectural Standards. (1) Standards for all uses: (a) Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 1.0 shall be allowed with a maximum building height of five stories with a landscape area of 20%. (b) Each building shall avoid long, monotonous - uninterrupted walls or roof planes. The fagade of a building should be divided into distinct modules, no longer than 150 feet. (c) Mechanical equipment, electrical and communication transformers, cabinets and service areas shall be located out of public view where feasible or screened from public view with fences, walls or landscaping. (d) Dwellings and parking shall not occupy more than five floors above ground of any structure. 20 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 (e) All sides of the building fagade shall be designed to provide architectural and visual interest. (1) A minimum of 50% of the building along a street right of way at ground level must be clear or lightly tinted windows, doors, or other treatment that are sufficiently transparent to provide pedestrian views into the building. (2) Awnings, covered walkway, open colonnades, or similar weather protection must be provided by at least 25% of the commercial (retail & service) uses that front the right of way. (3) Doorways, windows and other openings in the facade of a building shall be proportioned to reflect pedestrian scale and movement, and to encourage interest at the street level. (4) Exterior materials shall include brick, architecturally treated concrete, stone, tile, stucco, stucco -like panels and other cultured stone, and similar high quality architectural materials. (5) Buildings shall be oriented to face the street with entrances and display windows at the street level. Extended awnings, canopies or large umbrellas shall be permitted and located to provide shade. A revocable permit will be required by the City whenever a canopy or awning extends into the public right of way. Restaurants shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes on sidewalks, including area within the public right of way and in courtyards provided that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances are not permitted. April 14, 2006 21 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 64Q.250 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Public street section for HarvestView II shall follow the cross - sections shown in Exhibits "D" and "E". 64Q.300. BOUNDARIES The regulations established herein shall apply to the land described in Section 64 100 and shall be designated "SD" on the zoning map. 64Q.400 EXHIBITS The following documents shall be submitted with the Special District application and included as exhibits of this Ordinance: A. Harvestview II General Development Plan, Exhibit A. B. Special District Boundary Plan, Exhibit B C. Land Use Plan, Exhibit C. D. Neighborhood Street Standards, Exhibit D. E. Neighborhood Street Sections, Exhibit E F. Character Intent Images, Exhibit F. G. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, Exhibit G 64Q.500 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND GUIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT The Harvestview 11 General Development Plan, following Special District approval and a rezoning of the area to Special District, together with the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E & F are, in combination, recognized as the guide for the development of the Special District. 64Q.600. EFFECTS OF REGULATIONS The General Development Plan and Final Plats together with the conditions and restrictions imposed, if any, shall govern the use and development of the land. April 14, 2006 REVISED: April 21, 2006 22 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 64Q.700. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL DISTRICT The Special District may be extended by amendment to include the property on the west side. An amendment to the Special District may be initiated by the owner of contiguous undeveloped property or by the City of Rochester. The amendment must support the intent of this Special District. A petition to extend said district shall be accompanied by a General Development Plan application and additional submittals consistent with this Chapter. 64Q. 800. DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES Subdivision 1. Except as herein described, development procedures for property within the Special District shall be consistent with the requirements of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. Additional plans and information shall be submitted, as necessary, for development within the Special District, as outlined below. If determined necessary by the Zoning Administrator, additional plans or information necessary for development approvals shall also be submitted. Subd. 2. Final Plat Application. Final plat applications within the Special District shall include plans and information consistent with the requirements of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and shall be submitted at least three weeks prior to the City Council meeting at which they will be considered. If requested by the Zoning Administrator, additional information needed in order to judge the nature and propriety of the proposal shall also be submitted. Subd. 3. Zoning Certificate and Building Permit. Applications for building permits and zoning certificates within the Special District shall include submission of a Harvestview II Architectural Review Committee document. This document must verify a review of sitting and plans for compliance with this Special District's intent, as outlined in the covenants submitted with the final plat. 64Q.900. RESCINDING APPROVAL. After six years from the date of approval of the Special District, the Council may, following a public hearing, rescind approval of this Special District upon finding that no progress has been made in the construction of the development. Section 2. Section 60.327 of the Rochester Code of Ordinance is amended and reenacted to read as follows: April 14, 2006 23 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 60.237 SPECIAL DISTRICTS: Existing Special Districts approved by Ordinance numbers 3443, 3404, 2726, 2516, 2247, 3385, 3468, 3497, 3503, 3520, 3534, 3604, 3615 and 3691 are 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 specific site/development plan review process, but does not specify the critieria by which to review the site/development plan, the development will be reviewed under Section 61.148. 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 2005. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2005. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 0rtf05164Q.Ha"wMm11 April 14, 2006 24 REVISED: April 21, 2006 Legal Corrected: April 24, 2006 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a3� DATE: 5-1-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Amendment to General Development Plan #241 known as Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner Harvestview II. jJ yy� N o-Fc- April 25, 2006 ,,,I ✓ SD City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 12, 2006, Please see the attached minutes for additional detail, discussion and input from the neighborhood. Mr. McGuine moved to recommend approval of Amendment to General Development Plan 4241 known as Harvestview 11 and GDP # 190 known as Harvestview with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-3, with Ms. Rivas, Ms. Wiesner, and Mr. Wallace voting nay. CONDITIONS: Since the GDP is proposed to be amended to include an adjacent 4.2 acre parcel, and the findings and conditions previously adopted for the approval of this GDP remain valid for the proposal, staff recommends that the findings and conditions in the attached resolution should be adopted, with the following additional conditions/modifications: 1. Amend the Harvestview II GDP to properly label the 4.2 acre parcel as being in the Town Center District, and to modify the boundaries of the GDP so that it is clearly included in the Harvestview II GDP. 2. The property proposed to be transferred from the Harvestview GDP#190 & Special District #12 to the Harvestview II GDP#241 & Special District #16 is included in the executed Harvestview Development Agreement and Supplemental Agreement. Execution of a Second Supplemental Development Agreement is required to address, in part, the Owner's applicable Transportation Improvement District contribution based on the current proposed use of the Property. 3. As proposed, the easterly access driveway to 56" St NW does not meet recommended guidelines for corner clearance as outlined in the ROCOG 2035 transportation Plan (see Page 4-60). Modifying the proposed driveway to an "Exit Only" could address this issue. Alternatively a TIR should be prepared to determine if the access driveway location as proposed will negatively impact the operation f level of service on 50`h Ave NW. 4. The private access to 55t" St NW was previously identified as a one-way for southbound traffic. The southerly parking lot access is too close to the intersection of 551h St NW and must be modified (to be minimum 120 ft). Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to approve the General Development Plan it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by, to: PROPOSED GDP AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR 4.2 ACRE PARCEL 05/01/06 15:48 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OI.M PLANNING DEPT. i CI'!:Y CLERK 2001 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF,gO..... R ........� 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 www.olmstedcounty.coMplanning ?,',• ; � a o •. GRA7ED•A09T•5•w Memorandum To: Mayor and Common Council From: Brent Svenby, Planning Department Date: 5/1/2006 Re: E-5 Amendment to Final Plat #03-11 Maine Street Development After meeting with the applicant this morning regarding the recommended conditions of approval and fact that a preliminary plat has been submitted for the property to the west, staff recommends that the following language be added to condition number 2. Alternatively, if the Canal Place SE subdivision plat, which proposes to re -plat these outlots as a public roadway, is recorded concurrent with this plat, then private ownership, maintenance and easement documents for said outlots will not be required. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGITIAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 �•++.� PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-6345 FAX 507/287-2275 ,„per AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 4( OINI I0 iS3MHidON 33iN33 1d01Q3W 0hSw lu o ae'I�iogel _ NY{d 311S 03SOdO2id ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAxiMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 cou." ,F wwwolmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior, Planner DATE: April 6, 2006 RE: General Development Plan #241 to be known as Harvestview If. Property Information: Applicant/Owner: Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises Inc. 3428 NW Lakeridge Place #200 Rochester, MN 55901 Engineer: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The property is located along the north side of 55'" Street NW, along the east side of 60" Avenue NW, along the south side of the Douglas Trail and west of the Harvestview development. The development is approximately 163 acres. Summary of Proposed Amendment: The approved Harvestview II GDP includes approximately 159 acres of land; the approved Harvestview I GDP includes approximately 17.09 acres of land. The applicant is proposing to transfer approximately 4.2 acres of land from the Harvestview I GDP and Special District, to the Harvestview II GDP and Special District and to amend the style of development proposed on the 4.2 acre area located immediately north of 55'" Street and west of 50'" Ave. NW. If the Special District amendments are approved, the amendments to the General Development Plan would be acceptable if approved with conditions as identified in this report. Amendments to the Harvestview I and Harvestview It Special Districts are being proposed and considered concurrent with this application. The GDP includes approximately 163 acres of land proposed to be developed with mixed uses, including a range of residential densities as well as commercial uses. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGAMAPPING 507MS-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 7��1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYlAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 General Development Plan April 6. 2006 As identified in a previous report for the Harvestview If GDP: The Land Use Exhibit for the special district shows how the adjacent properties could be developed if they were included in this special district. Based on this plan the east side of 60'h Avenue NW would basically have commercial uses established along its entire frontage. Also with the potential site layout the most northerly roadway from 600, Avenue NW is shown as a main commercial center into the development This most northerly access location on 6cp Avenue NW will be rightin/rightout only once roadway improvements are made to 60" Avenue NW. The middle access location on 60" Avenue NW will be the future location of a signal light and ft would be more logically to have the main commercial area into the development at this location and have the northerly portion be housing of some type. No review was performed on this portion shown on the GDP. It is very likely that staff would not the support the conceptual layout shown on the adjacent properties that are not part of this proposed special district. Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Since the GDP is proposed to be amended to include an adjacent 4.2 acre parcel, and the findings and conditions previously adopted for the approval of this GDP remain valid for the proposal, staff recommends that the findings and conditions in the attached resolution should be adopted, with the following additional conditionsimodifications; 1. Amend the Harvestview 11 GDP to property label the 4.2 acre parcel as being in the Town Center District, and to modify the boundaries of the GDP so that it is clearly included in the Harvestview 11 GDP. 2. The property proposed to be transferred from the Harvestview GDP#190 & Special District #12 to the Harvestview A GDP#241 & Special District #16 is included in the executed Harvestview Development Agreement and Supplemental Agreement. Execution of a Second Supplemental Development Agreement is required to address, in part, the Owner's applicable Transportation Improvement District contribution based on the current proposed use of the Property. 3. As proposed, the easterly access driveway to 56th St NW does not meet recommended guidelines for corner clearance as outlined in the ROCOG 2035 transportation Plan (see Page 4-60). Modifying the proposed driveway to an "Exit Only" could address this issue. Alternatively a TIR should be prepared to determine if the access driveway location as proposed will negatively impact the operation / level of service on 50' Ave NW. 4. The private access to 5e St NW was previously identified as a one-way for southbound traffic. The southerly parking lot access is too close to the intersection of 55'h St NW and must be modified (to be minimum 120 it). 0 FINDINGS OF FACT GPD #241 HARVESTVIEW II J BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: General Development Plan #241 (Hanrestview II) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order On February 7, 2005, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing, upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of the public hearing held on January 12, 2005, in response to the application for General Development Plan #241. At the February 7t" public hearing, all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and make presentations concerning the application. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At its public hearing on this application, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the issue of whether General Development Plan #241 satisfied the conditions of ROCHESTER, MINN., CODE ORDINANCES §61.215 (1999). 2. R.C.O. §61.215 provides that a general development plan must comply with all of the following criteria: A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted zoning map. if the general development plan is being processed concurrently with a rezoning request, the general development plan and the rezoning request must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 NI amendment, rezoning request, the land use plan map 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 are 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 shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been r evidenced. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. 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. Area 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. R.C.O. §60.532 (5) authorizes the approving body to impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with §61.215. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the General Development Plan application using the criteria found at Section 61.215 and recommended the following findings of fact: A. The property is designated for "low density residential" types of land uses on Land Use Plan. The applicant is petitioning for a Special District for the property, which would create a mixed -use development consisting of single family attached, single family detach, multi -family residential, and retail/commercialloffice uses. The Land Use Plan supports mixed -use development. B. Minimum lot sizes of 35 feet wid with the larger single family lots Reduced lot sizes, setbacks and density being proposed with the compact development. e are proposed within this development, being approximately 60-60 feet wide. roadway widths along with increased Special District would result in a more The proposed street and alley layout as shown on the GDP is acceptable, however, speck access spacing and design will be reviewed in detail at the time of construction plan / site development review, and individual access locations/design may be subject to modifications to meet design/ordinance standards through the detailed review process. The applicant needs to meet with the City Public Works Department to review the proposed roadways and determine if all of the classifications are warranted. The roadway standards and cross sections should be supported be the Public Works Department prior to the City taking any action on the GDP and Special District. Based on the supported roadway standards and cross sections the roadway layout of the GDP could change. Modifications to the roadway in Phase I, in the north half of the compact single family area, the intersection in the south central and the intersection in the NE comer need to be changed so that the streets intersect at right angles. C. See responses to Criteria A and B. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. D. 55ih Street, west of 52nd Avenue N.W., was recently upgraded. The rest of 55ih Street NW, from 52nd Avenue NW to 60 Avenue NW, is scheduled to be reconstructed this year. The proposed street and alley layout as shown on the GDP is acceptable, however, specific access spacing and design will be reviewed in detail at the time of construction plan / site development review, and individual access locations/design may be subject to modifications to meet design/ordinance standards through the detailed review process. The applicant needs to meet with the City Public Works Department to review the proposed roadways and determine if all of the classifications are warranted. The roadway standards and cross sections should be supported be the Public Works Department prior to the City taking any action on the GDP and Special District. Based on the supported roadway standards and cross sections the roadway layout of the GDP could change. Modifications to the roadway in Phase 1, in the north half of the compact single family area, the intersection in the south central and the intersection in the NE comer need to be changed so that the streets intersect at right angles. E. The proposed street and alley layout as shown on the GDP is acceptable, however, specific access spacing and design will be reviewed in detail at the time of construction plan / site development review, and individual access locations/design may be subject to modifications to meet design/ordinance standards through the detailed review process. E l The applicant needs to meet with the City Public Works Department to review the proposed roadways and determine if all of the classifications are warranted. The roadway standards and cross sections should be supported be the Public Works Department prior to the City taking any action on the GDP and Special District. Based on the supported roadway standards and cross sections the roadway layout of the GDP could change. Modifications to the roadway in Phase 1, in the north half of the compact single family area, the intersection in the south central and the intersection in the NE corner need to be changed so that the streets intersect at right angles. The Transportation Improvement District (TID) cost allocation program will be applicable should the applicant voluntarily enter into a development agreement with the City to increase the adequacy of the current public facilities. The property is within the Northwest High Level Water System Area, which is available in four locations to the site. Static water pressure within this area will range from 55 to 100 PSI depending on final grades. Builders will need to install pressure -reducing devices, in the higher - pressure areas, near the domestic water meters as required by the MN Plumbing. The water mains must be looped to prevent "dead ends" and extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU Water Division. A sewer line was recently installed that runs diagonally through the site from the Weatherstone Development. The City Public Works Department has previously informed the applicant that additional land (approximately 17 acres) may need to be acquired by the City for the construction of additional regional stormwater management facilities that are needed to serve this, and abutting future developments. Without these additional facilities there would be inadequate public facilities to serve the proposal. The additional land needed will change the layout of the GDP and Special District. Parkland dedication requirements for this development will be approximately 30 acres. At least 13.5 acres of the projected land requirement should be in the form of qualifying land and meet the minimum dedication standards. The dedicated land should have a natural slope of 4% or less and not be located in a watercourse, a 100 year floodway, drainage easement or water ponding area and must be suitable for the seeding and cultivation of grass. The proposed parkland does not provide adequate qualifying parkland to meet the dedication requirement. According to the storm water management plan, to up 2 and a half acres of the 8 acre park is to be used for stormwater storage and the open space/trail corridor located east of the proposed elementary school, which had been previously been considered as meeting at least '/z acre of parkland dedication requirement, is now proposed to be used for permanent stormwater storage. The GDP will need to be revised adding 3 acres of land, which meet the minimum dedication standards, to the 8 acre park since there are now stormwater storage ponds shown on the park sites. Future ownership, maintenance and construction responsibilities for the open space areas/environmental corridors and future trail corridors will be addressed in the Development Agreement. F. The City Public Works Department has previously informed the applicant that additional land (approximately 17 acres) may need to be acquired by the City for the construction of additional regional stormwater management facilities that are needed to serve this, and abutting future developments. Without these additional facilities there would be inadequate public facilities to serve the proposal. The additional land needed will change the layout of the GDP and Special District. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted. G. N/A. H. See responses to Criteria A and B. 5. Based upon its recommended findings of fact, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the General Development Plan subject to compliance with the following conditions: A. There are on and off site public facilities that are currently inadequate to accommodate the proposed development, specifically sanitary sewer capacity and storm water facilities. The development must be phased -in in a manner consistent with the City's planned infrastructure improvements. No development will be allowed to occur for any phase, until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said phase of development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations relating, but not limited, to: stormwater management, transportation improvements, access control, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, contributions for public infrastructure, wetland maintenance & ownership, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties. B. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development. The Special District / GDP narrative indicates that the City has existing stormwater detention facilities abutting this Property that will provide Storm Water Management for the proposed development. Public Works staff has previously informed the Owner that additional land (approximately 17 acres) may need to be acquired by the City for the construction of additional regional stormwater management facilities that are needed to serve this, and abutting future developments. The GDP and Special District plans may need to be revised to accommodate the area needed for stormwater management facilities. Exhibit 'G' indicates proposed on -site stormwater facilities that have not formally been reviewed by Public Works staff to determine their adequacy for addressing part of or all of the applicants obligations related to Storm Water Management for this Property. This is a conceptual drawing and that supporting documentation for design etc has not been submitted and/or reviewed. The finished property line grading abutting the perimeter roadways shall match the future profile and cross section determined by the City, and/or County. C. Pedestrian facilities are required at the Owner's expense along both sides of all new public roads within this development, and along the abutting frontages of the periphery roadways as specified in the GDP / Special District narrative. The Owner's obligations regarding construction of internal trails, including any required mid -block connections, and the proposed pedestrian bridge should be addressed in the Development Agreement. D. Ownership & maintenance of the wetlands and other proposed open space needs to be addressed in the Development Agreement. E. Right-of-way dedication and reservation for the perimeter roadways will be addressed in the Development Agreement for the Property, and will include the following obligations of for this Property: 100 ft for 60'" Ave NW, and 60 ft for 551" ST NW. Dedication of controlled access will be required through the platting process for the entire frontages of the perimeter roadways, with the exception of any approved public streets access locations. F. The proposed 11 roadway classifications + alley shall be reviewed in detail with Public Works to determine if all classifications are warranted, or I certain proposed classifications can be combined. An agreement regarding the permitted street classifications should be reached prior to r 9-Al final Special District approval. G. The street length of residential streets should be minimized per RCO 64.124. Streets having a length in excess of 1000 feet without a horizontal curve with a maximum 200 ft radius and minimum 30 degree deflection should be discouraged 1 redesigned unless traffic calming measures are incorporated. H. An environmental corridor of sufficient width, extending northeasterly from just north of the 55' St NW / 60r" Ave NW intersection to the regional stormwater ponds, shall be defined on the GDP and subsequently dedicated to the City for stormwater conveyance. Proposed Street Section 'A' will need to be modified to accommodate turn lanes and adequate storage for a future signalized intersection. Various street sections indicate parkin. Parking will need to be prohibited adjacent to intersections with 55 St NW & 60`h Ave NW as necessary to allow for turn lanes and to reduce congestion entering & exiting these roadways. J. Streets shall intersect at right angles. In phase 1, in the north half of the compact single family area, the intersection in the south central and the intersection in the NE corner need to be changed. K. The Owners shall provide regional storm water management facilities on the property consistent with the Section 7 Storm Water Management Plan or any subsequent Council revision to the Section 7 Plan approved before December 31, 2005. If the City needs to acquire land within the Harvestview II GDP from the Owner for the implementation of the Section 7 Storm Water Management Plan or any revision, the Owner shall submit a revised GDP to reflect the public storm water management facilities. L. If storm water storage ponds are constructed on the areas that are shown as public parkland, the applicant shall revised the GDP to accommodate for the loss of usable parkland. 6. At the February 71h public hearing, the Council added the following condition: M. All walkways shall be eight feet in width. 7. The Applicant's representative indicated its acceptance of and agreement with the conditions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council. 7. The Common Council concurs with and adopts as its own the findings of fact, conditions and the recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. R.C.O. §61.215 provides that the Council shall approve a general development plan if the following criteria are satisfied: A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. 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. 1. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity kl from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall 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 shall 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 shall 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. R.C.O. §60.532 (5) authorizes the Council to impose conditions on its approval of a general development plan. 3. By a substantial amount of the evidence and testimony presented at the February 7, 2005, hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that General Development Plan #241 complies with the requirements of §61.215, subject to the 13 conditions as described above. i0 ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §61.215, does hereby approve General Development Plan #241 subject to the 13 conditions as described above. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this In! da of February, 2005. 'sunisL—Hanson _a• �:� _ President of the Rochester City Council Fof.mneD51GDM241 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING s-1-D6 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING E'5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Final Plat #03-11 to be known as Maine Street PREPARED BY: Development by Maine Street Development Company of Rochester LLC. The Mitzi A. Baker, applicant is proposing to subdivide 98.74 acres of land into 24 lots for Senior Planner commercial -industrial development and 10 Outlots. The Plat also dedicates public right-of-way for public roadways and includes re -platting of a portion of South Broadway Business Center First Addition. The property is located east of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE and west of St. Bridget Road SE. April 26, 2006 The applicant filed a REVISED version of the Plat on April 26, 2006, The revisions have been forwarded to Public Works for review, since one of the changes impacts an access easement to a stormwater pond. It there are concerns with the changes, the Council will be notified at the Meeting. The Preliminary Plat for this property was approved with a condition that the Final Plat be coordinated with an amendment to Official Street Map 412. Under a separate RCA the City Council will be asked to initiate an amendment to Official Street Map 412 to remove the alignment for a north/south roadway through the Maine Street Development plat. The right-of-way alignment and width identified on the Plat will provide the roadway connection identified on the OSM, with a modified alignment and design. 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 E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees shall be paid as specified in the attached memorandum from the Planning Department GISIAddressing staff dated April 19, 2006. 2. The Applicant is responsible to construct a private roadway within Outlot "B and C" and Outlot "E" and "F", pursuant to the terms of an agreement between the Applicant and the owners of the abutting parcels, and must extend utilities (water and electrical) to serve the abutting parcels. An access easement must be recorded over said Outlots for ingress/egress to the abutting parcels. The easement documents must be recorded prior to recording the Final Plat and the Final Plat documents must be revised to identify the access easements and document numbers. The easement documents shall be perpetual, establish a clear policy on how maintenance will be handled, establish the rights of usage, and define how use of the easement is limited or assignable. Public safety personnel and their vehicles shall be assigned the right of passage at all times. 3. Outlot "J" shall be dedicated to the City and an access easement must be dedicated such that access does not need to occur from the public road. 4. This Plat creates several lots with no access and several lots with shared access. Prior to, or concurrent with, the Final Plat Documents, access easements must be recorded assigning access across and through lots as necessary to provide access to all lots within this Plat. 5. The area included on the Final Plat and the Lot and Block numbering does not match the approved Grading Plan. Submittal of a revised Grading Plan is required that matches the Final Plat numbering and lot layout. 6. Final Plat application shall be coordinated with an amendment to Official Street Map #12 (OSM 12). This Plat is contingent upon approval of an amendment to OSM 12. This Plat must not be recorded prior to completing the amendment to OSM 12. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Se ondby to: /-tc T Page 2 April 27, 2006 Council Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution. 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on May 1, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. M FA ;S3 " f)Q STREET DEVELOPMENT RO6IESTER, WNNESOTA _ _ _ �•) e s�^ iF [ PRELIMINARY PLAT v ki ttF'2 p s�vEc It€is v 3 - kv 1.6 _RR- _ _E=a-f.. .. Fin .0 _g F._Ra•v4Y.a ei 1 A -9w 868888g18 6481't^ .ryR- ?AA88.- ?IxgAAfigal S4Y A �$2 M gn^_ A8 Zw s S -S. r5 5 5 jtE 8 F Re4 �K i$9 u� LLJ / |f�\ L ; | / � �z �� Z 7 ► � � � Wil mJ��7�/ OF ----- � �-�—a z � � ■ , ,�� i :m\ \ � `- _ \\ � § ®. . mHIS'a �TS aIN q J ! i|; | § !,Q|! !| r $ ,Ill1 y u N O 2 x 3 9d^r;S 'ON lv-w AVM 30 1H•02b et -CC '0N 11+1d AYM ' N0I1tl1ZCidSNV&J d01N3WlHVd3O ViMaNNINl NOIlVlHbd5NMl1 301N3Wl8Vd30 YlO53NNIW y •s , �„s lust $B '� •s i�3�,ts wet QI w ' I I 1 1 m ZRCRR. B.IR `Z a I I I I,I1 0 8168R e.IRlRele.y, ICI W i 69$IR -_I4 isui kk RAMU7 IN Rr > y Ili 6= III t 111 e5 4� W Q I I <pp n s L""B W LLJ it \ i \ f' \ � RBHIYK:J GCC AL.eI-06 i F133HS33S 4j Ig � ° C y } 4 § 4yJI y 3 it, Et—C9E3€j § a15 6 6 { :'M �I ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT DF Qocxrsr1. E.x.M1NY�Jf 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 559D4-47A4 www.olmstedcounty.cDm/planning DRA TED•AUGUS2 ° � TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: April 26, 2006 RE: Amendment to Final Plat #03-11 to be known as Maine Street Development by Maine Street Development Company of Rochester LLC. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 98.74 acres of land into 24 lots for commercial -industrial development and 10 Outlots. The Plat also dedicates public right-of-way for public roadways and includes re - platting of a portion of South Broadway Business Center First Addition. The property is located east of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE and west of St. Bridget Road SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Maine Street Development Company of Rochester, LLC 4325 Garden Court SE Rochester. MN 55904 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 P Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Planning Dept. — Addressing Staff Rochester Public Works Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located east of TH 63, north of 48'' Street SE and west of St. Bridget Road SE. Zoning: The property is zoned M-1 (mixed Commercial -Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 98.74 acres of land into 24 lots for commercial -industrial development and 10 Outlots. Streets: Right-of-way dedication included with this plat is for a public north/south roadway (Maine Avenue SE) connecting 4a'" Street and the new alignment of St. Bridget Road as well as an east/west public road proposed as Maine Street SE. Outlots B, C. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • wELLtSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY1AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Maine Street Development April 26, 2006 Wetlands: Public Utilities: Spillover Parking: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat. E and F are the location of a private roadway. The applicant is planning to submit a preliminary plat that will include this road as a re -plat which will be proposed as a public roadway. As one of the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat, the applicant must record an access easement over Outlots B & D (now B,C, E and F) and the document number must be identified on the final plat documents (see condition number 11 below). This condition still applies to the plat. Right-of-way for St. Bridget Road and a portion of Garden Drive have been vacated and are incorporated into the Plat. The wetland delineation and replacement plan have been approved by the City. The City has approved the public improvement (water main and sanitary sewer construction) plans for the subdivision. Parking requirements will be reviewed at the time site development plans are reviewed for individual lot development. There are no parkland dedication requirements for this plat The proposed plat is generally consistent with the approved GDP for the property. The Final Plat includes more individual lots than previously anticipated. The Council approved a preliminary plat for this area on August 18, 2003. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to twelve (12) conditions: The conditions are listed below: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval of the General Development Plan for this property. 2. The Plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along TH 63, 48" St. SW, St. Bridget Road, except at the public road openings and along portions of "Maine Street SW" and "45th Street" as dictated by the Traffic Impact Report or the LDM spacing standards. 3. This Plat is contingent upon the applicant obtaining permits to modify Wetlands throughout the property. No Wetlands shall be disturbed prior to obtaining appropriate permits. 4. Roadway names must be modified to meet roadway naming standards, except with regard to "Maine Street'. The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Department Addressing staff to determine appropriate names prior to submitting a Final Plat. Main Street SE shall be renamed to either Maine Avenue SE, Maine Drive SE or Maine Road SE. The designation using "street' can only be used on roadways aligned in an east -west direction. VA Page 3 0 Maine Street Development April 26, 2006 5. Prior to Final Plat application, the Owner(s) shall enter into a new Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, substandard street reconstruction charges and Transportation Improvement District charges, transportation improvements, stormwater management, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, access and extension of utilities for adjacent properties, ownership and maintenance of outlots and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. Final subdivision grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. 7. A Storm Water Management Fee will apply to any area of this proposed development that does not drain to privately constructed on -site detention facilities. Detention facilities serving less than So acres will be private and require the execution of a Maintenance and Ownership Declaration. Facilities serving over 50 acres shall be platted as Outlot(s) and dedicated to the City. 8. The State has already acquired the necessary right-of-way for the reconstruction and capacity improvements planned for St. Bridget Road SE and, 48"' Street SE and 48`h Street SE/T.H. 63 interchange. The State has already acquired the necessary right-of-way for the construction and capacity improvements planned for 40" Street SE and the 40" Street/TH 63 interchange. The Owner's proportionate share of the City's and County's share of the costs related to right-of-way and construction (including pedestrian facilities) will be addressed in an amended Development Agreement. 9. The Applicant has an obligation to provide for or pay for pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages (including Outlots) of both sides of all new interior public roadways. 10. Final Plat application shall be coordinated with an amendment to Official Street Map #12 (OSM 12). This Plat is contingent upon approval of an amendment to OSM 12. 11. The Applicant is responsible to construct a private roadway within Outlot B and Outlot D, pursuant to the terms of an agreement between the Applicant and the owners of the abutting parcels, and must extend utilities (water and electrical) to serve the abutting parcels. An access easement must be recorded over Outlot B and Outlot D for ingress/egress to the abutting parcels, pursuant to the agreement of the parties. The easement documents must be recorded prior to recording the Final Plat and the Final Plat documents must be revised to identify the access easements and document numbers. The easement documents shall be perpetual, establish a clear policy on how maintenance will be handled, establish the rights of usage, and define how use of the easement is limited or assignable. Public safety personnel and their vehicles shall be assigned the right of passage at all times. If the private agreement is reviewed by the City and found to be acceptable, the conditions of the private agreement will be incorporated into the final plat. 12. Outlot G shall be dedicated to the City and an access easement must be dedicated such that access does not need to occur from the public road. ppp"""v Page 4 Maine Street Development April 26, 2006 Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and would recommend approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions / modifications: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the E911 Addressing and GIS impact fees shall be paid as specified in the attached memorandum from the Planning Department GIS/Addressing staff dated April 19, 2006. 2. The Applicant is responsible to construct a private roadway within Outlot "B and C" and Outlot "E" and "F", pursuant to the terms of an agreement between the Applicant and the owners of the abutting parcels, and must extend utilities (water and electrical) to serve the abutting parcels. An access easement must be recorded over said Outlots for ingresslegress to the abutting parcels. The easement documents must be recorded prior to recording the Final Plat and the Final Plat documents must be revised to identify the access easements and document numbers. The easement documents shall be perpetual, establish a clear policy on how maintenance will be handled, establish the rights of usage, and define how use of the easement is limited or assignable. Public safety personnel and their vehicles shall be assigned the right of passage at all times, 3. Outlot "J" shall be dedicated to the City and an access easement must be dedicated such that access does not need to occur from the public road. 4. This Plat creates several lots with no access and several lots with shared access. Prior to, or concurrent with, the Final Plat Documents, access easements must be recorded assigning access across and through lots as necessary to provide access to all lots within this Plat. 5. The area included on the Final Plat and the Lot and Block numbering does not match the approved Grading Plan. Submittal of a revised Grading Plan is required that matches the Final Plat numbering and lot layout. 6. Final Plat application shall be coordinated with an amendment to Official Street Map #12 (OSM 12). This Plat is contingent upon approval of an amendment to OSM 12. This Plat must not be recorded prior to completing the amendment to OSM 12. i ROCHESTER H; TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 12/5/05 REVISED APPLICATION COMMENTS 4/24/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4n Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7Bt10 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the AMENDED application for Final Plat #03-11, for the proposed Maine Street Development. The following are Public Works comments on the amended request from 12/5/05. New comments based on the plat revisions are indicated in BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed by the plat revisions are indicated with STR4KEqq[RQUGl4: A Development Agreement has been executed for the Property and all development is subject to the terms of the Agreement. The additional land added to this Develepmento Supplemental c e the rise! Plat. 2. The area included on the Final Plat and the Lot & Block numbering does not match the approved Grading Plan. Submittal of a revised Grading Plan is required that matches the Final Plat numbering and lot layout. 3. Access to proposed Lot 3, Block 1, and Lot 7, Block 5 needs to be addressed by an access easement prior to recording the Final Plat Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract. C:\Documents and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK61\FP03-11 Maine Street Development AMENDED 4-08 (2).doc Rochester-Otmsted Planning Department GISIAddressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MIN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 19, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gamess; Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; Peter Oetliker RE: MAINE STREET DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT #03-11 AMENDED 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 JANUARY 1, 2004. E911 ADDRESSING FEE: $3070.00 (24 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 960.00 (34 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats roust 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 above E911Addressing Fees are broken down as follows: $1680.00 for 24 new lots, $850.00 to rename Garden Drive SE to Maine Avenue SE, and $540.00 for 6 address changes. YCA #7520 02 DISPOSAL OF TREES AND BRUSH In November 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The text of the amendment is as follows: 61.200 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES: The requirements of Sections 61.200 through 61.584 identify approvals that will be required to authorize any subdivision activity which is defined as a subdivision by statute or City ordinance. Any person seeking approval of subdivision activity, development activity or a,conditional use permit must indicate whether there will be buming of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the subdivision activity. In order to apply this provision, you will need to indicate at the bottom of the page plans for disposal of trees, slash, and brush. Please sign and date the form. You must submit this information to the Planning Department prior to applying for a burning permit from the Fire Department. If plans change prior to obtaining a burning permit, you will need to notify the Planning Department. Within this Maine Street Development development, as proposed through the (specify .a development application, trees, slash, and brush will be disposed by: I Burning on site Chipping on site Salvaging and removing from the property Other, describe in detail: Signature of Appli ant of Development Proposal --* cc Date RECEIVED rr j ?006 rVplandwa%appli=ion - formsQ920-85.doc April 14, 2006 Ms. Mitzi Baker Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Amendment to Final Plat #03-11 Maine Street Development Rochester, Minnesota Dear Ms. Baker: Please withdraw the tabled Amendment to the Final Plat #03-11 Maine Street Development. We are submitting a revised Amended Final Plat Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Maine Street Development Company of Rochester, LLC Thomas Hexum wN:. YCA #7520 cc: Wade Neubauer, Yaggy Colby Associates Mike Nigbur, City of Rochester Public Works n,r.rr 0 Apr 12 06 02:42p Ton Hexun Members of the City Councii_- 5072823079 4-12-06 We the undersigned owners of the land within the final Plat being filed, attached hereto, agree to participate in signing the final Plat documents when prepared. 5te:�L - - Roger Carl en - Continental Properties, LLC DOMINION` A0 � 1 MI ►•f .. P. 1 iiECYINIT J I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ��`` n�1 DATE: 05-01-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO . PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #05-27 by Freedom Development & Consulting and Lumber PREPARED BY: One Avon to be known as Valley Side Estates Four. The Applicant is proposing to Theresa Fogarty, resubdivide outlot B, C and D of Valley Side Estates Three into 38 lots for single family Senior Planner homes and one outlot. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for some stockpiles that have been established on the property. The property is located east of Trumpeter Drive SE, along the north and south side of Red Hawk Drive and along the east and west side of Falcon Road SE. April 27, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated April 27, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall be revised as follows, prior to recording: a. Include the drainage & utility easement that was platted as part of Valley Side Estates Three over the northwesterly 5 feet of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 (abutting Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Side Estates Three). 2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land as outlined in the memorandum from Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated April 18, 2006. 3. A G/S Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the April 20, 2006 memorandum from Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 4. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and development is subject to the terms of the Agreement. S. Upon approval by the City Council for the Substantial Land Alteration, the applicant shall provide surety that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on the property. If the City Council denies the Substantial Land Alteration, the grading plans shall be returned to the designers for reevaluation. Council Action Needed: 1. It the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution. 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 1, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to' N L to eat Emu :a_=' 4 aaaNa-°-° e..• a .4 s �Im4l4 �si°95 Bssssss $s §gs =sssss�ss 9a � I------------- ----------------------- ------------------- Z � I •� I •� �d ♦♦ W �I •�-+� t z% G ffi W I8 I.a : c - 1, 0 1 i N I lool , sir' I C I _f' y/ i I ` I I \1 s14 ZZ I Noll cam.loll i 1, OR"IN w N�o�, AM _ . INS, — IIIM USUN jlllllil tom" L________PRZYR—CY.'SEID—A_MT--= ':"Vt�ht� i I W \�I@�\� L I ME 1 KOO , S,` ��c -ON, � ' Pi;r �T I , I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I , , I I I i I I I I , , , ,:- -' � as ��, tz� � � �. �;a eat V1aS3NNM'2 IMHOOa p— j 8 f S31V153 3CIS AiT.Vn ° NOLLY M'N aNVI TVLLNV14enS F ^ E I j s e f ".s:aK•"t' II E I I ; J — t{ J J 1lG / co 1 ' r / N 1 y 'f'{J;illil ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0F•g4`xgs'R'"?!yNF, 2 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 1 Do • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 4�:. cnoe.. of www.olmsledcounty.comlplanning DR . RATgD•AUGVST'- TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: April 27, 2006 RE: Final Plat #05-27 by Freedom Development & Consulting and Lumber One Avon to be known as Valley Side Estates Four. The Applicant is proposing to resubdivide outlot B, C and D of Valley Side Estates Three into 38 lots for single family homes and one outlot. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for some stockpiles that have been established on the property. The property is located east of Trumpeter Drive SE, along the north and south side of Red Hawk Drive and along the east and west side of Falcon Road SE. City Council Hearing Date: May 1, 2006 Planning Department Review: ApplicanVOwner: Freedom Development & Consulting and Lumber One Avon PO Box 1643 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Surveyors/Engineers: Surveying & Engineering Professionals, Inc. 60 10th Avenue South Waite Park, MN 563B7 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Planning Department —GIS/Addressing Staff Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat 2. Copy of Ridgewood GDP 3. Location Map 4, Referral Comments (4 letters) 5. Copy of Substantial Land Alternation Map Development Review: Zoning: - The property is located with the Special District known as Valley View Estates Third Subdivision with an underlying zoning district of R-2 (Low Density Residential) on the Rochester Zoning Map. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507P285-8232 - ROUSINGMRA 5071285-8224 PLANNINWONING 5071285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAx 5071287-2275 AN EDUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER +vim. �,13 Page 2 Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the continuation of one public roadway and two new roadways. The first roadway a continuation of "Falcon Road SE" and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The second roadway is identified as "Falcon Place SE" and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The third roadway also identified as "Falcon Place SE" and is also designed with a 60' right-of-way. Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roads within this property, as specified in the executed Development Agreement. Drainage: The Grading Plan for this property has been completed, except the need for a Substantial Land Alteration. Upon action of the City Council, the grading plan review process will be completed. If the Council approves the SLA the approved plan will be forwarded. If the Council denies the SLA the plan will be returned to the designers for reevaluation. A Development Agreement for this property has been executed. Development is subject to the terms of said Agreement. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no hydric soils exist on the site. Public Utilities: Review of the referenced final plat is complete and RPU-Water has no objections, per the utility plan review, final utility plans have yet to be approved. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 46pillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Disposal of Trees & Brush: As per Section 51,200 of the LDM, any person seeking approval of a subdivision activity, development activity or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the proposed activity. The area was an old farm field and no trees exist within the construction area. If by chance, any exterior perimeter trees are removed, the branches will be chipped and the logs removed. Page 3 r} 1 Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Ridgewood General Development Plan (GDP), amended July, 2005. Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on September 7, 2005. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to six (6) conditions: The conditions are listed below: 1. The plat shall be revised to include: • A 20' minimum public utility easement between Lots 10 & 11, Block 5 and Outlot A for the required 8" water main loop. • Roadway names approved by the G!S/Addressing Staff. • Roadways that intersect at right angles, for a minimum of 50 feet, from the intersection. 2. A Storm Water Management Fee wilt apply to any area of the development that does not drain toward a privately constructed on -site detention facility meeting current City design standards. 3. Prior to the submittal of the Final Plat, access, ownership and maintenance of the parcel identified as Outlot A shall be addresses and the execution of an Ownership & Maintenance Agreement may be required. 4. The bulb -outs indicated on Falcon Road SW shall comply with current City design standards. 5. Parkland dedication shall be met via cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to the recordation of the final plat documents. 6. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the development (area included in the Ridgewood GDP) is limited to 1200 adt until a secondary access is provided. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of stockpile activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, 2.a.1 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alteration as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Section 62.1105 and 61,146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal to allow stockpiles of fill in excess of 10 feet in height from the pre-existing grades. The areas where stockpiles of fill exceed 10' in height are located within Block 5, Lots 4 through 6 (stockpile #3) and Outlot A (stockpiles #1, 92 and #4). Page 4 1� Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suagested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alteration, staff recommends the following findings to Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to frfe or property. The height of the stockpiles of fill will be reduced as grading for residential dwellings are completed. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. The stock piles of fill will be reduced in height on -site, therefore it will not be necessary to haul fill from the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site. It will not be necessary to truck in fill or haul fill from the site, which will minimize the impact on the surroundings roads. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area is being re -graded to provide adequate slopes for single family dwellings. 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the stockpiling activity is expected to be completed with construction of the residential dwellings. 8) There are homes in the immediate area that will be visually affected by the grading activity for only a short time during the grading process. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be required for the development, as defined in the executed Development Agreement. 11) The areas of grading do not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not affect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. Page 5 Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 12) The duration of the grading activities seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner -contract process for this development. If grading is to occur prior to an owner -contract, a separate surety will need to be provided. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable. 2) Not applicable. 3) Not applicable. 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable. 6) Not applicable. 7) Not applicable. 3) Not applicable. Final Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning staff has reviewed this final plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The staff recommends approval of this final plat, as submitted, with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Final Plat shall be revised as follows, prior to recording: a. Include the drainage & utility easement that was platted as part of Valley Side Estates Three over the northwesterly 5 feet of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 (abutting Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Side Estates Three). 2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land as outlined in the memorandum from Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated April 18, 2006. 3. A GIS impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the April 20, 2006 memorandum from Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. Page 6 1;01 Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 4. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and development is subject to the terms of the Agreement. 5. Upon approval by the City Council for the Substantial Land Alteration, the applicant shall provide surety that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on the property. If the City Council denies the Substantial Land Alteration, the grading plans shall be returned to the designers for reevaluation. Reminder to Applicant: • Future development of Ridgewood GDP shall not occur until the secondary access for the Ridgewood GDP development is constructed. Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City/Owner Contract for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 11 Page 7 1' Final Plat 005-27 / Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 Land Development Manual Excerpts Substantial Land Alteration 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15', or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of. such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated: Page 8 Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; i g) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. Page 9 Final Plat #05-27 Valley Side Estates 4th April 27, 2006 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase D site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. r. C'[F & /fCf lr.3MOO =` ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION 6uchester. IMR - DEPARTMENT DATE: 18 April 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Valley Side Est 4 Final Plat 05-27 Number of dwelling units ............................................. 72 units Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1,76 a Fair market value of land.. ........................................... $16,0001 a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $28,160 (1.76 a X $16,000 / a) with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFOGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\01-1<267WALLEY SIDE EST 4.DOC 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROOM 150 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507.281-6164 FAX 507-281-6165 DSTOTZO CI.ROCHESTER. MN.US ;0 RCS CHE S TER M TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 4/24/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #05-27, proposed as Valley ide Estates Four. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. The Development Agreement executed for this Property. Development is subject to the terms of said Agreement. 2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure. 3. There is an existing drainage & utility easement that was platted as part of Valley Side Estates Three that is omitted from the proposed Valley Side Estates Four Final Plat. The Final Plat should be revised to include said easement over the northwesterly 5 ft of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 (abutting Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Side Estates Three). c000cuments and SettingstplejgarnlLocal Settings%Temporary Internet FlleslOLK61TP05-27 Valley Side Estates Four.doc a rpu we pledge. wr drtirer April 20, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #05-27 by Freedom Development & Consulting and Lumber One Avon to be known as Valley Side Estates Four. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections, per the utility plan review, final utility plans have yet to be approved. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yoo(uu�r��s,,� 06440� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Freedom Development & Consulting and Lumber One Avon Surveying & Engineering Professionals, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-290-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 nIN - Y Rochester -Olmsted Planning . ,�artment Phone: (507)295.6232 GIS/Addressing Division fax: (507) 297.2275 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 1DO Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 20, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; Surveying & Engineering Professionals Inc. RE: VALLEY SIDE ESTATES FOURTH FINAL PLAT # 05-27 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: $2660.00 (38 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE, $1035.00 (39 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 cuhmitted 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 VALLEY SIDE ESTATES FOURTH the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �J MEETING DATE: 05-01-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEUAID. L' PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #06-03 by Nathan Miller to vacate a portion of PREPARED BY: the five foot utility easement along the east line of Lot 2, Block 1, Bielenberg and Theresa Fogarty, Giese Second Addition. The property address is 1434 NW 150° Avenue. Senior Planner April 24, 2006 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated April 24, 2006. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as recommended by staff. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated April 24, 2006. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 1, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: JUN-24-2005 FRI I0:57 AM ROCHESTER TITLE & ESCROW FAX No. 5 26ti 8bld K0' e"s Plat Service y-9sa-46o5 RECEIVED APR 0 6 2006 1 CrESTER-CLMSTED �' "Ntil!JG CE'rART�IEh'T —North m p ci Him Y, Uelue Earcomhmem or!fRLIE ProPo5,s vxtxa 1l 0 enderName Think Cliaat Nmne RochcstwTitle omeOwnerNathan Nfiller File Number 2112326BR mparty Addreas Ip 1434 15" Av. NW Date of Inspection 6/8/05 Rochester, N N RriefLegal 211 Blielenba & Giese 2nd Thic diagram is based on a visual and taped inspection, and is charted to approximate'locations and therefore is not a survey. The property dimensions shown are platted or drsaribed dimensions and were not field verified. Do not rme for the establishment of any fanee, building, or other lmpravement lines. 200 ft Notification Area of Lot 2 Block 1 Bielenberg and Giese 2nd Addition to vacate a portion of five foot utility easement on east side of lot. 1434 15th Avenue NW vacation #O6•D3 by Nathan Miller PIN: 74.27.44.002357 Ward: 3 Neighborhood Assoc: John Marshall 4112ID6 4 I 11/ I cies are Olmsted County is not responsible for ornffisions or errors contained herein. If discrepanRochester, N this map, please notify 55 m the GIs Division, Rochester-0Imsted County Planning Department. 2122 Campus Drive SE, Rochester, MN 904, (507) 265-8232. -4- ///►►►�0� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT Y V 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Ja �„ „ www.olmstedcounty.comlplanning TO: Rochester City Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner hcau4n.d� V�'lv�•'n�Ni'n DATE: April 24, 2D06 RE: Vacation Petition #06-03 by Nathan Miller to vacate a portion of the five foot utility easement along the east line of Lot 2, Block 1, Bielenberg and Giese Second Addition. The property address is 1434 NW 151h Avenue. City Council Meeting: May 1, 2006 Planninq Department Review. Petitioner(s): Nathan D. Miller 1434 NW 15'" Avenue Rochester, MN 55901 Reason to Vacate: A small portion of the existing garage is encroaching approximately two (2) feet into the 5 foot utility easement. Referral Comments: No objections received by referral agencies. Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Site Plan 2. Location Map Staff Recommendation: Upon review of this request and the referral agencies having no objections, staff recommends approval of vacating the actual encroachment area only of the 5' wide utility easement located along the east line of Lot 2, Block 1, Bielenberg and Giese Second Addition. The legal description for the vacation shall consist of the encroachment of the garage area only. BUILDING CODE 5071285-9345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGMIAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 m a PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAx 5071287-2275 �j� AN EQUAL OPPDRTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING • Jam' DATE: 5-1-06 �rvv AGENDA SECTION: CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. �-8 ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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, PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner 61.231, 61.233, 61.237, 61.251, 61.255, 61.584, and 64.131. April 19, 2006 The City Council previously continued this public hearing to May 1, 2006 to permit staff adequate time to resolve conflicting language in the Ordinance. That conflict will be resolved by amending Section 61.211, 3 to state "Except as provided in Section 61.211(2) and 61.214 (B)'. This correction should be incorporated into this text amendment. 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). itGk Distribution: �) 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: or RO( RESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPA-RTMENT oF,aocxEsxER.MINhF 2122 Campus Dove SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 o Y o. www.olmsiedcounty.com/planning DRPp A T .......5'PO Bq ED•AUGUST' • DATE: 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 Iand 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 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 C7� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER P, ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING SECTION 61.255 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: Permit the Council may approve any required or voluntary development agreement concurrently with or following approval of the General Development Plan but may not 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: water, vegetation energy, air quality and geologic and ecologic teatures, 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 Improvement' shall include the terms "required improvements," "on -site and off site public improvements," "development improvements," "off -site improvements" and "public improvements" as they may be found within the Land Development Manual portion of this Code. 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 is-te must be submitted with an application of a General Development Plan. The plan sheer 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 le �3 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. i3. 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. 1. 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: A development bounded on all sides by arterial or higher level streets streams or other topographic constraints or existing development, land already abutting lands: 2. A development with adequate public facilities and constituting the entire remaining service area of a major public facility improvement (such as a trunk 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 n'Q ' i 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; i �41 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 Q. 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 M �4 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 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 81/2 x 11", 8'/2 x 14", or 11 x 17 paper. Subd. 4. Two copies of existing or proposed private deed restrictions, if any. 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 authori 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—.-a' # ^j'" �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: n o\ 61.233 Preparation of Final Plat: Final plats must be prepared in accordance and compliance with the provisions of the 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�y the a""°- �, GaIio^; -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. Pie final plat shall be a"ed by th" pp � _. I itee, Ne Ze E 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; i 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 Nat)• 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, allay 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 i off -site private or public facility improvements for subseouent 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 pFepesal proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed development complies with these ^^w 'atiGi; , 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 4 O 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 2006. MAYOR (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 0005/61231.marked.V er6 / 3 J 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 tf'� the responsibility needs to be put children. V safety. on the parents for watching their Mr. Haeussinger stated th\in 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 agree have pools within fences. Mr. Ohly stated that the ponds normally sited for it. The covers would not be enc material for someone to walk on without Ms. Baker asked the Commission if the ould A City Council with striking the langua7buldbe having a Ms. Rivas asked if temporary pools con: es, 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. moving the text amendment forward to in lieu of a fence. 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 and with the cases until a decision would be made osible language changes. Mr. Haeussinger move o send on Text Amendment#06-01 to a City Council with striking the words po covers from numbers 5 & 6 from Sectio . Private Swimming Pools and Tennis ColIrts and adding that a pool cover cannot be used in lieu of.a fence and to add the word recreationalin front of;pond in the definition of Swimming Pools Section 60.200 Definitions:Mr. Ohlv seconded the motion. The motiorr carried 8-0. 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. l Pave 6 -30 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. Haeussinger made a motion to approve Text Amendment #06-02, initiated by the, Rochester City Council "Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-G.' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5(1(06 PUBLIC HEARINGS ING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 6 Text Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 60.175 regarding Fees of the Rochester Planning and Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Planning Administrative Service Committee: Larry Klemenhagen April 6, 2006, the Planning Administrative Service Committee (PASC) which oversees the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department approved a proposed three year fee schedule for Olmsted County and the City of Rochester. Overall, this proposal is intended to increase fee revenues by roughly 3% per year in order to offset increasing costs for processing permits and applications. City Planning and Zoning Commission (CPZQ April 26, 2006, the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the text changes and the proposed fees. The Planning Commission discussed the fees and felt that that the amendment represents a policy issue related to the funding of the Planning Department from either user fee or tax levy. The Commission forwarded the Text Amendment #06-04 to the City Council without with out a recommendation. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to adopt the Text Amendment #06-04 and multi -year fee schedule, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption. Attachments: 1. Staff Report to City Planning and Zoning Commission dated April 19, 2006 2. Proposed Fees 3. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 60.175 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, related to Land Use and Development Processing Fees. Distribution: 1. City Clerk .w � 2. City Attorney �yy 3. City Administrator 4, Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: second Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE - Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 (507)285-8232 TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Larry Klemenhagen, AICP DATE: April 19, 2006 RE: Text Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 6 Text Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 60.175 regarding Fees of the Rochester Planning and Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. On April 6, 2006, the Planning Administrative Service Committee (PASC) which oversees the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department approved a proposed three year fee schedule for Olmsted County and the City of Rochester. Overall, this proposal is intended to increase fee revenues by roughly 3% per year in order to offset increasing costs for processing permits and applications. State Law: Development Fees — MS 462.353, Subd. 4, A municipality\county may prescribe fees sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing, investigating and administering an application... Fees as prescribed must be by ordinance and must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the actual cost of the service for which the fee is imposed. A municipality\county shall adopt management and accounting procedures to ensure that fees are maintained and used for the purposes for which they are collected. Fee Revenues and Expenses: Fee revenues and expenses have been monitored for several years. In 2005, the Planning Division's fees recovered 82% of the expenses for the related work categories. As the number of permits and application declined by 9% from 2004, less time was devoted to these work categories. Fee increases also contributed to the increased recovery rate. The following table summarizes the Planning Division's zoning and development activity from 2000 to 2005: Planning Division 2000 2601 2002 2003 2004 2005 Number of PermitsWppl. 4,280 4,022 4,035 4,188 4.135 3,753 Time (Hours) 16,743 18,117 15.896 15,865 16,929 15,032 Expenses $807,769 $773.597 $853,456 $994 460 $930.380 $918,424 Fee Revenues $546,685 $515,878 $561,578 $610,855 $744,200 $749,193 Countyls Tax Levy $261,084 $257,719 $291,878 $383,605 $186,180 $169,231 Recovery Rate 68% 67% 66 % fit % 80% 82% Neumann, Gary Z=L'`— ' From: Wheeler Phil [wheeler.phil@CO.OLMSTED.MN.US] ; , Sent: Friday, April 26, 2006 11:00 AM J� / r W oo: Spaeth, Terry; Neumann, Gary ubject: Postpone action on the requested fee increase for the Planning Department The fee increases for the Planning Department were scheduled for a hearing on May 1. Thinking it had been scheduled for May 15, I assured representatives of the Rochester Association of Builders that we would have time to meet with them to discuss their concerns prior to Council action. So that I can honor that commitment, please forward this request to the Council to table or continue action on the fee increase request to the may 15, 2006, meeting. Thank you. - Phil Phil Wheeler, AICP Planning Director 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 ph 507-285-8232 fax 507-287-2275 3�� The zoning and development activity is described in following table: Zoning Administration Number of Permits 2000 2D01 2002 2003 2004 2005 3,756 3,504 3,485 3,648 3,655 3,292 Time (Hours) 8,250 7,695 6,896 7,372 8,179 6,511 Expenses $423,333 $380.525 $381,671 $529,955 $461,5D0 $432,020 Fee Revenues $347.341 $351,734 $352,327 $368,704 $394,050 $396,510 Countys Tax Levy $75,992 $28,791 $29,344 $161,251 $67,45D $35,510 Recovery Rate 82% 92% 92% 70% 85% 92% Development ApprUcations 624 518 550 540 480 461 Number of Applications Time (Hours) 8,493 8,422 9,000 8,493 8,750 8,521 Expenses $394,436 $393,072 $464,505 $464,505 $468,800 $486,396 Fee Revenues $199.344 $164,144 $209,251 $242.151 $350,150 $352,683 Countys Tax Levy $185,092 $228,928 $255,254 $222,354 $118,730 $133,713 Recovery Rate 52% 42% 45% 52% 75% 73% Payment with credit or debit cards is often requested by people wanting to pay for permits, or purchase maps or other items from the Planning Department. In the past, the PASC has been reluctant to get into this method of payment due to the credit card company's charges for handling these transactions. This charge is 2% to 3% of the amount of the transaction. The PASC considered credit card payments and recommended approval of this payment method. The County Board will consider the Planning Department request to accept credit card payments at their next meeting. The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve this amendment. The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. A second public hearing is scheduled for May 1, 2006 City Council meeting. Attachments: Proposed Zoning and Development Fees. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 60.175 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, related to Land Use and Development Processing Fees. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 60.175 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEES. Section 1. Section 60.175 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted so as to read as follows: 60.175Fees. Subdivision 1. The fees provided for in this Section shall apply to various land use and development applications and requests for information. The fees adopted on the last date of the schedule below will remain in effect until otherwise amended. Subd. 2. Zoning Certificate Fees: A. Residential Uses: (Values of improvement building, grading, etc., according to the following schedule) Total Valuation Janua 7,20, May 2D06 ry 1, 2007 $1 to $500 $501 to $2,000 $2,001 to$25.000 $25,001 to$50,000 to$100,000 and up $23 $23 + $1.25 per $100 $42+$2.55 per$1,000 $101+$1.80 per$1,000 $146+$.50 per$1.000 $170+$25 per$1,D00 er $100 er$1,000 per$1,000 er$1,000 per$1,000 7"D $25 $25 + $1.35 per $100 $46+$2.65 per $1,D00 $107+$1.90 per$1,000$50,001 $154+5.60 per$1,000$100,001 $184+$.25 per$1,000 B. Multiple Family and Non -Residential Uses: (Values of improvement building, grading, etc., according to the following schedule) Total Valuation May 2006 January 1, 2007 January 1, 2008 $1 to $500 $501 to$2,0D0 $23 $23+$1.80 per$100 $24 $24+$1.85 per$100 $25 $25+$1.90 per$100 $2,001 to $25,000 $50 + $3.60 per $1.000 $52 + $3.70 per $1,000 $54 + $3.80 per $1,000 $25,001 to$50,000 $133+$1.55 per $1,000 $137+$1,60 per $1,000 $141+$1.65 per $1,000 $50,001 to$100,000 $172+$.85 per $1,000 $176+$,90 per $1,000 $183+$.95 per $1,000 $100,001 and up $214+$.25 per $1,000 $222+$.25 per $1,000 $230+$.25 Per $1,000 C. Double Fee: When the building construction or remodeling has occurred prior to issuing of the zoning certificate, a double fee maybe imposed. i .11 �k� D. Other Zoning Permits: Other Zoning Permits January 1 2007 January 1, 2008 May2006 Single Family Repairs and Interior Alterations $22 per application $24 per application $25 per application Mobile Home Installation $31 per application $32 per application $33 per application Sign Use Non -Residential Use Nor -Residential Use Non -Residential Zoning Certificate fee Zoning Certificate fee Zoning Certificate fee Advertising Sign New Sign $180 per application $186 per application $190 per application Sign Credit $125 per application $130 per application $135 per application Moving Permit $B3 per application $86 per application $90 per application Grading Permit $180 per application $185 per application $190 per application Erosion Plan Review Demolition Permit $42 per application S43 per application $45 per application Housing Certificate $31 per application $32 per application $33 per application Compliance Letter Single Family $83 per application $86 per application $90 per application Other $165 per application $170 per application $175 per application Temporary Use Peril $260 per application $270 per application $2110 per application Subd. 2. Wetland Fees: Wetlands Exception Determination $235 per application $245 per application $250 per application No -Loss Determination S235 per application $245 per application $250 per application Delineation Review Less than 1 acre $300 per application $310 per application $320 per application 1 - 10 acres $670 per application $690 per application $715 per application 11+ acres $950 per application $980 per application $1,020 per application Replacement Plan Less than 1 acre $570 per application $590 per application $610 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,240 per application S1,260 per application $1,320 per application 11+ acres $1,850 per application $1,900 per application $1,950 per application Sequencing Plan $570 per application $585 per application $600 per application Appeal $345 per application $355 per application $365 per application e Banking Plan Less than 1 acre $570 per application $590 per application $610 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,240 per application $1,280 par application $1,320 per application 11+ acres $1,850 per application 1$100 $1,900 per application $1,960 per application Annual Monitoring Report per application $100 per application $105 per application Subd. 3. Development Application Fees: =t' May 2006 January1, 2007 January 1, 2008 Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Amendment Less than 1 acre $1,550 per application $1,700 per application $1,750 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,650 + $47 per acre $1,700 + $48 per acre $1,750+ $50 per acre 11 - 99 acres $2,120 + $13 per acre $2,180 + $14 per acre $2,250 + $15 per acre 100 + acres $3,277 + $1 per acre $3,426 + $1 per acre $3,585 + $1 per acre Text Amendment $1,030 per application $1,065 per application $1,100 per application General Development $1250 per application $1300 per application $1,350 per application Plan Type I Home Occupation $160 per application $170 per application $175 per application Site Development $350 per application $375 per application $400 per application Design Modification $124 per application $128 per application $132 per application Land Subdivision Permit $435 per application $450 per application $465 per application PUD Amendments $490 per application $505 per application $520 per application Perfomiance Residential $490 per application $505 per application $520 per application Conditional Use Changes $490 per application $505 per application $520 per application Admendment to GDP $490 per application $505 per application $520 per application Type It $875 per application $900 per application $925 per application Type III - Phase i Less than 1 acre $1,150 per application $1,200 per application $1,250 per application 1-10acres $1,150+$62 per acre $1,200+$64 per acre $1,250+$66 per acre 11-99 acres $1,770+$15 per acre $1,840+$15 per acre $1,910+$15 per acre 100+acres $3.105+$1 per acre $3,175+$1 per acre $3,245+$1 per acre Type III - Phase 11 Less than 1 acre $1,350 per application $1 400 per application $1,450 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,350 + $62 per acre $1,400 + $65 per acre $1,450 + $68 per acre 11 - 99 acres $1,970 + $15 per acre $2,050 + $15 per acre $2,130 + $15 per acre 100 + acres 1$3,305 + $1 per acre IS3,385 + $1 per acre 1$3.465 + $1 per acre pe III - Phase III Less than 1 acre 1 - 10 acres 11 - 99 acres 100 + acres pe III - Phase 1- triance Residential Use Residential Use with Mulitiple Lots Non -Residential Use ype 11 ,and Subdivision Permit -ype III .and Subdivision Permit rype III =final Plat Jew Special District Less than 1 acre 1-10 acres 11 - 99 acres 100 + acres Special District Project Development Plan, Amendments, or Final Site Plan Less than 1 acre 1 - 10 acres 11 - 99 acres 100 + acres Less than 1 acre 1 - 10 acres 11 - 99 acres 100 + acres ,150 per application .150 + $62 per acre ,770 + $15 per acre ,105 + $1 per acre 6440 per application $440 per application $155 per additional lot $BBO per application $220 per application $1,030 per application plus $20 per lot $1,240 per application plus $20 per lot $880 per application plus $20 per lot $1,650 per application $1,650 + $47 per acre $2.120 + $13 per acre $3,277+$1 per acre ,350 per application ,350 + $47 per acre ,820 + $13 per acre '.,977 + $1 per acre per application + $52 per acre i0 + $5 per acre .5 + $1 per acre 200 per application 200 + $64 per acre 940 + $15 per acre 175+$1 per acre 5 per application 5 per application D per additional lot 0 per application 8 per application $1,D65 per application plus $20 per lot $1,280 per application plus $20 per lot $910 per application plus $20 per lot $1,700 per application $1,700 + $49 per acre $2,190 + $14 per acre $3,4361 $1 per acre $1,400 per application $1.400 + $65 per acre $1,890 + $14 per acre $3,136 + $1 per acre $910 per application $910 + $54 per acre $1,450 + $5 per acre $1,895+$1 per acre Utility Easement $440 per application S455 per application Right of Way, Alley 8 Other I $B85 per application $920 per application 4 ,250 per application ,250 + $66 per acre ,910 + $15 per acre ,245 + $1 per acre per application per application per additional lot per application per application $1,100 per application plus $20 per lot $1,320 per application plus $20 per lot $940 per application plus $20 per lot $1,750 per application $1,750 + $50 per acre $2,250 + $15 per acre $3,585+$1 per acre $1.450 per application $1,450 + $68 per acre $1,950 + $15 per acre $3,285+$1 per acre $940 per application $940 + $56 per acre $1,500 + $5 per acre $1,945+$1 per acre per application per application / rffrc Impact Study Rezoning Traffic Analysis or Traffic Impact Report Traffic Design Analysis Report Plan Amend. Environmental Worksheet Less than 1 acre 1-10 acres 11 - 99 acres 100 + acres Impact inufactured Home Park 1-10 homes 11 - 99 homes 100+ homes Home i per application $160 per application $165 per application $77 per hour (over 2 hrs) plus $78 per hour (over 2 hrs) plus $80 per hour (over 2 hrs) per application $78 per application $80 per application 80 per application $910 per application $940 per application ,650 per application $1,700 per application $1,750 per application + $71 per acre $1,700 + $73 per acre $1,750 + $75 per acre ,650 .,360 + $15 par acre $2,430 + $15 per acre $2,500 + $15 per acre ,695 + $1 per acre $3,765 + $1 per acre $3,835 + $1 per acre To be determined on a ITo be determined on a ITo be determined on a contractual basis contractual basis contractual basis ,350 (1-10 homes) 1$3,200 $1,400 (1-10 homes) I$1,450 (1-10 homes) ,350 + $20 per home $1,400 + $20 per home $1,450 + $20 per home ,150 + $5 per home + $5 per home $3,250 + $5 per home Subd. 4. Incomplete Applications Changes or Delays: Incomplete applications, application changes or delays initiated by the applicant during the review process that result in additional expenses to review the application, resubmit referrals, notices, etc. require the applicant compensate the Planning Department for these additional costs. If the application has been tabled for period of nine months or more, at the applicant request, the applicant is required to file a new application and pay the entire application fee Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its publication. 5 "at -.It oil �aEa o O O N N N O N Id m m m 'i [� m a s lV a"amaa`la" m N orrn rna C-1Ili moi vi e v 6�i c.i vi ni N 0 C mmmoi ri .S a a'�"" m � m S 0 0 0 o a o a o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Of LO Oi N LL 1 lV Yi Vi + _ # i + + 4 V i m O Yaf GaD � N h a N N P V a p O 0 0 O C N O Q. R 6 n n p 6 L m N � W "i N W H) ' O HmW W wui NKH m + 0 d d N t��f F N p+# N N A N '{j' NW w 6�9w w � V 19 Vi f9 fA W W C l0 I C 'O O O O O OO O p 0 0 0 O O O O pO C p OO p O p p N O o ww'"wv, C r usw wo, e m d {�j W FlA fA fV N V! + U m N d # i 0 m m O m A NM m m N O d 4a 4Y d N CL o 0 0 o O p o 0 0 o o o o w o 0 0 0 LL v a awwnw c inwwww N, LL + 0 LL mM� �� 4 V Vi li k A C ® # O # + C C N N N N O N [V O W V c U wwwinww w G G 2 p 0 0 N C p O 'O C O O n 01 p O 0 p O o C i6 'c oui >• m 0 o�ciio a o voids a p N win c W a Nww c m N W ] p nj m w o rt c o 0 m 16 ° oo vi o a � m opvi6c N d Cl LL C 0 A G7 o. c do G CL a m 0 .a C W m c C N rd+ N d 0 Q w V U) 0 a 0 a 0 N m d N o ni 6 N ni vi 0 0 of N ;e a e e a iD O o m m ' N m O m m O N N Pl th t7 th t'i �` O Oi m N C 1+1 lV O N m e e 2e 2' e de N N 9 p m O N m O m lV O t�] IV Vl f7 m Alm < V O O � O N C C rt `a a C m N O o C D C CC C O a O O O U U U no `m m m or Z n a n n a n n N O p 6 C O 1(l O e O O C O O pO a p O a m m m m m@ m u cmi U U p Z n a n c 'CU m o m t7 m m n N m� ry N m o m n w o o c c c c c m o m e n n n n H H n n m m m n a n d n a ro m o o n n n nn O n c "C �"1 m m N N 0 m m N � O m C C a C O C€ CO N C C p a c m m Vm a y O O y O m 9 O N m K O G 00 c S m a 2 b fn U m C a m m m m c O N m u m c e o C n ram. E n 0; m o O N U m m c m G rn > Z N o p o W O 2 U S N N i o a'a° a��o a° o a'•aa a`a° o o N m-i Q(4 m v o .- m 6 N Ill Ill C t�l V ('i l7 N fV N N cs t7 M N Itl Oi O N ge ;9 a' e O C Q th m Of t7 C1 N N N t7 th N O t7 O N a e a 2' N N Q n m m t7 m O wf t'l m fU t'1 �p P) N th t7 l7 I'1 lV I� n N W O 6 6 i a N C C C C C C O Oo e O l6 W p O@ V V � ORo U m n U U U 6 6 V a a u a a s m a a W n d W W MeC.m .J C. w W m W Wn w m m m n n G m m C.d n n 4 0 6 0 0 6 n o O N m N m� h N w w � w www .»win w w ww n N co § o ff o m m o o m m m ' o V V aL U _U jd w d 6 w V m a Q. M. d m d Q C w W c W w w W w 0 m w w m "W w W m n n m m d n m a u n n n n O o m n a m oo d m N O O O m N m m N m N 01 O y] - Iw Ci 1U 00 O O c p o 0 0 0 N m u v � 'a u cwi nn s aan o.W m n n nom m g m m m m m m w w w m m w moo n a, a. nman no o d O M. m O, N 1 N m O N G m m m m w w w w w is w w w ww uiww c CC c 'm a N U U u U _ V a a o W u W u n V iwl 'a n nnn n1° 'n° a a Q. am W a W w m N N w w m w w w m m W m wn No m_ m NM mM � W W f9 W W W M [i W f9 W 19 O C W a0 .. c E c d m c m W c w w a c •C O ✓1 � V w � i C � m r t � b � N C J •- ` C p U 2 Q. p C 0 3 fh Q 0 d Gf LL c O R u .Q c Cm G a O m a c R cm L_ C N d N Oi L V d W O a O a` T N t0 N m N O) A 6 m m mm mfV V tll N N m Ci N [V Oi C') O N A O at N d d O m N d �- m [7 m m fV V V fV O M N sf V (d O mt !A C) t7 e N n N m n N O 9 A m fD N N N N T �O b d N O N NN OI t) [V N 00 ni N m Q m 9 Q m m C m m Ni y C m m o fj U m O m a O Q C C C C C O C O C O C m m m m m m m@ O 'm ? W o U m tmi m m ti m u is u m u un m - a n d 5 a n d a nn y n a n a n n n n moo p cm m' m 1° n Q N O m m n p n m m m m n m m m n m m m m+ win y a m m 6 + # ¢ # + + a p n a n nnnm UOi N rpm c n n¢ n Nod d A A N N O M m• N �m Qr to 'N N (V ti w ^N H W f9 to M A c m m C m m a u m C m N o m o o c c c c c c O c O c c m N m < O O a n U m U m T m U U U U U U U U U $ 6 p m n n 6 m 6 p 6 n d m m m m m m m m y us w w m ✓+ w w c y� w `m m `m `m `m `m `m `m m `m m ¢ + + + n + + + a + + + a a 000u� o0 o�n O O c0 N tD N N uD � d d O m d Im 1U �U O QI m N m N (7 m c m m c m m m V U V ry m m m m m m m m m m N N 0 m y U m U U U Y V U U U n¢ p m 6 n 6 m N I[1 n N N + n + + + n n n n n a o. n n o. o d d d < < m N m W m o o �dm ° m N m cmm n '� '� m o m .1 C c c c O c U c O c O c O c N m m m m m �n ie m m m O O O a n U O O U m .2 1p :n -n m m m m n n n m m p m n m m m m m `u v�ww d�nwa+ LL n + + + n # + + n # + + p n n n n a n n c n a o oo 00o0 c 00 oA m O O N O o O o O n r !O O O Q [O1 m m N tm f° O N N N N n ^» � � � 19 M W M fA M Yi 19 f9 � 19 Vi 19 IA f9 f9 U l0 19 19 Vi m C m F V c N m pi v ❑ y m m o c c am =° c c m L U L7 N m m m m m -m a a m S a m c N m a m N m N E m o 0 o c c m m ❑ a m v m c m O > E a 5 m w�omm + m> ❑ c E _ - N r � o - N � � o m � o p 9 m ' O d K C m 2 fA c ❑ J p a U � m m m f O T J O It 7 a N N e M m M a m 0 m O M O Of r M N m N m m O m p m a M N N t7 O M O t7 O [V N P P' m Cf P< Oi p N e e a e e a a" a e e p a' e e ee e e e Q P N < m P O N O P O O M m A A m M N N A M O M N m t i [+1 C ni C Ci Ci % ni a V i�l m UI N t7 p < C N N t7 [M p N ee a of a e`ee d° e o 3' e o ee ee m O P M m m �O M N m m M m N 0 0 M O t0 0 Q N M [V N Ci < CV N O p Q P N N M d1 Ili M od M O M O M O M N m O+ @ Q C O o J m 6 n O. m w w w 6 @ m m m @ m � 6 @ m m d -r n+++ m m m n vow m. Nw 000in �oo v n nn rv� ,o@oam N m mmu>m N N T N O OA ppn M N M N N A m P w w w w w w w w w w M w w w w W 6 w 6 w 1 w w .. t5 O m 'm 'm n W m Z3 D U m m @ a o m .n p p V P �P m n n av n n W m W m 4`m @y w w w @@ m @ m a n W n w w w mwwww m @ n n n+++ n om Nw n Nw oo c s M o a m n 0 0 o m n n a �� N ppn - m m c m m m O V m p CC C C O a 'JO p lU6 Um U m A W F U p@@ U O O �p O U @ U U m o .6 c .a a ° o a n n n m `m m p m w w w w w w w w w w n m m m @ m a n ♦ + + a + + + + + n O N O N MN O O O r O O O A G O O N 6 n n 6 M M m W O H m N O N N N m N m m N ti V< P m J J m J N M w N wwv> w N w w w w w V ww w w w n w n w n w w w d `m a n n 0 N w N w N w c m m O O O O C t3 O@ O N O @ �n `m � c u� � u �n n o 6 o d N r a n n o W � N a m 6 6 a 6 6 W m W d InO m Pw w w pww w +#+ 6++# o w o w o M M r O1 ® v o 0 0 O N N N m N m m O N f P m P J J m 3 (V M w W C N w w ^w w J M w w w P w w w w w w 6 w 6 w 6 w w a V w @ G us u m W w E E a W `m 5 ru m m G C p e n_ 6 a `o b _ ' = 7 O p N •- O m j W j 0 � Z 1�f ox �m m m o Amrnm eag bfO oe NN O N a� a a' 2' �` 0 0 O� m e 2' o r b a e e m' p fp F t'O C O N m m of (V cV [- O l7 ri N tV HI < N1 i.j ri n .- N a°aa fV [V m 'C m N N th m [V N m w @ W 0 L Q N m o E c m m m c c o c m m io o 0 m L o 0 _ p u W o o 'R �N �N o p m S @ d 0 a N E m m W Ip W p 0 U = 6 m m C Y-i O L n m U T y m U U 7G .6 U O n 6 W 1+ i+ W Cm N rW R N @ 6 N `m W N 0 m `m `m `mom d n++ + v �+ + y ++ m a @ N NN N n+ oml nn n� 00 o� m LO O<m «b0Nth 0 0 ww W w O1» ww ww w n w w wwww F- u w w m L N m O 0 m O m m c C C O C 0 U U m O m L 0 O o 0 p c o@ W A o E L m w n W @ M M di rm W Hl m n + + 4 + + m o o M m O O O o 0 0 n h m a L C << N 0 O J r m N N l7 0 0 N L` 1 N m @ m m m C C c O C U m O m L O b C m O c O m W W q 9 a O N {Op W@@ m W U U @ 9 U O 7 @ �-' m m m in O n m U U m m U a n a a n m m n+ ++ d W+ i an d 0 6 m m n W n+ O N O O a n N N b O m N Y1 U1 �p � in in w w wua is w w w n w [n w wxs� H u w I 1 w L 1 N o �m n m d L o o 0 0° c O m qo N E L @ O W @@ W `mm N W @ J u 0 � U �an`mn a m m v u o f L w w m u w w m m m a a m m w w w m m `y IA + + `y m Y1 W `m 6 4 + + V + + o.+oid a a� m n W cco O O O O n b O O a O 000n IO 10 m 10 m a m m 0 b m n N O J r m N m O O m m J U S1 O wdf ^W w O W W w H G ui w wwrn W F- p www ws T N n T T jp E Q N U a m m ao: u W 0 Ta b@ a o' m « W w m w v m E m c E O W W w o E KK = p UD R' O > d` r b O E m N o m E U m n C � C 0 O A O m m S n m � o v N d m S c � m c � m m o W a L 9 p L - m W C U J R d 0 N .r `9 N U O 0 U 3 O U S v n m V @ W m d m � � m m c 5 m C tip � d p U � 9 m m O d 0 fi O U T C T @ a 3 m c m C G m @ 4 N � w m C m o m � ° E 0 u w m m c L u O U ' C m m n � I O C � O m m m � REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/' Iblic Hearings ORIGINATING DEPT: CHARTER COMMISSION i1 EM DESCRIPTION: Request for an ordinance amending the home 6.00, 6.02, 6.031, 6.04, and 6.05, relating to the mayor's veto authority. rule charter, sections 4.03, E ^ AD PREPARED BY Charter The Charter Commission proposes that the City Council amend Sections 4.03, 6.00, 6.02, 6.031, 6.04 and 6.05 all relating to the mayor's veto authority. The amendments would make it clear that the mayor has the authority to veto any action taken by the council, whether the action is by ordinance, resolution, findings of fact, conclusions of law and order document, or by motion. The proposed amendments recognize the use of "findings of fact' that are increasingly used to approve council actions. The proposed amendments are attached hereto showing the proposed new language as well as the strikeouts from the existing language. Although changes are not suggested for Sections 6.01 and 6.03, they are included to aid the council in understanding how the veto process is intended to proceed. Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Amendment of a charter may be made only after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment. Following the hearing, the council may adopt the ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members,. subject to the public's right to object by petition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present and direct the City Clerk to publish the entire ordinance. The ordinance will be effective 90 days after publication unless a citizen petition is filed challenging the ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: SECTION 4.03. (Veto power) He shall possess the veto power over all ___ ordinances,resolutions. fin_ oin_s of fa%onclrlsigns of la+n and orders. and motiors Deleted: passed all the common -- .-.. council, end over all of the common council_ Such veto powershallbe exercised in the manner and -_�=— y _---------_-------- ------ - - - --_. -;. Deleted:. where the action taken subject to the restrictions hereinafter set forth. thereby is required to be taken by resolution under the terms of this SECTION 6.00. (When required). Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise provided by `haver the laws of this state or this charter, all legislation shall be by ordinance adopted by a majority of all members of the common council When action is not required to be _ by ordinance, the common council shall act by ern itten resolution,;_ by w irten findings Deleted: in writing of fact conclusions of lave and order. o4 by motion to_be_entered on the minutes Deleted: , m cases in which d is not - ---- -- ----- - - otheriise provided Subd. 2. Every action taken by the common council fixing salaries and appropriating money for the payment thereof, every determination to issue bonds of the city or in any way to contract indebtedness, every provision for the sale of any real estate of the city, and every levy of taxes or special assessments, shall be by ordinance or resolution in writing. SECTION 6.01. (Style). The style of all ordinances shall be: 'The common council of the City of Rochester do ordain." SECTION 6.02, (Enactment). Every ordinance,. resolution and findings of Deleted: and °act, condusloris of law and order passed by the common counci`shall be -signed . Deleted:, wherein action is taken on . by the president of the common council and shall be attested b the city clerk. The any of the matters mentioned m Y Y Section 6.00 clerk shall also attach the corporate seal. On the next day after the passage — — -- ---- thereof the same shall be transmitted by the city clerk to the mayor for his approval. SECTION 6.03. (Approval veto). If the mayor approves the same, he shall append his signature, with the date of his approval thereto. He shall then return it to the city clerk within five (5) days, excluding Sundays, of its transmission to him. If the mayor declines to approve the same he shall within said five (5) days, excluding Sundays, return it to the city clerk with a statement of his objections thereto, to be presented to the common council at its next meeting thereafter. SECTION 6 031 (Vet(VetD of a^`ions t-F=r by motion), If the mayor obiects to SECTION 6.04. (Override of veto). Upon the return of an ordinance, .-. Deleted! or mm— resolution or findings of fact conclusions of iaw and order to the common council Deleted . without the mayor's approval, or upon the receipt of a writ en notice of veto of a motion from the mayor. the question shall again be put upon the passage of the same, notwithstanding the objections of the mayor, and if upon such vote, which 'Editor's Note: under Section 1.02, subd. 2, an ordinance establishing ward boundaries is not subject to the Mayor's veto. eO' shall be taken by a call for the ayes and nayes, five -sevenths (5R) of all the _.__-.. _ members of the common council shall vote in favor of such ordinance, resolution, Deleted: or f ndin s of fact conclusions of law and orde_ or motion. the same shall be declared._---- -- Deleted:, _ enacted, and shall have the same force and effect as if approved by the mayor. — -- - -- SECTION 6.05. (Failure to return). If any ordinance, resolution or findings ----- ,,Deleted: or of fact. conclusions of lawn and order so submitted to the mayor shall not be returned by him to the city clerk within five (5) days (Sundays excepted) after presentation thereof to him, the same shall be deemed to be approved by him, and he shall deliver the same to the city clerk on demand. MEETING , REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 511106 SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. IONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: I PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY L.tA,DKINS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Annexing To The City of Rochester Approximately 9.95 Acres Of Land Located In A Part Of The East Half Of The Northwest Quarter Of Section 30, Township 107 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said property is located on the South side of Viola Road and on the West side of East Circle Drive. b) An Ordinance Rezoning 8.73 Acres Of Land From The R-1 Zoning District To The B-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 on the South side of Viola Road and on the West side of East Circle Drive. c) An Ordinance Rezoning .62 Acres Of Land From The I Zoning District To The R-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 South of Eastwood Road SE, East of Harbor Drive SE, and North of Harbor Heights Court SE. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: