Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2006_RegularCITY OF RO.CHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNC"ILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 1-51 41H STREET SE MEETING NO..12 REGULAR ADJOURNED pl�D6E OF ;�1_;L[61ANCE PAGE 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD MAY 15, 2006 7:60 P.M. B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 3-4 1) Presentation of.Firefighter, Police Officer and Deputy Sheriff of the Year Award 5-6 D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes v 7-14 2) Insurance Costs.for New Employees 15-20 3) Proposed Revision of the City's Nepotism Policy 21-24 4) Boys -and Girls Club Summer Work Program - 25-26 5) Request for- Public Hearing "to Consider an Ordinance Amending the. Home - Rule Charter, Section, .7.06 Relating to the Establishment . of ... Compensation for Elected Officials ,27-28 6) Wine & On Sale 3.2% Malt" Liquor License for Phnom Penh Restaurant Transfer from On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. . - 29-30 7) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 31-46 8) Sound Amplification Requests 47-48 9) Approval of Accounts Payable 49-52 10.) Authorize. Agreements, In Accordance with Minnesota."Statutes: Section 471.375 to Complete Energy Savings Improvements to. City Facilities and " Provide for its Financing 53-54 11) " Lease with United Way of Olmsted. County for Public Open Space .: 55-56 12) Allow Olmsted County Turn Back, Vacate, Relinquish or AmendVarious ." County State Aid Highway Right of Way 57-58 ". 13) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Olmsted County for CSAH 16;Right of Way 59-60 14) Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Eisenberg Building 61-62 15) • Professional Services Agreement: Traffic Signal CSAH 22 (East Circle Dr -., NE) at Northern Valley Dr.NE, J6003 6 Council Agenda s, Monday, May 15, 2006 Page 2 of 3 63-64 16) Advertise.for.Bids:. (J9707) 19t' Street NW from Ashland Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) 65-66 17) Supplemental Agreement #3, Project #6255-4-99 (J9579).5511, St. N.W. from 52"d Ave- to 60" Ave. N.W. 67-68 18) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to `Serve Morris Hills North Subdivision — J5173 69-70 19) Owner Contract - Public Improvements .to Serve the North Broadway . Commercial Development-J5094 . 71-72 20) Owner Contract - Public Improvements. to Serve Mills Addition to Rochester — J5207 73-74 21) Agreement for the Transfer of Jurisdiction over a part of County Right of Way . 75-76 22) Engineering Services' Agreement:: Bike ,.Path 'Construction and Recondition Project J4946 & J4947 77-78 23) Supplemental Agreement #1 = Kings "'Run. Trunkline Sanitary Sewer. Replacement - J7708 79-80 24) Engineering Services ,Agreement: Feasibility. Report and _ Preliminary Design, for. Storm Water Pond BC p 1.19. (north :of Pinewood Road)' Project J 6552 81-82 25) Contract with Premier Security/Meter Collections 83-84 26) Hotel Validation Equipment'AgrbernenttRadisson arid.Holiday Lnn Express 27) Real Estate — Right of Way Acquisition"for the Viola. Bike Path Project - J494p , ' - 28) Real Estate — Settlement for Permanent Drainage & Utility Easements on Morris Memorial LLC Property.,(J-7744) E) HEARINGS 85-142 1) Land Use.Plan Amendment#05-02 initiated'bythe.,City. Planning and Zoning' Commission for the. "Imagine: Kutzky" comprehensive, planning effort in the Kutzky Park Neighborhood 143-160 2) Preliminary Plat 906-07"by' Big DE Development, LLC to be known as Bandel North. Commercial and requesting a, SubstantialLand Alteration_ for property located along. the -south side of Overland Drive- N.VII. and east and west.of Bandel Road N.W. - 161-174 3) Final Plat #04-31. by Todd.Fiedlerto be known as -The Wilds 175-186 4) Final Plat #05-35 by Platinum.Developmen't Group to be known as Rochester - Towne Club 187-190 5) Vacation Petition #05-1:1' by Mark Hemann, Platinum Development, vacating a portion of the Eastwood R'oad.Yight-of-way beginning just east of Harbor Drive SE and extending approximately 1440 feet east. 191-194 6) Vacation Petition #06-04' by the City of Rochester to vacate a public utility and drainage easement on property located along the south side of Overland Drive N.W., east of BandelRoad N.W. and west of Outlot A Bandel North First. Council Agenda Monday, May 15, 2006 Page 3 of 3 195-206 7) Amendment to Official. Street Map #12, to.remove,the right-of-way for the southerly extension of "Garden Drive° to 48U' Street,S.W. The right-of-way extends north of 4,8 Street, and lies between T1463 and St. Bridget Road. 207-224 8) Continued. Hearing on "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, F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 225-228 1.) Proposed Income Threshold Amendment for Deferred Assessments 229-232 2) Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning Commission to. amend Section'63.2241 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning districts..are permitted to:: have banners. M-250 3) Resolution Establishing " the Westside Transportation `Improvement ` - District; TID #4 G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 251-252 . H) TABLED ITEMS 253-272 . 1) Substantial Land Alteration for Preliminary: Plat #06-02'by North. American Realty known. -as Willow Heights 5� Addition 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT Meeting Recessed to.5/12/06 to consider bids for T.H. 14/rown Club Rd. improvements . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL -ACTION MMENT PERIOD CO MEETING DATE:. 5/15/06 ITEM NO. OPEN r.,...,....,.. a...-.. �,�. A ' ?M DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD' PREPARED BY:. ` S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply-.. • This section of the,agenda may not:be used as a forum to continue discussion on an.agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. a This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council -meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will. generally be responded to in writing. OUNCIL ACTION: moton by: Swood by: V. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 51151063 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.� , LETTERS AND PETITIONS ADMINISTRATION DESCRIPTION: PRESENTATION OF FIREFIGHTER, POLICE OFFICER AND PREPARED DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE YEAR AWARD S. KVENVOLD Don Charlson of the Early Risers Exchange Club wishes to appear before the. Mayor and City Council to present .their award for. the Firefighter of the year, Police Officer of the year and. Deputy Sheriff of the year. COUNCILACTION: mosonby Second by: � lo. REQUEST FUR UUUNGIL At; I IUN NICCIIIVU DATE:5/15/06 S AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-26 M DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS PREPARED BY:. I G. NEUIVI<ANN This RCA lists all, the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can.. approve all of the items with a single motion to approve:. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether -there are any of these items which you wish to have. removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council . . The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: 1) ' Approval of Minutes 2) Insurance Costs for New Employees: 3) Proposed Revision of the City's Nepotism Policy 4) Boys and Girls Club Summer Work Program 5) Request for Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Amending the Home Rule Charter, Section ,7.06_.Relating to the Establishment of Compensation for Elected Officials 6) Wine & On Sale13.2% Malt Liquor License for Phnom. Penh Restaurant - Transfer from On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License 7) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 8) Sound Amplification Requests 9) Approval of Accounts Payable - 10) Authorize Agreements in Accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 471.375 to Complete Energy Savings Improvements to City Facilities and Provide .for its Financing 11) Lease with United Way of Olmsted County for Public Open Space 12) Allow Olmsted County Turn Back, Vacate, Relinquish or Amend Various County State Aid Highway Right of Way 13) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Olmsted County for CSAH 16 Right of Way 14) - Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Eisenberg Building 15) Professional Services Agreement: Traffic Signal CSAH 22 (East Circle,D. NE) at Northem Valley Dr NE, J6003 16) Advertise for Bids: (J9707) 19"' Street NW from Ashland Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) IT) :Supplemental Agreement #3, Project #6255-4-99 (J9579) 55.P St. N.W.-from 52nd Ave. to 600' Ave. N.W. 18) Owner Contract - Public Improvements to Serve Morris Hills North Subdivision - J5173 19) Owner Contract -.Public Improvements•to Serve. the North Broadway Commercial Development - J5094 'OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 May 15, 2006 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Mills Addition to Rochester — J5207 Agreement for the Transfer of Jurisdiction over a part of County Right of Way Engineering Services Agreement:: Bike Path Construction and Recondition Project J4946 & J4947 Supplemental Agreement #1 — Kings Run Trunkline Sanitary Sewer Replacement — J7708 Engineering Services Agreement: Feasibility Report and Preliminary Design for Storm Water Pond BC p 1.19 (north of Pinewood Road) Project J 6552 Contract with Premier Security/Meter Collections Hotel Validation Equipment Agreement/Radisson and Holiday Inn Express COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST -FOR COUNCIL ACTION ;,,.AGENDA SECTION: ;' ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA ,ADMINISTRATIOD ITEM DESCRIPTION: INSURANCE COSTS FOR NEW EMPLOYEES MEETING DATE: 5/15/06 ITEM NO: PREPARED BY: S. ICVENVOLD The past practice of the City organization has been to, require that new employees pay the entire premium for their health and dental insurance coverage for the first six . months of.their employment., This requirement is now causing some recruitment problems most notably in the Police. Department (see attachment). The department heads have met and recommended.. that the requirementbe eliminated. The Personnel Advisory Committee considered this • proposal at their 4/19/06 meeting and recommends that the requirement be eliminated, effective 1/1/06. `The new employees would still be required to pay the same monthly insurance premium payment as the.remainder of the City employees are required to pay. COUNCILACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion eliminating the requirement that new employees pay the entire health and dental insurance premium during -their first six months of employment. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion ty. Second by. to: C6. Memo To: Personnel Advisory Committee Marcia Marcoux, Chair Sandra Means Bob Nowicld From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: April 13, 2006 Subject: . Insurance Costs for New or Lateral Entry Employees Currently, new employees must pay the entire cost of their health insurance coverage for the first six months of their employment. This payment, which would cost-$1,335 per month, does cause some applicants not to consider City employment. This payment requirement does cause some recruitment problems for some departments (see attached departmental comments). The department heads have discussed this matter at a recent meeting of the department heads and recommend the City Council's consideration to eliminate the six month employee health coverage payment requirement. If the PAC should recommend the elimination of this requirement and the Mayor/Council should concur, it is recommended that the change be made retroactive to January 1, 2006. MEMORANDUM Rochester Police'Department Administration . DATE: March T 2006 TO: Stevan Kvenvold FROM: Roger Peterson SUBJECT: Insurance Costs -for Lateral Entry Employees The Police Department has experienced serious problems in attracting qualified, experienced candidates for police officer positions: During our last attempt at hiring we had 42 people test for the position in comparison to 400-600 only a few years ago. Of those that tested, we made conditional offers of;einployment to six candidates: Two of those individuals declined. to participate further and the - remaining four were rejected by the CiviLService Commission. While this would be a serious problem under any circumstance, the situation is of particular concern at this time as a large number of retirements are expected to leave us . very short staffed in the coming months. . We identified a number of factors that adversely affect our ability to attract, qualified, experienced candidates and have subsequently recommended several changes to the hiring process. These changes were'reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Personnel Advisory Committee and later approved by the: Civil Service Commission. However, two.major obstacles remain: The.lack.of lateral entry. opportunities and the requirement that new employees; pay 100% of insurance costs for the first 6 months of. employment. Discussions are currently underway between the police union and the City to address the issue of lateral entry. This would allow individuals with experience in .. another police department to -accept employment with the City of Rochester without experiencing'a major reduction in, wages. This was identified as one of the primary obstacles in'attracting people with taw enforcement experience to the City and, since,many'other law enforcement agencies offer such opportunities, Rochester is at a distinct disadvantage in thisx6gard. While lateral entry,opportunities would be extremely helpful in our recruiting efforts, the city policy requiring. that new employees pay 100% of insurance costs for the first six months of employment nullifies the benefit of this program. New employees are currently required to pay close to $5,400 for dependant coverage during the first six months of employment, far outweighing any benefit lateral entry can offer. ' Since most jurisdictions require far less than six months of insurance payments —.and most waive them entirely for lateral entry employees — this becomes problematic for lateral entry candidates. The Police Department proposes a change to city policy and contract language that would either eliminate or significantly reduce the insurance burden for lateral entry employees. Such a change is needed if we are to regain our competitiveness in the existing job market. City Finance has reviewed this proposal and determined that adopting the proposed change does not adversely impact the current City budget as these costs are already accounted for in present allocations and, since the requested change applies only to lateral entry employees, it is not expected that this provision will apply to a large number of employees. Thank you for your consideration. l� j FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM' DATE: March 9, 2006 TO: I. Stevan Kvenvold, .City Administrator FROM:-. Dale Martinson, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Health Premiums for New Recruits In response, to your request for;input on.the question of charging newly hired employees the full health coverage costs for the first six months of employment, I offer the:fol.lowing observations: 1) I, expect the existing policy was a sound concept,at the time it was first put in place and was not too onerous when total'monthly family premiums. were down in the $100 to. $150 range. However, with current family premiums at.$1,335 per month,.1 expect it is quite a burden for any employee. f 2), dt also did.,not loccur to me until discussing this that a new employee could not simply decide to wait out the six months and hope no serious health issue arose.- Our closed enrollment policy basically allows a new employee entry to our health -plan only upon hire or a "life -changing event" such as marriage, divorce, or change in dependants: If they chose not to take coverage when hired because they. couldn't afford it, they are precluded from taking it in six months unless some life event occurred at that time. 3) As for budget risk, it is really no worse than the person that was just in'that position. We already have the full City cost included in the budget. ,If it is a new position, we budget the full cost of the employee, including overhead such as insurance'.premiums; right from the anticipated start date so the full costs'are provided in. this case also. 4) Having said that, I do not mean to suggest that changing the, policy will have no cost impact to the City. I just mean we will already have those costs budgeted for. I think it is important to understand. that under the current policy, war are saving the City. approximately $7,242°($1,207/mo x 6 mos.) for each recruit electing family coverage and $2,753.($458.88 / mo x 6 mos.) for the each recruit electing single coverage. That money would remain in the operating budgets and fall to fund balance if the policy is. not changed. 5) There is also the issue of additional risk to our self -insured plan.' An employee is obviously more likely to take the plan if we paid the full City share but may have to forgo coverage if we did not. If that employee later came down with a Health Premiums For New Recruits Page 2 of 2 serious and costly health issue, the plan would of course be better off if they were not in it. I realize that sounds cold, but I'm just stating the facts. I expect all taxpayers in the State would likely then foot the bill instead of just the City of Rochester's self -insured plan. 6) Those costs might ultimately be pretty small, however, compared to the cost of losing the best candidate for the job if that policy makes us less competitive in job recruitment. As we and every other business begin to see its baby boomers retire and the demand for replacements grows, this policy is likely to cause a significant hindrance to finding quality employees. Having a great employee can save the City thousands while a poor employee can quickly cost us thousands. 7) My final concern is relative to others that have recently been hired under the existing policy if we now move to change it. I expect it might be hard to work next to an employee that got the "new deal if one is sucking up $1,335 a month in total family premium to be able to insure his or her family why the other is just paying the standard employee share. Perhaps making this retroactive to some date, such as January 1st would be an appropriate fix to this point. In summary, I recommend we eliminate the requirement to have new employees pay the full health premiums for the first six months. I realize it is not an inexpensive change in policy, but I believe the practical implications of leaving it in place would be far more expensive in the long run. i OFFICE•OF,THE CITYATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney ! "`" SUBJECT: Potential Obstacle to Recruiting New Employees Recently, we lost one of our Prosecution Assistants to the Mayo Clinic and.a job that paid, so, she told me, about 50% more in_salary than the City position. This employee was a veteran of the local. court system, which made her very valuable in assisting our prosecutors with criminal case management, tracking criminal .cases; opening and:" closing cases and using her "contacts" within the court system to.find out information .we needed to effectively, carry out our, duties. 0 Having a knowledgeable and respected former court system employee in this office was a significant advantage for us and I was hopeful to repeat that experience. After.she announced her departure, I asked her if she knew of others currently or recently associated with the local court system whose.presence within our office would, be helpful to us. She said that she did know several current and -former 'court support staff persons who were very interested in coming to.work for the City Attorney's Office. She thought any of these persons would do a good job for us. However, those potential candidates would not apply because .they simply couldn't afford to do so. The problem, she told me, was that the City required a probationary employee to pay all of the costs associated with health insurance for the first six months of employment. For a young employee with a young family, that was a considerable expense to incur. She was concerned about this expense when she decided to apply. But, in spite -of that significant expense, she did apply to this office and was selected for the position. Others, she told me, simply cannot afford to make application to this Office with that considerable expense staring them in the face: was taken aback by the suggestion that good candidates with valuable qualifications and experiences were interested in filling a vacancy in. this Office, - but decided .not to apply because of a requirement'regarding payment, of health insurance. premiums during the first six months of employment.. We did find a good candidate for.this vacancy and I believe she will do a good job for us. (This is her first week on the job.) However; we may not be as fortunate the next time around. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/06 -�ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT: ITEM NO. CONSENT,AGENDA ADMINISTRATION' `ITEM DESCRIPTION:' PROPOSED REVISION OF THE CITY'S NEPOTISM POLICY ` . PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The -Personnel Advisory Committee considered a proposed, revision to'the C'Ity's policy on. nepotism at their April 19, 2006, meeting and recommends that_B3 of. the nepotism policy be deleted and replaced to read as follows: . "3 The City will not hire or promote a person to work in any speofic work unit directly managed by that person's close relative: An employee must not participate in any supervisoy or managerial action involving a close relative:" COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion amending the Personnel Policy on Nepotism; as recommended above... . \� PERSONNEL POLICY l ' 3. Hidna Authority The authority for making the final decision as to which applicant will be hired rests with the department head and his/her supervisors. (Except in those cases where final approval of the appointing authority is required.). The selection must come from a list of applicants provided by Personnel and the applicant selected must be, in the opinion of those making the selection, the most qualified for the job. In case of a Police or Fire Department appointment, the applicant selected must be among the.three as certified by the appropriate Civil Service Board. B. Nepotism 1. For the purposes of'this policy, "close relative" means a person who is related to the principal employee as a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, nephew or niece by blood or in-law. "In-law" shall mean not only such persons as, for example, brothers-in-law, but shall also include "step" relatives and adoptive ones. The restriction on the employment of "close relatives" shall also apply to more distant relatives who are living in the same household of a City employee. 2. The City may hire "close relatives" of current employees if the new employee works in a different division or location than the current employee. 3. The City will not hire a "close relative" in a manager -subordinate relationship under any circumstance. 4. The City may employ "close relatives" for temporary/seasonal positions provided a clear understanding exists that the employment relationship is strictly temporary/seasonal and will not necessarily lead to full-time employment. 5. When any two employees become "close relatives" by marriage or otherwise, and this results in them being in the same-department/division or a manager -subordinate relationship, one of them will be required to terminate his/her employment with the City. The determination as to which employee shall terminate will be made by the two employees. C. Job Offers - Step Pay Rance Positions 1. All job offers will be made by the department heads or their designated representatives. Offers should be made in Step A of the appropriate pay grade. 2. Department heads may offer Step B provided they have justifiable reasons for doing SO. 3. Any offer higher than Step B should be done only after consultation with/approval of the Director of Employee Relations. 4. Immediately after an offer has been made and accepted, a "Report of Personnel Action Form" should be completed and forwarded to the Personnel Department. The applications of both the person hired and those not hired, should be returned to the Personnel Department. -P8- My r •r `j(IWAdi7iinistrators Memo. To: Personnel Advisory Committee ' Marcia Marcoux, Chair. Sandra Means Bob Nowicld From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: April 13, 2006 Subject: City Nepotism Policy �. (� The.City's current nepotism policy states. in part that 'The, Cit y will not hire a'close relative' in, a manager=subordinate relationship under any circumstances ". Father/son combinations have been prevalent in the City's police and fire departments for many decades. These father/son combinations are also. prevalent, in fire departments across the nation: A son of one of the Fire Department's. battalion .chiefs is currently on the firefighter ,% appointment list and will most likely be eligible for consideration for appointment. The City's current nepotism policy as written would -prohibit the appointment, of the above, mentioned firefighter applicant.. (requested the -City Attorneys opinion on what changes would need to be made to the current nepotism policyto continue to allow a father and son to be employed in the same department (see attached). Terry Adkins advises that the following change in the policy language.. would :be needed to allow a father and son to be employed in the same departrrient:, . "The City will not hire' a 'close relative' to work in any: specific . work unit managed by another'close relative'." I recommend your favorable consideration in making this suggested_ change to, the City's. nepotism policy.• 1 Enclosure. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY _ MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 2006 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins.— Rochester City Attorney-O SUBJECT: Nepotism Policies As requested, I reviewed the nepotism policies of Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Cloud, Duluth and Phoenix. You asked me to indicate how these policies differ from Rochester's nepotism policy. Your March 10, 2006, memo indicates that these departments have father/son employees within their departments. However, your memo does not indicate whether these father/son employees find themselves in a manager/subordinate relationship. (The Rochester nepotism policy does not strictly prohibit the hiring of father/son employees in the same department. It does strictly prohibit the hiring of father/son employees when one "under any circumstance" may supervise the other.) I assume you want me to discuss fathers and sons in a supervisory relationship since that is the topic that has prompted the exchange of memos between our offices. I will respond to you with that assumption in mind.. First, I will repeat the words of the Rochester policy that prohibits the hiring of close relatives: The City will not hire,a `close relative" in a manager -subordinate relationship under any circumstance. The Minneapolis nepotism policy states that no employee "shall be the immediate supervisor, of that supervisor's immediate supervisor, of,a related person." This language is not as strict as Rochester's "under any circumstance" language. But this fact does, nothing to change the outcome in a battalion chief/firefighter scenario since the City's battalion chief job description does suggest any battalion chief may supervise any captain and a captain is the immediate supervisor of a firefighter. The St. Paul nepotism policy says close relatives should not be placed "in a position where a relative could have an influence in the hiring of the applicant for City employment_ or supervision of a relative." The key word here is "could." I believe "could" and "under any circumstance" reach the same result... I don't see much difference between this policy'and Rochester's policy. The, St. Cloud policy says no employee "shall be assigned to a position in which that employee is supervised by another employee who is a parent or child." This .language differs considerably from. Rochester's policy as the St. Cloud policy focuses on the actual: relationship between the two employees as opposed to conjuring up a scenario. where .the supervisory,, relationship might occur. The Duluth policy says -a "relative ... of a current City employee may not be hired to work in. any work unit managed by such current employee." This language is. even more specific than St. Cloud's policy. The attention is on a specific work unit and'the inquiry is who supervises the employees of that unit. Finally, the Phoenix policy. says "members shall not be 'permitted to directly supervise a relative." This language is a bit unclear because of the meaning of "directly." In comparison to Rochester's -policy, the Phoenix policy is more restrictive -because Rochester makes no distinction between direct and indirect supervision. Ultimately, you asked me-what'changes,to the Rochester policy might occur to allow a father and son to be employed in the same department. I assume you wish to avoid a father from supervising his son. .With that assumption in mind, I suggest the following change to the Rochester policy (patterned after.the-Duluth policy): The City will not hire a 'close relative" berdi ate Fel_twansN _ uRdeF any _iFeur ste^^e to work inn-anv specific work unit managed by another "close relative." I hope.this information is helpful.to you.' Cc: Linda Gilsrud David Kapler REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 04 DATE: 5/15/06 . rr=u Mn .. t CONSENT AGENDA . ; A1JM1r 1XA11U1y —At I DESCRIPTION: BOYS AND. GIRLS CLUB SiTMNMR WORK PROGRAM PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The Boys and .Girls Club is requesting an appropriation of $9,079 for their Summer Work Program. The City organ'Ization has. provided funding. for the Summer Work Program for' many years.. This program provideswaluable.assistance to the City by picking up trails and debris from. City parks and other public facilities. Prior to the existehce of the Boys and Girls, Club, the Summer Work Program -was operated by the Youth. Employment Program (YEP).. COUNCIL ACTIONREQUESTEM , Request a motion appropriating $9,079 from th6.2006 Contingency Account for.the Boys and Girls Club Summer Work Program. ACTION: Motion by. Se66nd by to: BOYS & GIRLS .CLU&- OF ROCHESTER ' Boys & Girls Club Mayl, 2006 - of Rochester - ` 1028 East Center Street - - Rochester, MN 55904 Stevan Kvenvold - Tel 507-287-2300 .. Fax 507-287-2308 City of Rochester , www.beclubrooh.org 2014 Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Summer Work Project Dear Mr. Kvenvold, I am writing to request funds for the 2006 Summer Work Program. The Boys & Girls Club of Rochester is excited to participate m this experience again this year. The teens who participate in the program this year will be required to graduate from one of our three career development classes prior to participation in the program. The classes enable youth to Explore, Acquire, & Maintain employment. The skills gained through the classes.and with the practical experience in the Summer Work Program will allow participants to succeed in the job market for years to. come. The Boys & Girls Club of Rochester is requesting $9079 to implement the program for 10 weeks this summer. This will include 4 youth workers, a supervisor, payroll taxes, transportation and administrative costs. The Boys & Girls Club of Rochester will provide transportation and Supervision. If you have questions please feel free to contact Joanna Billings at (507) 287-2313. If you need anything regarding the request, please feel free to contact me at (507) 287-2311. Thank you for your continued support of this valuable program. Chief Professional Vtricer . Boys & Girls Club of Rochester The POS1tIVe Place For Kids A united way Agency Boys, 8: Girls Club of Rochester' Budget for Summer YEP Work Program 2006 4 youth workers for 10 weeks (June 12th through August 25th) for'18 hours per week (7:30-noon).@ $6.75/hr = 4,860 1- staff worker for 10 weeks, 20 hours, per week (needs to work 15 minutes before and after youth_hours) @ $141hr.= 2,800 Transportation (fuel) 500 Payroll Taxes @ 12% $9,079 Total Costs ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 - 4TBSTREET SE - ROOM 150 ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 (507) 281-6160 FAX: (507) 281-6165 MEMORANDUM TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold City Administrator FROM: Roy Sutherland 017 Superintendent ' DATE: May 9, 2006 SUBJECT: Support for Funding Request from the Boys & Girls Club • For a number of years, the Park & Recreation Department has been very fortunate to have the, services of the Youth Employment Project during our busiest time. The original YEP program is now administered by the Boys & Girls Club and is critical to the high standard at which people expect the Park System"to be maintained. The Boys & Girls Club provides labor, transportation and supervision to a small workforce that does much of the daily cleanup in a number of parks. This task is very time consuming and without their help we would be hard pressed to keep the parks as clean as they are. There are a number of benefits to this program. These include: ❖ They provide the transportation and the supervision for this project. This saves us time and money. I . :• They provide job opportunities and training fora number of young people. o> The service they provide to the Department is invaluable and we would have a very difficult time maintaining the system without their help. Thank you for your consideration of their request. We look forward to working with the • Boys &. Girls Club for the coming summer. REQUEST.FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15MB: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. r-onsent Agenda CHARTER COMMISSION -5- ;EM DESCRIPTION: Request for public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the home rule PREPARED BY: charter, section 7.06, relating to the establishment of compensation for elected officials. Charter Commission . In 1.997,. the Rochester Home Rule Charter was amended to require that the council annually adopt an. ordinance that set the salanes'for elected officials for the upcoming year. It Was -brought to our attention earlier .this year that. this process was in :conflicf with state law.' 'Although the Charter. Commission recognizes that the City Council took appropriate action in attempting to comply with both the charter and state law, it is the Charter Commission's desire that the charter be amended'to remove this inconsistency. The.Charter Commission requests that`Section 7.06 be amended as follows: SECTION -7.06 .. (Compensation; elected officials). The salary. for the offices of mayor, councilmember-at-large and councilmember shall be fixed by ordinanceadoptedby the Council. The ordinance shall state that no:increase in salary shall be'effective until after publication and on a date that is after the next succeeding. municipal election. 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 maybe 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.,, �IOUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:. By motion,,direct .the City Clerk to publish notice'of a public hearing to be held Monday, June 5, 2006, at 7:00 p:m., to consider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following that hearing, the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK a yc:M DESCRIPTION: WINE & ON SALE 3.2% MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR PHNOM PENH PREPARED BY: i RESTAURANT — TRANSFER FROM ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE DONNA 7 SCHOTr Applications have been received from Kunthary On Phy for an On Sale Wine and 32% Malt Liquor License _ for Phnom Penh Restaurant located at 1647 South Broadway. The restaurant is transferring their On Sale and Sunday hntoxicating Liquor Licenses to an On Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License: The licenses would be contingent upon receiving the required fees, insurance certificates, any fees due the City of Rochester and all departmental approvals.' A confidential investigative report has been returned satisfactorily. The transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to an On Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License would take effect immediately. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED A motion to approve the transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating. and Sunday Liquor License to an On Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Phnom Penh Restaurant located at 1647 South Broadway. i. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by. second by: to: I� REQUEST EQUEST FOR COUNCIL -ACTION MEETING, DATE: 5/15/06 1 CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION' LICENSES" BONDS* MISCELLANEOUS CITY A CTIVITIES PREPARED O�T DONNA J SCHA The'followmig 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 ffpu tstanding debts with the City of Rochester. BEER — ON SALE 3.2% MALT Dalena, Iuc..11)BA Tinn's Philly Steak Subs 3462 55P Si NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 FIItEWORKS SPLAY Rochester Honkers Baseball Club '403 East Center St Rochester, Mn 55904 Display, on June 1, 2006 and August 12, 2006. 1,0:0.0.PM to 10:30 PM' GOLF CARTS -Kyle Peter Glynn 1903, Greenview PI SWW8 Rochester, Mn. 55902 HOUSE MOVER Progressive Building Mover's Inc. 6463 50'h St SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 From 202129" PI NW to 3.114 Rose Hts Dr SE 5/23/06- 1:06 AM to 4:00 AM SIDEWALK— CEMENT Stoneridge Construction 4432, Starling Lane SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Warnhoff Concrete 22445 Hwy 60 Blvd. Zurnbrota, Mn, 5502 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY CTIVITIES PAGE MAY 15, 2006 MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES Olmsted Medical Center 2109bAve SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Stride for Fitness Race/Walk 9/16/06 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM 91' Ave SE to RCTC University Center Lower Corner Chapter ABATE of Mn Motorcycle Ride — Toys for Tots 8/6/06 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM Wal-Mart South to Rochester Ford Glendale Neighborhood Association %Lora Powell 1120 Glendale Hills Dr NE Rochester, Mn. 55906 Flag Day Kiddie Parade 6/14/06 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM Rochester Veterans Memorial Ass'n %William E. Lyke 846 10' St NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Memorial Day Parade 5/29/06 9:15 AM to 11:30 AM Central Park to Soldiers Field Minnesota Red Ribbon Ride 4457 3rd Avenue South Minneapolis Mn. 55419. Bike Ride to fight AIDS 7/14&15, 2006 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION' MEETING' DATE: 5/15106 ^ENDA"SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ' ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK ITEM DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS PREPARED BY: DONNAISCHOTT 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. MAXE%" SOUND • WAIVE MAXIlVIUIVI OF 85 DECIBELS ALLOWABLE 10:30 PM Elks Lodge #109.1, 917 15a' Ave SE, % Rochester, Mn, 55904. Classic Car Drive In Wednesday's from 5/24/06 to 10/4/06 4:00 PM to 9.30 PM Hangar Bar & Grill % 7386 Airport View Dr SW. �. Rochester, Mn. 55902 Gear Daddies Reunion Festival 5/27/06 3:00 PM to 10:30 P1vI Zach Smoley & Arthur Parks 1426 0 Ave SE #305 X ' Rochester, Mn 55904 Blue Sea Entertainment Benefit 6/3/06 11 :00 AM to 9:00 PM Foster Arends Park COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the sound amplification permits as presented: COUNCIL.ACTION: WOW by-. secofiany., +�: to, PLICATION # ZQa L PERMIT# dof5 - i CO EWCIL DATE: S 25 0Cv DATE RECEIVED yI l o RECHIPTIYV30ER AMOUNT PAID APPLICATION FOR SOU74?D AMPLIFICATIONPEP= DATE OF APPLICATION: APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS LN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CTrVFu'S OFFICE, 201 4" ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 2FLICANT LNFORAIMION N a� OF A3PL IC.617 OR ORG.9NIZATION: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: O✓l CELL PHONE NZJhfBER. CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: TELEPHONTE NUMBER: G�Oo?. G l�Do� _ CELL PHONE NUMBER: - PURPOSE OF EVENT DATE(S) OF EVENT: LOCATION OF SPEC DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTA N7N= TO BE PROVIDED: J C /9 s ;Z:y c&- f/t/ & ��40 MAC -MUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED _ TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE Ln ZMD TO T'HENUNBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED START TIME: �}"� �1/ END TIME: �i�.(l an? z .1. ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE -LAND AATD PREMISES TO BE USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND TEE DIRCTION THE SOUND- TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AN 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 IrNecessary)) 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM TFIE CHEEP OF POLICE. OR Tiff CHiEF'S DESIGNEE STATING THAT, IN THE GRIEF'S OPIlSION, APPROPRI�iTE ARRANGEMENTS H AVE EEEN 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 BBY- THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT --ROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF TEE EVENT. (UseAdditional Sheet yNecessary) 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND ''PRESSURELEVEL INTO 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 1030 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances.117 has been provided with the application and J 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. J SignatWof Applidant' . PERMTT FEE: S25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK Vf7M THE PARK DFF gTTZ- NT AT 181-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED P_4RK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU_ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADlVIEDSf1ZElTION USE ONLY PARK D EPSp Tt�NT. COMMENTS. POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS:_ AA. 1'cn.11— t: • FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMffNTS: f'4=SY-1 ZH6fi OMWS -' CITY CLERK t �� PI.�.NN�GDEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: _ r PLICATION#��/ DATERECEIVED PERMIT # D Df RECEIPT NUMBER COUNCIL DATE: <T//S/C G AMOUNT PAID c?S. 0y r APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICA TION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: s' 0-4- ® G APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 2o1 4TH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT IN ORMATION �1 p �Cz,11 NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: 738� A.-RQh2Y �:Eti �'2. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (so-)) jLgt $ ' f L 4 Li CELL PEONE NUMBER (5* 7) CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: C Ar+a E „ I Cteg TELEPHONE NUMBER: �50-1� X8$- f'Y44 CELL PHONE NUMBER JS07) �`tLoI&O PURPOSE OF EVENT: DATE(S) OF EVENT: EVENT INFORMATION 7 -o & - DAY(S) OF WEEK 5�+,47'j ` -( LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: 1 J 6y f�� ESL / I r. 0 I. - d �+ F g £ Ct DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: "i C4- D A CAL S 1 j 5 MAXIIvIiJM NUMBER.OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERIvfITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LWTED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED n w+ b S o- o i : ski i 5 sold START TIME: END TIIAE: t 0 : 3 0 rr . APPLi�A.fdT ��iTt�'yi2T�ig � IOH !i 1 NAAlEOF-APPLICANTRESPONSMLE PARTY: `!�N,f ka r� / SG n. : CS 5 el . TST) (1NSDALE) ��.�: ams ADDRESS: 33 J a 'DATE OFBaTm IL /�& � T 3 HOMETBLEPHONENUMBBIL; q.43-v10.C-LPHONINIIMBF�k��o1)i�i�.='o.lg0 NAME OF ORGANTIT_ATTON: AT .OL.r4 k r r c ADDRESS: �•SSLPaid- TBLEPHONE NUMBER f s c 71 ��� - $ �l tE <i 'CONTACT PERSON INTFORINi-, TOT � 1 CONTACT PERSON DUP2gG B-vENT: 0-1Lt^- a ,I h0 7 c r1 N c Cl E HOME ADDRB$S: ��33 • •• a tip( � ,� H DATE OF BI TH-. I t 7 Tr'"L..EPHONB NUMBER �Sb7) 9 3 01 o CSL L PHONS lvG1YBER: 4 �i 3- o ti$ p 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 DIRMON THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE. FACII,ITIES 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)) L — �nl� CfLaSS D'spas�..� _ (9 lafyhwl �iSQll! C 5E cw2• �r—( — �Oc Ff 0. d a 'C 4 4 O r ✓ S f cn eJ�. CRn. c� a iJ�/6e"� e — f✓;. i SY=X�� r pal'c L 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 CROVyD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. ls+ ( B7'Z/r ^Rene 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 TEE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Add#tonal Sheetlf Necessary) !.AjF k--JL '0 +V-r. S-t' j. Qa- w., j -LR��.: �F.c�- 9-ti`� 54,...aa t� 1 £ lk /fi 5 a e pc r 4ti t�" lei" v� 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXiMIIM 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 LATERTHAN 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 bed granted in response to his application. Signature of Applicant Y PERMIT FEE: '$25.00" _ YOU WII L NEED TO CHECK To m PARK'DEPARTMENT AT mi-ao T.O OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS"IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMNISTRATION USE ONLY PARSDEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: b..y FIRE DEPARTMENT. COMMENTS: 13 I'WY-11h-'LHBfi 08 45 - -- CITY CLERK P.05 I PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COMMENTS: C=CLEIZK PP.EOYX,r: /.J -^ ISM 0 f4JW Wd -`ZZ I =<ZO<of a LW r Q � W N d o CO LL 1� 2 a Q W Q C� Q ®�1 H AF'i'LFCATFON # � a (� A PERMIT DATERE'CEIYED�3�b (c Vh COUNCIL DATE: 0 (o RECEIPTNUMBER AMOUNTPAID a5 f APPLICATIONFOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMFT DATE OF APPLICATION: - APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 2014'H ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT IN -FORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT/RESPONSIBLE PARTY: HONE ADDRESS DATE OF BIRTH: 2 HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: CELL PHONE "7a.r nn NUMBER Z NAME OF ORGAN77a nnw- T-S) l i r C_ r-a 1 � - �Op . ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Co-7S- �46 7 CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT. HOME ADDRESS: DATE OF TELEPHONE NUMBER: PURPOSE OF EVENT: CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION CELL PHONE NUMBER: EVENT INFORMATION MIQ DATES) OF EVENT: J U �{ �j Cx& r AA __ DAY(S) OF WEEK: )� ru r (� LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT. FqS * - Po.rv, _ AZ DESCRIPTION OF M �� �L TO BE PROVIDED: i MAkmum NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL, BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY //io. HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED e p t START TIME: 11„� END TIME: G �� f I • ATTACH A SKETCH; SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AND PREMISES TO BE USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERNffT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SO SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIR ON THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FAC'LITIES 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 Bddttional Sheet IfNecessary)) *In ALC-} (S Li' Bye. des wi 116c nr r.nJ _ a i /?i ._ „v `r in./,?- t.G L Gae E°`S T T �MS.•n -to �`'P -�aea G"�"�dO i �eyv•�e-�cS. G�ZWi LI B2 C@�f 3 • ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM TEE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF DESIGNEE STATIN G THAT, IN THE GRIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH E PERMIT IS SOUGHT Qr INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION THEPERADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. FOR 1 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORT{ IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use,4dditional Sheet yjvecessary) 15y'2 Pggi dozy, ,eS -4-- 6usi 0 a 5• APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPQSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MA3QMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN SS DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY, WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE ` } SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 PM. AMPLIFIED - The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with thlication and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found we app ithin 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. tur Applicant PERMIT FEE: S25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT PERMITS AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK EF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR AD3ffl TRAHON USE ONLY -DEPARTMENT.• COMMENTS: POLICEDEPARTMENT.• m ID a I 51 b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/06 ^aENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT. ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Finance Department ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED slo Approval of Accounts Payable Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of $5,025,450.88, Accounts payable of, $3.420,924.14 Total disbursements $8,446,375.02 (Detailed listing of -disbursements submitted separately,) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second ey eo: DATE: Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance Department ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorize Agreements in.Accordance with Minnesota Statutes PREPARtU MY: 471.375 to Complete Energy Saving Improvements to City Facilities and Provide for Dale Martinson Its Financing. At the May 8' Committee of the Whole work session, Council reviewed a proposal by Johnson Controls, Incorporated (JCI) to provide improvements to various City facilities and to pay for those improvements through the savings in energy costs that. those improvements would produce. This program is specifically . authorized under Minnesota Statutes 471.375 as a provision designed to encourage local governments to seek out. -ways to reduce their energy consumption. Based upon the criteria staff provided to JCI, their engineers have spent several months studying our facilities and now recommend a project scope of approximately $6 million as shown in the attached project summary. A sample of the large items'and largest percentage savings items from this proposed project has been independently reviewed and .validated by Mike Smith of RPU and his assigned engineers. We anticipate these improvements will reduce energy and direct operating costs by over $640,000 annually based on electric and gas rates currently in effect. Most of that savings will be used to repay the capital costs of the improvements over a. 12-year amortization. However, we expect energy costs to'continue to rise over that 12 years and we anticipate the useful life of these improvements to exceed 12 years in length. We therefore believe significant savings will accrue the taxpayer in future years. JCI guarantees those savings based on current usage and rates and will provide annual measurement and verification of those savings. Our engineers will again be providing independent validation of those annual calculations. The project is proposed to be financed through a municipal lease being offered through CitiCapital. They have an Energy Finance division that concentrates on funding these Types of improvements and have provided the best quote at a rate of 4.1%. We have reserved the right to make final review and adjustment to the JCI program based upon Mikes review and latest data available so we are asking for a "not to exceed" authorization of $.6.1 million and will bring back any change orders to the project as they occur. We are further requesting approval be subject to legal review of the final documents and to securing CitiCapital's final approval of the municipal lease as has been proposed. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Subject to final document approval by our legal department and -to the securing of financing, approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the following agreements: a) Agreement with Johnson Controls, Incorporated to provide various. energy improvements to City facilities as authorized under Minnesota Statutes 471.375 in an amount not to exceed $6.1 million, and b) Municipal lease agreement with CitiCapital to finance said improvements over 12 years. COUNCIL ACTION: Moeon by: Second by: to: i 61 �+ R M �D m b • O 00. m M O Vl r. D• vl � y � O v � Z •� � U � Vf Vi K fA Vi V3 69 MM Wq P4 6A . (A � Fi � O O. M OVA d' of N m Na N O+ N• � O� OO N � O Q O F9 K FA o. F B N K � M Cp 'y G N � N r N f9 fry N �.j' •„�, 6b9 4` N ryO 6b9 bb9 bb9 N c� � p fA F9 Vi f9 fA V3 fA (A Vi f9 69 m O O� OM OM o 0 0 0 o b 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 f9 Hi 63 V N fA b O di b9 69 (A r � N yi Q N O } O\ N � < � u O '� 4�9 69 t•A � � O m n b h b b b h r 0 v�i a m �D oNo O m QR �D .N t R r eo .N ID O vmi I O �n n ? 5 O � a0 N r 00" Q � M O M b b N b m b h % 6 4Vi •� p� N m C 0 VJ fA 4Y (IY f9 (A Vi m� b9 �A 69 iR m� Vi Q V7 m m vl v+ m O N r vl m N O V1 r N 1� m 1� r Q �D O� O� m O� CP M T � m O •�+ � T' � N m O. I � Yf � V vi m M r" � eo a" o: rT o • aNm9 �i' .ri o" v n e•i 69 (A 69 ?� 6N9 b�9 di b9 h 69 69 Ee W m F m ea. ^a o g J ,u FAY 4 a , r" is z N t_ m p •3 I iTi 1 C C Y. S N' C d g. cy6 •" O x 9, fA 1 9 9 W C U Z V 9 H 1.11 O' w l e a o F a d F u� 2 .-• N m? Vl �D l� m 0\ p r N M^� b. l� m 0• N pa�aa�agxrafwd ! r a w N O O b � z9 � 3 v O U odu h Lti O T C U L C z m O > F" a {Q '� U y _�• N L m � l6 ', W u7. r 0 'a w 0 '^ a O O L y y V1 ✓� y M O O M O 1�V •--� V� M N N vl 00 M 69 69 fA fH !A FA 4f 4Y C O O U U U G TS 9 G U G U C a t1 00 M 00 M C ^ M r C N cs ss zs vs v� sv va cv cn vs (fi v C� a r ^ r am2Ah V'+N 6^969 Z m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:!5'/15/06 Consent Park and Rec Lease with United Way of Olmsted Country for Public Open Space D Stotz The Park Board has reviewed the attached lease with United Way of Olmsted County and recommends Council approval of the lease. The lease of a 50' X 50' area of the United Way property at 903 East Center will continue to allow the Park Department to make the area available for public use as a neighborhood tot lot. The site has had a piece of Park Department installed and maintained equipment in place for approximately 15 years. The Park Department is planning to replace the equipment this fall and as a prelude to this replacement has met with United Way officials and agreed that the arrangement should be formalized via a lease agreement. Council Action Requested: Approval of lease with United Way of Olmsted County COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to- r_ z GJ Q r H BI A 1 ST NW C United Way of Olmsted Co W 903 West Center Street n n m Cummings Outlot Lot w co 5D' LEASE AREA N 0 PUBLIC ACCESS CENTER ST W NNn 0 70 140 210 280 350 W SSE Fees SV inty 11 1 ST SW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5I15106 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p-- I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Allow Olmsted County Turn Back, Vacate, Relinquish or PR PARED BY: Amend Various County State Aid Highway Right of Way j M. Nigbur nloTE.- T" RLA Olmsted County intends on turning back, vacating, relinquishing or amending various county state aid highway right of way (please see the attached exhibits). 1. CSAH 2 (Viola Road NE) Relinquish Interest in Old Easement 3. CSAH 12 Relinquish 0.37 acre of old easement 5. CSAH 8 Vacate 66 feet old easement and amend access easement 6. CSAH 8 Turn back 0.02 acre existing easement 7. CSAH 3 Turn back 0.28 acre of existing easement 8.-18. CSAH 3 Turn back of 24 parcels The Public Works Department has concluded that the City of Rochester does not require use of any of the subject right of way for current or future right of way needs and further does not oppose the removal of these rights of way. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution granting approval of Olmsted County's intention to turn back, vacate, relinquish or amend various county state aid highway right of way as shown on the attached exhibits. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM D-12 MAY 155 2006 AGENDA Mayor & Council Stevan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese 3 . ��v r ie 3� '•F1 F ll r-5 Y" r Qa 4 � A A 64.96 S t 0 �....... i _I s r r SEIIx[ ffnog { 3i IF1 O s. f •- xui¢ ! i � � � i 3 �; � !al I ;�', / �Ee 1piasi � �z - 1' C3 iz / j {{ j if ? e : s S 7E1� S St 4111 Ej •s�i r w s- - rv� i Jh �~ 1'ad2ET.. \ S� 7 2 �_ -- CN -_ ♦Te 2 Z -Rt O t� RR i ozo ��s Ari - �a • r !Sa O r C E ss /.� F r} � l 9Yr"f rc� i ✓ R rl RFp a7� & ���3�i& j Q n iV r 9 F1 N •[� I Y R �� ;}a {Pi�(9 r� i s Ya E}`70. l YI` -•n � ��y ia. P-�} N ty Y Y Y Y _ _ .mot -c,a. —• q'' `.' ra Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 z � ! ! a 9! S S_x E lit si- YY 4Y- S I �itl! :0f��itii " =i i ftll ; z+ iS i ii1 =x ii y54'• LLo YE Y} ! Y t ! Y} E 1 �R•_« :ra.,:�,1.": g.,>e. F _ �� !� }! sF ;r 3t 1, 12 i � 'I �� ►a ji 3� i ,;_� fir^-, :� �; y; 4 j;3'ifI dlii "` a Iljf a 4r 7 I' I i Et ■;� ee-'• - ! : } ' e C � ° °' y 9a ` I:} ° '�`¢q I �E 7 t';3�#: 7 fil®ij�# 4 if # �##7f?ili, I a. Y zji fill O WL tn 4 \ rA jo 3 p •{ram 111E W W e) 6 • A ui�u.. / ` t i Mo cn vz Y 'x x a tnc++.: • � i�Q.7 'µ ■ x Y Y Y tF� '`. �1 I ai aa, E.fa E _ 4 /a .a• i P •A3JyY IN AN -'A R4, irsi°xEv' t'�' �:,ra3h NYIb9 IN _ Y :f 4K.eM �KKM .gad EN \ v iia�y � .• '.'Yi[ 5 i •�_ 93 ,Gx m2i 1, r •y� l p t ? #1 \ a• ` ,''i •fs 17 i ll Li. Z t;S}'JZ .t fill f} i d �j, d il� y a x Y Y O m� xa41 14 !f a a a . as a! � _ F i s3 lY a e a r 7Y]. 55 j{p y}y} Y Y y W Y e : '• Y N = Y Y � A tt t At 4 /6 i r A Sadi +' �F aiis d {s 7ci i e dr3- r T 7 ! s { s' �:7 R i F:,F !=• ! ' la .I •< fn`� Y S mall, i .ai fie 'S,:tle� to 2Z ex -MA CC =W sE ^� ,i, si•y.ya^ y B.Y' .Bno ..Na FBt, 1 „Y � Be T�1 ai ee_• r; x S � j i of qp{{• Et a.5f tp�pi: fd 2 ttE�{_ 'is aE w HIM ci R i {[ f..i1s3 I fit � faled=7tI i .. sl3 t? aTjj'l�jj'' 2 z ?n� IlI:ZI ai< i 3 .,; .i i oj F 6W41 C R t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /91- DATE: F&ii5/06 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Acceptance of Quit Claim Right of Way ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works )Imsted County for CSAH 16 ITEM In 2005, Rochester International Airport extended the primary runway. To accommodate this extension, County State Aid Highway 16 (CSAH 16) had to be realigned and new right of way acquired. Olmsted County would now like to turn back to the current owners the highway right of way (easement) area for CSAH 16 that is not longer needed as shown on Olmsted County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 157 and 158. Olmsted County will provide the City of Rochester with a quit claim deed for the subject property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of the quit claim deed from Olmsted County for the excess right of way to be turned backed to the City of Rochester as shown on Olmsted County Highway Right of Way Plat. No. 157 and 158. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second 0 OLMSTED COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 158 rear... Ia r•ra. ' I I ua �{LY1' wa i w I law. I� e; n COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NU. L57 • 4�. racer sk ...� -01[--3yR4wY n -.--4ml, yfyev REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 691/ DATE: 5/15106 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGI ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works �( Clinic Eisenberg PREPARED BY: I,.$ M. Nigbur -* fh Mayo Clinic Rochester (located on Block 25 of the Original Plat of the City of Rochester and the south one-half of vacated 1" Street SW adjacent to the north line of said Block 25) has requested the City issue a revocable permit for the placement of a patient (ambulance) drop off bay in the 3rd Avenue SW right of way as shown. The proposed patient (ambulance) drop off bay would be constructed in the existing boulevard. The existing sidewalk would maintain its current location. All work for this drop off bay should be constructed under the City/Owner contract process. Mayo Clinic Rochester will bear all construction/installation expenses. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The owner has executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and liability protection for the City. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit to allow the placement of a patient (ambulance) drop off bay by Mayo Clinic Rochester within the 3" Avenue SW right of way abutting Block 25 of the Original Plat of the City of Rochester and the south one-half of vacated 1s' Street SW adjacent to the north line of said Block 25. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seoondby: to: 5 ......._.. .................. . — ........_......,-.—,L........ 6 2_.._ .. — —— -- — , _ . 3RRh1��W. � n"w` ,�a,n.m �► ...-... �. m uo .r" , gg 9y I n: W I ■ Y R� ----� 1 ° a v A ®Y0 q lk ii�--F ■A Pia@g a ©060 F, lit e yyg a OWING IgR q E t ed MAYO BUILDING AMBULANCE ENTRANCE ROCIIESTER, MINHWPA Ij( CONSTRUCTION PLAN SeDf:'iA11.5 r Ll REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-15-06 4 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA 0 Public Works 5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement: Traffic Signal CSAH 22 (East PR PARED BY: Circle Dr NE} at Northern Valley Dr NE, J6003 D. Kramer Construction of a traffic signal at this intersection is included in the city's 2006 CIP, traffic section, item 11. The traffic signal construction is planned to take place concurrent with a roadway connection from the Chateau Theater parking lot to Northern Valley PI NE to access the proposed traffic signal. The current driveway to the theater/shopping center at 6t" Ave NE will then have median improvements to restrict certain movements to improve safety. Funding of the traffic signal will be 50% city, 50% county. The city's portion will be partially developer funded per the development agreement for the theater/shopping center, with the balance coming from municipal state -aid funding. The estimated traffic signal cost is $200,000. The developer is responsible for the costs of median improvement 6" Ave NE. Yaggy Colby Associates has provided a proposal for professional services for design of the traffic signal and median improvements at 6t" Ave NE not to exceed $21,500. a Ya e9P v 09 2 O Z e Z MCTNE ffi j 31 ST NE x z g w z c WSTNE 3� COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution approving entering into a professional services agreement with Yaggy Colby Associates for design services in an amount not to exceed $21,500 for J6003 "CSAH 22 (East Circle Dr NE) at Northern Valley Dr NE", and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 0 / 05/15/06 ^ aENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works Q� Y ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J9707) PREPARED BY: 191h Street NW from Ashland Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) R`Kelm 'eJ�)I This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project Name and Number_ 19 Street NW from Ashland Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) State Project: 159-122-008 City Project: 6219-4-00 (J9707) Prolect Background: A petition for the project was referred to Public Works on February 7, 2005 for preparation of a feasibility report. The feasibility report was approved at the March 21, 2005 council meeting with a recommendation to be constructed as soon as the right-of-way issues are resolved. No records are available for when the existing bituminous street was constructed. Until 2005, the road has been under the jurisdiction of Cascade Township; portions of 19'h street from CSAH 22 to 601h Ave NW remain under the townships jurisdiction. The project is included in the Capital Improvements Program Major Streets category, line 6. This project will be funded by Municipal State Aid Funds (MSA) (25%) and Transportation Improvement District Charges (TID) (75%). An informational meeting will be held with the abutting property owners on May 16, 2006. e s 9 S R Project Location 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 after May 16, 2006. Attachments: Notice of Bids COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: N CITY OF ROCHESTER NOTICE OF BIDS Notice is hereby given that bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on June 14, 2006 for the construction of the following described local improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, in accordance with the plans and specifications for the same which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City: State Project: 159-122-008 City Project: 6219-4-00 (J9707) Reconstruct 19eStreet NW from Ashland Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) Immediately following expiration of the time for receiving bids, the City Clerk and two designated City officials will publicly open said bids in the City Hail. The Common Council will consider the bids in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center at 7:00 P.M. on June 19, 2006. Said Construction generally consists of bituminous roadway construction including, storm sewer and pedestrian facilities. The work includes the following approximate quantities of work: Common Excavation ...................19,500 Cu Yds Select Gran. Borrow .................... 14,650 Cu Yds Aggregate Base .............................. 6,400 Cu Yds 5-7" Concrete Sidewalk ..................11,500 Sq Ft 3" Bituminous Trail .........................32,500 Sq Ft Bituminous Pavement ........................6,900 Tons 12-24" RCP ........................................ 1,400 Lin Ft Revise Traffic Signal ..................... 1 Lump Sum Plan, Specifications and Contract Documents may be examined at the following locations: 1. Department of Public Works, 201 4th St. SE, Room 108, Rochester, MN 55904. 2. F.W. Dodge Group, 7600 Parklawn Ave., Suite 352, Minneapolis, MN 55435. it 3. Builders Exchange of Rochester, 108 Elton Hill Lane NW, Rochester MN 55901 (507)282-6531. 4. La Crosse Builders Exchange, 427 Gillette St, La Crosse, WI 54603 (608) 781-1819. Plan, Specifications and Contract Documents may be obtained from the Department of Public Works, 201 4th St. SE, Room 108, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 287-7800. Each bid must be accompanied by a bid bond, cashier's check or a certified check payable to the City of Rochester, Minnesota, for at least five (5) percent of the amount of the bid, which amount shall be forfeited to the City of Rochester, Minnesota, as liquidated damages if the bidder, upon the letting of the contract to him shall fail to enter into the contract so let; the Common Council reserving the right to reject any and all bids. A Performance and Payment Bond for the full amount of the contract by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota will be required with the contract. (Personal bonds will not be accepted.) All proposals must be addressed to the City Clerk, City of Rochester, 201 4th St. SE, Room135, Rochester, Minnesota 55904-3742 and shall have endorsed thereon: State Project: 159-122-008 City Project: 6219-4-00 (J9707) Reconstruct 19 Street NW from Ashland Drive NW to CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this 15tb day of May, 2006. JUDY K. SCHERR, CIVIC, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 DATE: 5/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works f ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #3, Project # 6255-4-99 (J9579) PR PARED BY: 55t" St. N.W. from 52ntl Ave. to 60t" Ave. N.W. ,A M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of 55" St. N.W. from 52ntl Ave. west to 60t" Ave. N.W. The plans further provide that the contractor grade slopes from the boulevards of the new roadway to existing developed lots adjacent to 55"' St. A quantity of topsoil was established in the plans to grade on the slopes, and reestablish turf. During the course of construction it was determined that the quantity of topsoil provided for in the plans, was in part, inadequate to properly cover the slopes. In addition it became necessary to perform additional grading to transition properly into developed properties. It therefore, required the use of additional topsoil on the project. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement # 3; Project # 6255-4-99 (J9579) in the amount of $13,850.00 to cover the cost of : 1. Furnishing and placing 1,385.0 cubic yards of Topsoil. MNDOT Estimating has approved these costs as customary and usual for work of this nature. The costs have been determined to be eligible for MNDOT State Aid participation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement # 3; in the amount of $13,850.00 Project # 6255-4-99 ( J9579 ). COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Pt Subdivision — J5173 Public Works Improvements to Serve Moms Hi 05/15/06 PREPARED BY: L M. Baker, Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Morris Hills North, Inc. (Owner) & Elcor Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5173 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Moms Hills North Subdivision". MORRIS HILLS NORTH SUBDIVISION wzr =. l` UNPLATTED an E 5 III xcrss'ao• room 1 O'JTLOT 7 `i8 °:11 9 r 10'r 11 ? 12 7 "'X 5 •• L'' • s J' �UR07 yr, OUTLAT "C' ..< 9TSYk9' .']9Y]6'YJ' -••••••.�" BYSi 19 1'3AD UNPLATTED 1 5�.`j ilk.�TY: 17P!1181 14ZI24x211I':,...,. 1 's OUTLOT 'A' L e Y I i49347 �3iAl �!•x9d.W� UNPLATTED { 1 UNPLATTED .I u! 8 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5173, "Public Improvements to Serve Morris Hills North Subdivision". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 05/15/06 3ENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve the North PREPARED BY: Broadway Commercial Development — J5094 , I M. Baker, I Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Franklin P. Kottschade & Bonnie R. Kottschade (Owners) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5094 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve the North Broadway Commercial Development'. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5094, "Public Improvements to Serve the North Broadway Commercial Development'. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING —1 ) DATE: 05/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEI%16�?o Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements to Serve Mills Addition to PREPARED BY: Rochester — J5207 M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Mills Properties, Inc. (Owner & Contractor) is requesting a City -Owner Contract J5207 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Mills Addition to Rochester'. The Contract documents have been executed by Mills Properties, Inc., however to date, an acceptable surety for the Project has not been provided to the City. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5207, "Public Improvements to Serve Mills Addition to Rochester', conditioned on Mills Properties, Inc., first providing a surety to the City that meets the maintenance and warranty requirements of the Contract for this Project. ZOUNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: ___ to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15106 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. h.ZI CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 1� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement for the Transfer of Jurisdiction over a part of County PREPARED BY: Right of Way' M. Ni bur'"14 The City of Rochester and Olmsted County have discussed and agreed to the transfer of right of way for a portion of County State Aid Highway 22 (CSAH 22) from Olmsted County to the City of Rochester. The subject portion of CSAH 22 is described as follows: That part of Parcel 2 of OLMSTED COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.43 described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota; thence northerly on a Minnesota State Plane Grid Azimuth from North of 358 degrees 25 minutes 05 seconds along the west line of said Northeast Quarter 103.23 feet to the northerly right of way line of CSAH No. 22 according to said OLMSTED COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.43; thence easterly 90 degrees 55 minutes 35 seconds azimuth along the northerly right of way line 165.11 feet to the point of beginning; thence northerly 358 degrees 25 minutes 05 seconds azimuth along the westerly line of Parcel 2 50.01 feet; thence easterly 89 degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds along the northerly line of said Parcel 2 181.05 feet; thence southerly 179 degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds azimuth 50.00 feet; thence westerly 269 degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds 179.83 feet to the point of beginning. Said tract contains 0.21 acres more or less. The parties have created an Agreement outlining the terms and conditions of the transfer. The City has had an opportunity to inspect the above -described right of way and agrees to take over jurisdiction of said road right-of-way in its current condition and without any obligation on the part of Olmsted County to alter, repair, improve or maintain said road right-of-way. In the event the City of Rochester vacates said road right-of-way or any portion thereof within one year of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City of Rochester agrees that it is responsible for any and all damages occasioned by such vacation, and the City of Rochester agrees to defend and indemnify Olmsted County from any claims for damages arising out of the vacation of said road right -of way or any portion thereof. Olmsted County Board of Commissioners, by Resolution dated April 11, 2006, has authorized the transfer of the right Adopt a Resolution accepting the transfer of the right of way of the above described portion of CSAH 22 and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement for the Transfer of Jurisdiction over a part of County State Aid Highway 22. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 DATE: 5/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO �) CONSENT ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Agreement: Bike Path Construction and p ED BY: Recondition Project J 4946 & J 4947 Wellner The city bike path system is constructed in segments using a variety of funding sources and developer contribution. As the system develops, short gaps between sections of the path system result as the construction obligation of a developer or the scope of a city project does not connect to another nearby path section. The city needs to complete short path segments to close these gaps that remain. Three gaps have been identified: a. On 55'" Street NW between the park entrance and the path on 55�h just west of the Douglas Trail. b. On 415` Street NW between the North Star Business Center and the path on 41t Street just east of the Douglas Trail. c. On South Broadway between the north end of the path at Walmart and the pedestrian bridge at Golden Hills School. In addition to the construction of short bike path segments needed to connect sections of bike path, some segments of path require reconditioning. The segment of path along the north side of 12'" Street SW (TH 14) and continuing along the east side of 1 C Avenue SW lying between the Zumbro River and 12'h Street SW needs to be reconditioned. WHKS has submitted a proposal to prepare plans and specifications and construction phase staking and inspection services for these four bike path improvements. The proposed engineering services total $13,072. This bike path improvement work is identified in the 2006-2011 CIP on page 50, Lines 2 & 3. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an engineering service agreement with WHKS in the amount of $13,072 for the engineering services related to the design and construction of the bike path improvements. COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by Second by to: AR Location Map 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 'Al DATE: 5115/05 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works .�� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1 PREPARED BY: Kings Run Trunkline Sanitary Sewer Replacement, J7708 J. Loehr C The City previously entered into a contract with Elcor Construction for the constmIction of trunkline sanitary sewer replacement in a project described as follows: City No: M2-38. J7708 "Replacement of Kings Run Trunkline Sanitary Sewer." SA #1: The plan and specification provide for an open cut installation of 36" sanitary sewer at the TH 52 East and West Frontage Roads and through adjacent commercial developments. The bid proposals submitted for the project included alternate bids to tunnel the 36" sanitary sewer in these very confined work areas. The alternate tunneling bids were not accepted due to the excessive cost for tunneling in the entire altemate bid tunneling areas. An open out installation of the 36" sanitary sewer was successfully completed at the West Frontage Road and commercial developments located adjacent to the West Frontage Road. An open cut installation of the 36" sanitary sewer at the East Frontage Road and the commercial areas located adjacent to the East Frontage Road are proving very complicated due to the existing utilities located in the East Frontage Road, and the large concentration of commercial developments along the East Frontage Road that depend on the East Frontage Road for handling significant traffic volumes for delivery of customers and goods to the businesses. The Engineer deems it necessary for minimal disruption to the businesses and traffic along the East Frontage Road to tunnel 200 feet of 36" sanitary sewer from the Menards parking lot at Manhole No. 30 under the East Frontage Road to a location 200 feet west of the manhole. Contractor shall be granted an extension of the specified interim completion date of June 1, 2006 to place "Utility In Service Date" to June 30, 2006. Public Works negotiated an amount of $331,000.00 as compensation to Elcor for this work. Note: 1. The Engineers decision to tunnel this segment of 36" sanitary sewer does not affect the low bidder of the project and the award of contract to Elcor Construction. 2. The quantities for a number of items included in the base bid will be reduced due to the tunneling option proposed in the Supplemental Agreement. The reduction of quantities and the cost of the tunnel option results in a net increase to the contract of $218,251.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of SA #1 in the amount of $331,000.00. Attachments: Supplemental Agreement #1 Project Map 10 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ` DATE: 5/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b-24 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Agreement: Feasibility Report and p A BY: Preliminary Design for Storm Water Pond BC p 1.19 (north of . Wellner Pinewood Road) Project J 6552 The Storm Water Management Master Plan does not indicate the construction of storm water management ponds to serve area near Pinewood Road including the proposed Southern Meadows development. However, based on a review of aerial maps, it appears that there exists an opportunity to construct storm water management facilities north of Pinewood Road to serve a drainage area of approximately 200 acres. Staff believes that this pond construction can be completed economically and an evaluation of the feasibility and cost effectiveness should be undertaken. McGhie & Betts, Inc. has provided a proposal for the professional services required to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a storm water management pond, BC p1.19. McGhie & Betts is the engineer on the Southern Meadows development and has a detailed knowledge of the drainage in this study area. The proposal for Preliminary Study services is for $5,900 provided on an hourly rate basis. I 'act L cation p�hp o0 °aa S uthern eadows COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an engineering service agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. in the amount of $5,900.00 for the Preliminary study of the storm water management pond north of Pinewood Road. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETI DATE: AGENDA n EM CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT WITH PREMIER SECURITY / METER COLLECTIONS PREPARED BY: A KNAUER / The City contracts for part of its meter collections with Premier Security. The company provides a uniformed employee for collections. The meter supervisor assigns the routes. This is in place of a part-time employee position. The contract will run for a one year period at a rate of $15.50 per hour. In 2005 the service costs approximately $5,300. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution approving a contract with Premier Security to provide parking meter collection services beginning June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007 at a hourly rate of $15.50. _OUNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5-15-06 DATE: AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM NO. tt� CONSENT AGENDA i EM HOTEL VALIDATION EQUIPMENT AGREEMENT I RADISSON AND HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PREPARED BY: A KNAUER As part of the access and revenue control project in the parking ramps a new validation system is being installed in the hotels at the check in desk. The equipment will allow the hotel to issue a parking pass to the guest for length of stay. The pass is automatically entered into the parking data base at time of issue. The same pass will be used to enter and exit. Council approved the change order to enhance the hotel validation system as part of the project at its May 1 meeting. Staff has met with the hotel management and they are in agreement for the city to install the equipment which includes a PC based work station at the front desk connected by fiber optic cable back to the parking ramps central server. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 1 Adopt the prepared resolution approving agreements with Radisson and Holiday Inn Express hotels calling for City installation and maintenance of the parking validation systems including equipment, software and cabling and the hotels providing necessary access and space forthe installation and maintenance. _DUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ID .-al ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate —Right of Way Acquisition for the Viola Bike Path PREPARED BY: Project. — J4940 M. Nigbur "fit The City is extending a Bike Path along Viola Road NE. As part of the project the City needed to acquire land rights for the placement of the path outside of the existing right of way. City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property using the state acquisition requirements. Based on the negotiations between the City and the Owner, a preliminary settlement has been reached. The terms of the settlement includes cash and replacement of woven wire fencing. The following property Owners have agreed to provide the permanent easement in exchange for payment: • Mrs. John Merrill - $8,625.00 Lt �t0Q 16_ST NE_ 1 A 7 WLu !� O / N �- I l r R �Lul Lu '% r- L--HIAWATHACTNE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the settlement agreement and provide the payment for the needed easement for the above referenced property owner for Project J4940. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: F 5/15/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Works—�g ITEM NO CONSENT AGENDA Public ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate: Settlement for Permanent Drainage &Utility Easements on PREPARED BY: Morris Memorial LLC Property(J-7744) el M. Nigbur-w,01 The Public Works Department has contracted with Yaggy Colby Associates to handle the acquisition process for the needed 67-foot permanent utility easement located in property, owned by Morris Memorial LLC, to construct the first phase of the Gravity Interceptor Sewer to serve the Hadley Valley area (Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, & 21, Haverhill Township). Public Works Staff has successfully negotiated a settlement amount for the needed permanent utility easement. Additionally, a settlement has also been reached for a permanent utility easement and a temporary construction easement to address storm water conveyance issues in the future: Permanent utility easement: $77,070.00 Permanent utility easement for future drainage conveyance $27,405.00 Temporary construction easement $525.00 $105,000.00 i I '. Permanent Unity Easement for Sanitary Sewer I MORMS MEMORIAL LLC i 5-foot Future Temporary Easement i S Zrfiot Perrnanert Utility Easement fa r SformwaierlDrainage I / _ Staff recommends approval of payment in the amount of $105,000.00 to Morris Memorial LLC for the needed utility rights in their property and for the permanent and temporary construction easements needed for future storm water conveyance. Representatives of Morris Memorial LLC will execute the necessary conveyance documents. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize Staff to make payment in the amount of $105,000.00 to Morris Memorial LLC for the needed permanent utility easement and for the permanent and temporary construction easements needed for future storm water stabilization. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-15-06 SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ,GENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: CP &ZC Initiated Land Use Plan map and Tent Amendments (Files # 05-02 and #05-05) for Jeff Ellerbusch, the Kutzky Park Neighborhood. The Kutzky Park neighborhood is bounded by TH 52; Senior Planner 2ndST SW; Civic Center Drive and a Av NWiSW. These proposed comprehensive for the Rochester Urban Service Area are the result amendments to the Land Use Pian of the "Imagine Kutzky" planning effort. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission originally initiated these amendments on 04/13/05. The CP&ZC considered this matter at a public their hearing and determined that the staff hearing on April 26, 2006 The Commission received testimony at should be followed except as they applied to the proposed land use boundary for "High" and "Low" density recommendations between the apartments at 802 and 806 1" ST SW. A map of the CP&ZC recommended changes to the original map as the re -compiled land use plan text proposed to replace the existing neighborhood description proposal is attached as well in the Land Use Plan document. Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #05-02 Initiated by the CP&ZC for the "Imagine Kutzky" with the 2 revisions by staff and change in land designation for 806 is' Street SW from high Street SW in the high density residential designation (the density to low density residential, leaving 730 and 802 1" compromise suggested by Imagine Kutzky). Mr. McGuine seconded the motion. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this initiated amendment. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan). 2. The Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting their decision. A resolution adopting by reference the new text, new existing land use and new futre land use maps to replace the existing Kutzky Park references in the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area should be prepared for adoption. Attachments: 1. Map of CP&ZC changes to the originally proposed land use boundaries the Kutzky Park neighborhood Land Use Plan text (Exhibit "C") 2. Re -compiled text of 3. Future Land Use Plan Map for Kutzky Park as Recommended by CP&ZC (Exhibit'B") 4. Copy of Staff Report dated 04/19/06 5. CP&ZC minutes from 04/26/06 hearing COUNCIL ACTION: Seconded By: Action: Motion By: 2 BE me > = 2 0 C) --10 0000 -I � -1 � r K:z K C-) m m m m C: > x --I ;a --I ;o 0 a: 0 C3 m D M 5 > > F- m r- Q --q = > 1 ;I� 0 > cn;o -0 ;a --i rp ;o m 0 0 0 > m -0 :EOMLno 0 7 0 G)cn -ri Z M Z Z > CD --i cl) m 0 0 < Z z IFNI] m -n X 0 m K;o 0 VE z 0 --1 � oa: rn 0 m CD cn m m M 0 CO 0 DDT. Z m cn > lint an 0 ME m < cl) !111511 0 aIi 0)0 IS0w-. ills!I F, ;�►� 0 m Xz r�l T M 0 0 CIO FT7/ EXHIBIT G 81 #10 Kutzky Park Neighborhood Definition of the Planning Area The Kutzky park Planning Area is as originally defined in the Future Land Use Plan in 1978. The Kutzky Park planning neighborhood was and still is bounded by US Highway 52, Second Street SW, 41h Ave NW/SW and 5'h St. NW (now Civic Center Drive). The Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association was officially established over part of the area in 1996. The KPNA boundaries are smaller than and are totally included within the original planning boundaries for the planning neiq�hborhood. The KPNA boundaries are roughly described as 2ntl St SW on the south, 16t Ave on the west, Civic Center Drive on the north and 61h Ave on the east. Neighborhood Historv. Location and Characteristics The first residence was built in the Kutzky Park neighborhood in 1863. August Kutzky himself built his second home at 718 West Center Street. This home remains as one of the neighborhood's architectural and historical anchors. 60 % of the single family homes in Kutzky Park were built between 1910 and 1930. These homes primarily consist of variations of the classic American four -square and bungalow, many influenced by the Arts and Crafts style. Homes built prior to 1900 are largely grouped on the east side of the neighborhood. Development of homes to the west of 11 th Avenue began after 1900 and continued for 50 years. The residential areas north of Cascade Creek has the newest homes built in the 1950's through the late 60's.ln 1952, the Miracle Mile Shopping Center was built along the west edge of the neighborhood. It was one of the first Shopping Center (multiple commercial tenants with private common pedestrian and automobile facilities) built in Greater Minnesota. The location of Kutzky Park within Rochester is a great asset for the neighborhood. Convenient proximity to Rochester's major employer, thoroughfares, commercial amenities and services provides great potential for revitalization in Kutzky Park. The neighborhood is a compact and walkable urban neighborhood. Commercial areas exist within walking distance of all the residential areas of the neighborhood. To the south along 2n' Street, to the west toward TH 52, or to the north along the Civic Center Drive corridor there are restaurants, retail shops, personal services and offices within walking distance. A diverse range of uses are mixed throughout the residential areas of the neighborhood such as private schools, churches, rooming houses, semi -transient homes and shelters, home offices, a music studio, stained-glass shop, and a Victorian home converted to a gourmet restaurant. The overall neighborhood density of residential development is over 6 units per acre. Census data indicates that Kutzky Park residents have fewer cars per housing unit than any other neighborhood in the City as well as the largest number of workers who walk to work outside of the downtown residents. Cascade Creek runs through the north edge of the neighborhood part of a system of public green space and recreation area with bike trails. Mature trees, a traditional grid of blocks and narrow streets enhance the traditional neighborhood characteristics of Kutzky Park. A neighborhood survey conducted in 2004 identified these as the top five things people liked about the neighborhood: 1. Location or convenience 2. Architectural character or charm 3. Bike path, parkland and other amenities 4. Neighborliness or friendliness of neighbors 5. Mature trees That same survey identified theses as the top five things residents most disliked about the neighborhood: 1. Rental Property 2. Traffic speed or volume/one-way street operation 3. Property condition 4. Litter , noise, nuisances 5. Condition of infrastructure Census Data The Kutzky Park neighborhood is relatively demographically diverse. With a 2000 census population of 3,310 people, the diversity of the neighborhood is represented by a non -white population of 24.6% and 21 % of all persons being of foreign -born. 33% of occupied housing units in Kutzky Park in 1999 were owner -occupied accounting for 40% of the population in occupied housing units. On average, 71 % of occupied housing units in Rochester are owner -occupied. Higher home -ownership turnover occurs in Kutzky park with approximately 32% of homeowners living in the same house from 1995 to 2000 compared to 50% in Rochester taken as a whole. Between 1990 and 2000, 200 housing units were lost in Kutzky Park. Residential units were lost for non- residential development along the 2 d Street, for the Lourdes and Mayo parking facilities and by the conversion of existing homes to buildings with fewer units. Median owner - occupied value increased in Kutzky Park between 1990 and 2000 but at a slower rate than the rest of the community. The median household income in 1999 dollars for Kutzky Park was $33,107 and for the City of Rochester as a whole it was $49,090. Existing Land Uses The Kutzky Park Neighborhood contains approximately 308 gross acres of land. About 45 acres of land is presently devoted to the major thoroughfares within and along the neighborhood boundaries. These major transportation corridors include parts of the rights of way for TH 52; Civic Center Dr (formerly 5'h St. NW); 2Id St. SW; Center Street east of 6'h Avenue; 4", 6"', 11'h, and 16'h Avenues and the railroad right of way. Approximately 27 acres of land is public parklands located along the Cascade Creek corridor from 16'h Avenue to Civic Center Drive (including the namesake "Kutzky Park"). There are approximately 56 acres of land devoted to local streets. The net area of private land in the neighborhood is approximately 207 acres. As of December 31, 2005, there were 499 single family detached dwellings; 121 duplexes; 56 triplexes; 27 four-plexes; 73 buildings with over 5 units; and 11 licensed group residential care buildings or medical lodging guest homes. This amounts to a total of 1,888 housing units inclusive of the conventional housing, rooming units, guest and licensed capacities on 113 net acres of land. 2 There is approximately 34 net acres of commercial development in the neighborhood. The largest concentrations are along the west side of the area fronting TH 52 (dominated by the Miracle Mile Shopping Center), the Civic Center Drive corridor and the area along 2nd St SW immediately across from Saint Mary's Hospital. The commercial land is a mixture of retail, convenience services, restaurants , offices and automotive services. Outside the Central Business District, the Kutzky Park neighborhood has the largest concentration of hotel/motel units with 884 rooms in 14 businesses on approximately 13 net acres of land. The Mayo Clinic has developed approximately 11 acres of land used for part of their medical campus, located mostly east of 6'h Ave from 2"d ST SW north. Mayo also has property used for a dental office and surface parking lots east of 11'" Av SW along 2"d ST SW. The major clinic uses in the neighborhood are the Ozmun Building and parking garage along 2"0 St SW between 4"' and 6'h Avenues; the 2338 space employee parking ramp on the entire block bounded by Center Street, 151 ST NW, 5'6 and 6" Aves NW and the under -construction Healthy Living Center just west of St. John's Church and north of the Ozmun Building along 6'" Ave SW. The clinic medical properties have 2863 structured parking spaces and 499 spaces in seven surface lots. Nine acres of the neighborhood is used for houses of worship, non-profit offices and Lourdes High School. These uses are clustered on the east half of the neighborhood. Lourdes High School is presently in the process of determining their long range goals. Maior Changes in the Neighborhood Since 1978 Major changes made by the public have taken place in the neighborhood since 1978. The flood control project for Cascade Creek and the South Fork of the Zumbro River, completed in 1994, resulted in the protection of all remaining residences from inundation by a 100 year event flood. The project required stream channeling of Cascade Creek and the removal of some homes, but the addition of bike and walking paths along the creek and two bike/pedestrian bridges added connectivity to the neighborhood. Civic Center Drive (old 5' Street NW) was reconstructed through the neighborhood from TH 52 and extended to directly connect to Broadway. The west side of the neighborhood along TH 52 has seen dramatic changes as a result of the highway expansion to 6 lanes and a new bridge at 2"d St. SW. The neighborhood elementary school (Lincoln) was closed and converted to the United Way Center. Central Junior High School (former high school) was razed and is now the site a Mayo Clinic parking lot being built as the Healthy Living Center and the Coffman Building (former high school- RCC — school administration offices) was demolished and its property is now part of the site of the Mayo Clinic Ozmun Building. The west end of the Ozmun building complex is the former Olmsted County Courthouse. Major private non-residential developments that have occurred since the last include the razing of the block of homes north of Lourdes High School for a school parking lot; the construction of the 2,338 space Mayo Employee parking ramp east of Lourdes; the expansion of both Saint John's and Saints Anargyroi Churches; the addition of two medical treatment residential guest homes; the construction of three new multi -story motels on 2"d St. SW across from Saint Mary's Hospital and new restaurants north of Miracle Mile Shopping Center. There have no major residential developments added to J the neighborhood. The medical visitor temporary housing projects (such as Gift of Life or Hope Lodge) have been the only major housing additions to the neighborhood. "Imagine Kutzky" Planning Process In 2003, a privately funded, neighborhood involvement planning process known as "Imagine Kutzky" was started. The "Imagine Kutzky' neighborhood planning effort was a cooperative initiation of the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association, "First Homes" (Rochester Area Foundation's housing program) and the Rochester Area Foundation. In 2005 the City of Rochester awarded CDBG funding to continue the effort. "Imagine Kutzky" was begun as a way to find solutions to recurring problems, as well as to encourage and promote neighborhood -friendly redevelopment The planning process followed was based on a book entitled Planning to Stay by William Morrish and Catherine Brown. Using the planning steps outlined in their book, Kutzky park neighborhood leaders and residents embarked on the following process: 1. Organizing — Agreeing to meet and work together for a common purpose: Developed structure and process, acquired funding, developed partnerships. 2. Gathering — Evaluating what kind of neighborhood we have: Gathered historic data, demographic, physical and geographic data, sought input through a series of neighborhood workshops and a survey developed by the Planning department, met with community leaders and city officials, and consulted an advisory board representing non-resident stakeholders in the neighborhood. 3. Ordering — Deciding what kind of neighborhood we want: Created a mission statement and preliminary vision plan. 4. Making — Creating a plan for what kind of neighborhood we can make: Sought community feedback for the preliminary vision plan, identified specific neighborhood improvement projects, created a final vision plan approved by the Kutzky Park neighborhood Association membership. 5. Taking Action — Putting the plan to work in the neighborhood: Established neighborhood leadership to lead plan implementation, establish collaborations and partnerships to implement neighborhood improvements. Through proactive, inclusive and long-range visioning and planning, a mission, goals, objectives, and potential strategies for neighborhood improvement were developed in the form of the Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan. Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan The "Imagine Kutzky" planning process adopted as its mission statement the following: To preserve, enhance, and promote Kutzky Park as a vibrant and sustainable mixed -use urban neighborhood. The "Imagine Kutzky' plan addresses ways to meet the challenges and improve the neighborhood. Through encouraging redevelopment in targeted areas; building density as redevelopment occurs to recover population losses; maintaining existing unique character through preservation of high -quality, historically and architecturally rich properties that serve as neighborhood anchors; and addressing urban -design principles that maximize the walkable, mixed -use urban character traits already established in Kutzky Park — the desirability and liveability of the neighborhood will be enhanced. This 0 will lead to revitalization that will benefit the downtown area and in turn the entire community. Addressing land use is one portion of a larger set of improvements suggested in the "Imagine Kutzky"Vision Plan. The vision plan addresses the following major categories — Neighborhood Streets; Land Use and Urban Design; Public Open Space; and Homes and Yards. Each area has a goal, a list of objectives and a list of potential strategies that as of this time have not been evaluated by the City for their efficacy but are included to assist in the future discussions and appraisal of future action plans. The Kutzky Park Vision Plan is presented as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS Goal: Create a safe, functional and attractive street system that balances the needs of automobiles with the needs of pedestrians, mass transit and bicycles. Objectives: Reduce cut -through traffic by introducing a comprehensive traffic -calming program in the neighborhood. Encourage and promote alternative modes of transportation. Encourage outdoor dining and street activity such as vendors and musicians on the sidewalks of 2" Street SW. Invest in the public realm and make streets safe, comfortable and attractive for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. Increase public safety and street vitality by creating and maintaining human scale design elements through the placement and orientation of buildings, parking and streetscape materials. • Reduce traffic speeds through traffic calming measures. Reduce the amount of non-resident parking in low -density residential streets. Provide a mix of parking that balances the needs of residents and businesses in mixed use areas. Potential Strategies: Develop a long-range plan to phase in the following traffic -calming measures as a part of City's Capital Improvement Plan: R.etu, „ First Street S w, (enter Street ;A./e= St N \ni a and Second Street NW to two-way traffic. a.k J i Create a basket weave of stop signs and traffic circles throughout the neighborhood. g Add mid -block chokers, neck -downs on strategic corners, and painted parking lines. Add pedestrian street crossing elements (such as bold, white reflective paint, special colored paving, etc.) through a hierarchy of crossing treatments based on street type. *:` Narrow streets where feasible to slow traffic and preserve existing street trees. ■ Add bike lanes where appropriate to facilitate safe bicycle transportation. Provide wide, accessible sidewalks, street trees, landscaping, decorative lighting and street furniture to selected enhanced streetscape areas. • Design building openings that are oriented to the street, including well illuminated windows and welcoming entrances. ■ Develop an on -street parking strategy that uses the following criteria: ❖ Provides for parking on both sides of street in mixed -use, commercial and high -density residential areas Provides for parking on one -side of street in low -density residential areas Encourages the use of angle parking in mixed -use and commercial areas ■ Encourage the development of parking structures to accommodate employee and non -neighborhood parking needs and relieve demand on neighborhood streets. Utilize permit parking where needed. M LAND USE and URBAN DESIGN 0 Goal: To create a sustainable, compact, cohesive urban neighborhood where residents can live, work, shop and play. Objectives: ■ Encourage a compatible mix of land uses that protect natural and built assets and create a sense of place. Conned mixed -use areas with a network of landscaped "green" streets and walks. Ensure that development contributes to the social and economic life of the community through quality design of the physical environment. Strengthen small business activity in commercial and mixed -use areas that is compatible with the social and physical make-up of the neighborhood. Encourage quality building practices that are enduring and will accommodate future alternative uses. Encourage the design and placement of buildings that incorporate human scale design details and promote pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle usage. ■ Preserve historic structures when feasible and encourage adaptive re -use. • Encourage demolition of unsafe and condemned buildings and infill with architecturally compatible uses Preserve and create walkable commercial and mixed -use areas • Create on -site parking that is carefully and judicially placed as to not create a void breaking the continuity of the neighborhood assures safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation, minimizes negative visual impact an is well landscaped integrates parking with buildings whenever feasible through interior site design and podium parking using structures whenever feasible discourages over -supply of parking by setting caps on parking and facilitating shared parking h Use the following basic urban design principles when developing commercial and mixed -use areas: Build to the sidewalk (i.e. property line). ➢ Create a strong "streetwall" in which each building meets or comes close to the sidewalk • Locate the inside floor level as close as possible to the level of the sidewalk outside. ❖ Make the building front "permeable". ➢ Connect the inside of the building and the sidewalk outside with windows and doors. • Prohibit mirrored glass or window coverings that block visibility. ❖ Prohibit parking lots in front of the building. ➢ Put on -site parking above, below, behind, or beside the building. • Allow on -street parking. Stop -and -go parking is essential to neighborhood shopping districts. Potential Strategies: ■ Prohibit surface parking lots as a principal use. ■ Create design guidelines and standards that shape the character of new development to the existing neighborhood character and are in accordance with the Land -Use Plan. Adjust parking standards to reflect neighborhood assets and characteristics of the neighborhood such as walkability, close proximity to downtown, amenities and employment and comparatively lower numbers of vehicles owned by residents of the neighborhood. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE Goal: Make the public open space system a unifying feature that strengthens the unique identify of the neighborhood. Objectives: • Strengthen the neighborhood's connection to the natural environment by improving pedestrian access to existing open spaces. • Create a variety of open space types (trails, woods, athletic fields, plazas, etc.) to accommodate changing demographics. • Establish a healthy urban ecosystem by protecting and restoring native vegetation and animal habitats. • intensify the use of natural storm water management and sustainable landscape practices to enhance water quality. ■ Strengthen neighborhood identify through development of entrance features at key locations (signs, historic markers, etc). • Emphasize the Civic Center Drive entrance to the city as a Community Gateway through landscaping and beautification. Potential Strategies: ■ Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association continues the official "adoption" of Kutzky Park and Cascade Creek through semi-annual park clean-up events. ■ Eliminate non -user parking in Tennis Center and Kutzky Park lot year-round through parking restriction and enforcement solutions such as changing current par king rest ictIons frsm: 'thi ec-iioui paring, AA-., i u :'augh Fepte; uer >v, Monday through Friday' to `three-hour parking, Monday through Friday.' Explore the feasibility of the following park programming improvements in Kutzky Park: Adding a Dog Park Adding a leisure ice skating rink Relocating the basketball court to a more site appropriate location within Kutzky Park Improving the public availability of programming and facilities at the Tennis Center to capitalize on this asset within the neighborhood RS N • Close off the 13t' Avenue NW vehicular entrance to Kutzky Park, converting to pedestrian -only entrance, and adding vehicular access to the Kutzky Park parking lot from 16' .Avenue NW. Upgrade playground equipment at United Way site through city Parks Department Create pedestrian access from 2nd Street SW to St. Mary's Park. ■ Create or improve safe path connections where needed, prioritizing Cascade Creek path connection at I I' Avenue NW and future connection to Cascade Lake at 16" Avenue NW. Make the existing mid -block connection near the 13'h Avenue foot -bridge more accessible. Work with public and private interests in securing property for new mid -block connections; West Center Street to I' Street SW between I I" and 7' Avenue West Center Street United Way playground site to F Street NW 10 HOMES AND YARDS Goal: Preserve and restore the charm and historic character of the neighborhood. Objectives: • Require review and site plan approval prior to issuance of demolition permit ■ Establish regulations to protect historic structures and encourage adaptive reuse. • Encourage reinvestment into former single-family homes that have been converted into multi -unit apartments. • Identify blighted or crime -ridden properties and work closely with the Building Safety Department and law enforcement to identify key issues, solve problems and make improvements. • Encourage infill development with well -designed compatible new structures. • Maintain affordable housing that contributes to socio-economic diversity and the diversity of housing stock. Encourage remodeling projects that maintain the character of homes through incentives and guidelines. Potential Strategies: ■ Prohibit further conversion of single-family homes to multi -unit apartments. Carry out a windshield survey to inventory types of housing stock and property conditions; identify improvement needs and target investment areas. Create/identify funding programs that provide incentive and opportunity for those undertaking rehabilitation and reinvestment in residential structures. • Build a partnership program between landlords and neighborhood residents. • Produce architectural guidelines and/or standards for new housing development and major remodels. Encourage home ownership and owner occupied rental property. • Work with the First Homes Heritage Homes program to identify at -risk homes in need of renovations. Work with First Homes Community Land Trust program to ensure that certain homes are renovated and contribute to neighborhood character, yet remain affordable. z L Wit-MV— ;i r -! 7--- < z j..-I z 2 z w w w cl 0 ......... .... . ......... .......... . . . ........ p Fn rn z CL . ........ ........... W 0 uj w 0 LU LU Z (n ch LU ❑ w W w .... LJ ...... 2 2 2- .. ........... 0 2 w uj 11 u 0 r m 00 0 00 00000, 00 0 0 . . . . . . . 000 000004, 0 LL 00 X QL - 10-000 XD-OC� 0 ir VQ lr�o I r T-7 .600 U- im 1 N, �-!. ;�. 77 X LLJ UJ INN EL D 'If KI r F 11 1 } Lij i 1 40001V ai. 11 Y ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Sufte 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C U YM, V OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jeff Ellerbusch, Senior Planner DATE: April 19, 2006 _� I Ise■rr�f�Onf";�\ i��niilD�� �y�11 RE: Land Use Plan Map Amendment #05-02 and Text Amendment #05- 05; Initiated by the CP &ZC for the "Imagine Kutzky" Planning Effort in the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Backoround A neighborhood planning project for the Kutzky Park area of Rochester started in June of 2004 and was called Imagine Kutzky. The program reached a point in the planning process by April of 2005 where preliminary vision documents describing the goals, objectives and recommendations were put to paper. Representatives of the Imagine Kutzky planning program presented their initial findings to the Planning Commission on April 13, 2005. On April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission moved to initiate an amendment to the portion of the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area applicable to the #10 Kutzky Park planning neighborhood. The amendment would reflect the modifications to the land use designations on the present map necessary to more closely identify the future land uses based on existing uses, existing zoning and the goals and objectives of the neighborhood planning effort. The text of the plan would also be updated from the dated 1978 description and expanded to include the goals and objectives of the neighborhood planners. In the past year, the imagine Kutzky representatives have met on many occasions with the staff of the Planning Department to discuss land use and zoning issues that they felt important to their planning effort. Many discussions centered on the formation of special zoning district standards for the neighborhood. When it became apparent to all that the zoning discussions were premature and still in need of more preparation time, the effort was refocused to address the less detailed issues of updating the general land use plan. Imagine Kutzky spent time assessing the Future Land Use Plan map and the existing designations and their relationship to the existing land uses, existing zoning and redevelopment potential envisioned by the neighborhood. This re-evaluation resulted in the imagine Kutzky planners determining that 11 different areas on the present plan map were in need of re -designation. These 11 areas include a total of approximately 109 acres of developed land. Working documents to update the text of the Future Land Use Plan for the neighborhood were also prepared. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 - GISlADDRESSINGNAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSING)HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 C7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 LUP #05-02 / Text Amendment #05-05 Kutzky Park April 20, 2006 Neighborhood Involvement Outside of the independently scheduled neighborhood planning meetings held by the Imagine Kutzky during the last year, an officially noticed neighborhood meeting similar in style to those required to be held by developers or applicants for major development proposals was held on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at Lourdes High School. A summary of the comments received at the meeting and an attendance list are attached to this report for your review. Summary of the Proposed Map Amendments Commercial Re -designations Of the 11 separate areas of proposed land use plan map changes, five are associated with re -designation to "Commercial"- and four of the five areas are adjacent to the Civic Center Drive thoroughfare along the north side of the neighborhood. The four areas along Civic Center Drive are presently developed residentially with the exception of the Blockbuster Video building at the corner of 11fh Avenue NW. Four 6-plexes, two on either side of the intersection of 0 ST NW and 41/2 ST NW south of the Perkin's Restaurant area are proposed to be changed from "Medium and Low Density Residential" to "Commercial". The Blockbuster Video property at the corner, the three 6- plexes adjacent to the west and the nine residential properties to the south that front on either 41/2 ST NW, 111h AV NW or the trail parking lot on the south by the bike -path are also proposed to be designated "Commercial" from "Medium and Low Density Residential". The proposed fifth new "Commercial" area is the half block fronting on the south side of 1" ST SW between 16'h AV SW on the west and extending to the property east of 11 m AV at 1008/1002 1 a ST SW. This half block deep row of lots is a mix of residential and commercial land uses and is the location of the most recent series of encroachments of commercial land uses onto the is' ST SW frontage. These new commercial expansions have been part of redevelopment projects for hotel/motels fronting on 2nd ST SW. The adjacent properties to the south fronting 2te ST SW are presently designated for "Commercial" use on the plan with the exception of the three most eastern parcels — the former motel buildings now rental rooming/studio houses to the east of the dental clinic on the corner of 11'" Av SW and 2nd ST SW. Those three buildings are presently designated as "High Density Residential". These areas represent the most probable commercial redevelopment sites in the neighborhood. They are logical expansions of adjacent "community" and "regional" scale commercial areas and they meet the locational criteria of the Future Land Use Plan for those type of commercial areas. The easternmost boundary of the proposed 1 s' ST SW half -block "Commercial" designation expansion is the only area that creates a debatable land use boundary. The proposal extends the "Commercial" designation about 150 feet farther to the east alon�q the 1" ST SW frontage than the present "Commercial" designation extends east of 11 AV SW along the 2 ST SW frontage. Page 3 LUP #05-02 / Text Amendment #05-05 Kutzky Park April 20, 2006 Low Density Residential Re -designations Two of the 11 proposed land use plan change areas would result in a re -designation to "Low Density Residential". These are the largest areas and affect the most parcels of land. The larger of the two areas contains about 53 acres of land presently planned as "Medium Density Residential". It is located in the interior of the neighborhood extending from 16'" AV SWon the west to 7'" AV NW on the east. The area has an overall density of approximately 8.5 units per acre which is in the low density range — a range that extends up to 12 units per acre. The area has 174 single family homes, 83 multi -family properties containing 276 housing units and the United Way Building (formerly Lincoln School). The majority of the area is presently zoned either R-1 or R-2 — low density zoning districts. The half -block along the north side of 1" ST SW from 161" to 11'" AV SW is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The lots adjacent on the west to the Saints Anargyroi Church on the east edge of this area are presently zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The other area proposed to be changed to "Low Density Residential" is adjacent to the south to the above described area. It is presently designated "High Density Residential" It approximately 15 acres in size and is bounded on the north by West Center and on the west by 11' AV SW. It extends easterly along the south side of 1" ST SW from the proposed "Commercial" area east of 11 `" Av SW to and including the property at 802 Is' ST SW (an 11 unit building). The area contains 41 single family homes and 41 multi- family buildings containing 220 housing units. The overall density of the area is approximately 17.6 units per acre —a medium density in the range of densities. The boundaries of the proposed "Low Density Residential" areas are geographically logical with the exception of the eastern -most boundary of the area along the south side of 15' ST SW presently designated "High Density Residential". The new boundary would establish a different designation along the common side property lines of existing multi- family properties — low density on the west side and high density on the east side. The two multi -family buildings on the far east end of the area could logically be removed and retained in the "High Density Residential" area. High Density Residential Re -designations The remaining four areas included in this comprehensive neighborhood plan map amendment are proposed to be designated "High Density Residential" from either "Medium Density Residential" or "Medical" on the present Future Land Use Plan map. Three of the four areas are presently planned "Medium Density Residential" and are already developed with a mixture of residential land uses. The smallest area at approximately 2 acres is a row of 12, 6-unit buildings on the north side of 41/2 ST NW near the northwest corner of the neighborhood close to Civic Center Drive. This area has the highest density of all the proposed residentially designated areas subject to changes at 34.6 units per acre — actually in the high density range above 30 units per acre. The second "Medium Density" to "High Density' change area is the existing residential neighborhood that abuts Civic Center Drive and is separated from the neighborhood to the south by Cascade Creek. This 7.39 acre area has vehicular access only to Civic Center Drive via intersections at 91" and 7'" Avenues connected by a frontage road. It is developed with 18 single family homes, 4 duplexes and five 6-plexes l Page 4 LUP #05-02 / Text Amendment #05-05 Kutzky Park April 20, 2006 for a total density of 6.8 units per acre (in the low density range). The third presently "Medium Density Residential" area proposed to be changed to "High Density" extends from Civic Center Drive along the west side of 6'" AV NW south to Center Street. This 12.95 acre area contains only 25 residential buildings (over half single family detached) with 35 total units for an overall density of only 2.7 units per acre. Over half of the area is devoted to the non-residential uses being Lourdes High School, Saints Anargyroi Church and the dentist office located between the two. This area is seen as having better potential for future redevelopment because of the low density of the area and the upcoming decision of Lourdes on what they will do to meet their facility needs. All these areas meet the locational criteria for high density residential uses found in the Future Land Use Plan. The fourth area proposed to be designated "High Density Residential' is a two square block area located between 5"' and 6"' AV NW and 3rd and 1" ST NW. This land is presently designated "Medical" on the Future land Use Plan and is part of the downtown "Central Development Core". This area lies immediately to the north of the Mayo employee parking ramp. The south half of the southerly -most block are off-street parking lots associated with the motel to the east across 5`" AV NW and the remains of a burned -out building last used as a storage warehouse. The remainder of that block and the entirety of the north block are used for 24 residential buildings. There are seven single family houses and 17 multi -family dwellings containing a total of 67 units. This area at 5.9 acres has a present overall density of 12.5 units per acre — just at the break line between medium and high densities. This area in the "Central Development Core" east of 6`" AV NW/SW, a primary urban collector providing access to the west side of the downtown medical campus, is still situated as a logical extension of the medical area presently more fully developed east of 5"' Av NW/SW. This area appears no better suited for redevelopment now for predominantly high density residential uses than it would as medical auxiliary/support uses. There are no specific locational criteria for determining the appropriate site for medical land use designations other than proximity to the established medical uses in the city. This area has proximity to the medical campus and there are no compelling changes in the area that really warrant re - designation. It has been discovered that if this land use plan amendment from "Medical' to "High Density Residential' is approved as proposed, considering the location in the "Central Development Core", the land use change would result in a de -facto zoning change. The hearing notice failed to report this potential rezoning action. Uses in the Central Development Core sub -areas (residential, medical, commercial and Central Business District) are defined by the land use plan designation, so change the land use plan map / change the zoning standards. For this specific area, if the City is to proceed with the land use map change a separate hearing will have to be held at a later date. Proposed Text Amendments to the Land Use Plan Text Applicable to the Kutzky Park Neighborhood The Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area divided the City into planning areas or neighborhoods when it was initially adopted in 1978. The Kutzky Park Neighborhood (Neighborhood #10) as defined in the original planning document is the same geographic area that is being considered as part of this comprehensive amendment. / Page 5 LUP #05-021 Text Amendment #05-05 Kutzky Park April 20, 2006 The Imagine Kutzky representatives have provided several up -dated documents that they would like officially adopted as part of the Land Use Plan Text. These documents include a revised neighborhood description including history, physical and demographic characteristics, a description of the recent planning process including the results of a neighborhood survey, a summary of their neighborhood challenges and a list of possible solutions. A second written document provided is a list of the goals, objectives and recommendations applicable to major neighborhood features such as neighborhood streets, land use and urban design, public open space and private homes and yards. Two maps reflecting their recommendations as they would affect streets and public spaces were also provided. Copies of all these documents are attached. The Planning staff has attached to this report two new maps that are part of every neighborhood planning area - an up -dated existing land use map for the neighborhood and a map showing the proposed land use designations for the neighborhood. These maps will be used as exhibits and officially added to the plan to replace the out -dated versions. Public Referral Agency Comments Attached is the detailed memorandum from the Senior Transportation Planner of the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department reviewing the proposals found in the "Neighborhood Streets" vision and recommendations map submitted by Imagine Kutzky. The proposal was generally in keeping with the recently adopted Transportation Plan. The Public Works Director commented that any of the "recommendations" or "recommended actions" following the goals and objectives submitted in the documents should not be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. Listing recommendations leads to the belief that they have been studied independently and determined to be the appropriate actions and that has not been done at this juncture. All other agencies responding had no comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that if the neighborhood text submittals are found generally acceptable after the CP & ZC hearing process, the staff be given the opportunity to restructure the written products and combine the neighborhood description/issues paper and the goals, objectives and recommendations submittal into a single document for inclusion in the Land Use Plan Text. Other changes we would recommend, besides the combination of the two papers as suggested, would be to clarify that none of the "recommendations" listed in the documents have been adopted by the City at this time and that they will be studied in detail in the future before implementation. Also, the bar graphs included in the revised neighborhood description document be deleted since they are difficult to reproduce and reflect comparative information not solely attributable to the Kutzky Park neighborhood. The two maps submitted titled "Neighborhood Streets" and "Public Open Spaces", if to be added to the Future Land Use Plan Text, must be redrafted to simplify their appearance for printing reproduction purposes and also include the caveat that none of the represented recommendations have been adopted as official policy of the City at this time. The staff recommends that, at this time, the area presently designated "Medical" on the Future Land Use Map and proposed to be changed to "High Density Residential" - being j4 `O Page 6 LUP #05-02 /Text Amendment #05.O5 Kutzky Park April 20, 2006 the 2 city blocks between 5" and 6'" Avenues NW and 1" and 3rd Streets NW remain as presently designated. It is not lawful to change the designation as proposed in the Central Development Core area because it would have the effect of changing the zoning on the properties without appropriate legal notice. Staff suggests that there is no evidence supporting the proposed change at this time. If the Commission wishes to proceed with the original change as proposed, they should initiate a public hearing on the land use and rezoning of these two blocks to conform to legal hearing standards. The staff would unilaterally support modifications to the boundary of the proposed "High Density Residential" to "Low Density Residential" area along 1" ST SW to retain the "High Density" designation on the two easternmost multi -family dwellings at 802 and 810 1"ST SW (this represents the first public comment listed in the report of the neighborhood meeting). The staff would also suggest that the proposed boundary of the "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" area along the south side of 1a' ST SW that extends from 16'" AV SW to east of 11t° AV SW be reconsidered to reduce it in area on the eastern -most end. It is a more consistent land use pattern if the "Commercial" designation would extend no further east of 11"' AV SW along the 1" ST SW frontage than the present designation of "Commercial" on the dental clinic property to the south that fronts on 2nd ST SW at the corner with 11'" AV SW. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. 3/24/06 Letter from Imagine Kutzky (2 pages) 2. 4/11/06 summary of the 4/11/06 neighborhood meeting and attendance list (7 pages) 3. Map of Existing Land Uses in Kutzky Park 4. Map showing the 11 areas subject to the proposed Future Land Use Plan map changes 5. Map of the adopted Future Land Use Plan for Kutzky Park area 6. Map of the proposed Future Land Use Plan for the Kutzky park area 7. Existing Zoning Map of the area 8. Proposed Kutzky Park Neighborhood description paper (6 pages) 9. Imagine Kutzky Goals, Objectives and Recommendations paper (8 pages) 10. 2 maps entitled "Neighborhood Streets" and "Public Open Spaces" 11. Referral Letter from Senior Transportation Planner Muhammad Khan (7 pages) r. KUTZKY . Building on the past . Planning for the future 2200 Second Street SW, Suite 300, Rochester, MN 55902 Phone: (507) 2B2-0203 Fats: (507) 282-4938 www.KutzkyPark.org 3/24/06 Phil Wheeler, Director Jeff Ellerbusch, Senior Planner Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Dr. SE Rochester, MN 55902 Dear Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Ellerbusch: Please find enclosed the materials we have been working on in regard to the Proposed Land -Use Plan Amendment being initiated through the Imagine Kutzky planning initiative. The Kutzky Park Neighborhood has experienced cycles of deterioration throughout the history of the neighborhood. Conversion of single-family homes into apartments and rooming houses has been significant over the course of time that has caused deterioration, and in turn, has lead to high percentages of rental property and undesirable rental practices and tenant behavior. Throughout the Imagine Kutzky process, it has become evident that the feeling of neighborhood residents and leaders is that large-scale redevelopment pressure from the surrounding commercial area and civic disinvestment has had a burdensome impact on the area. In reacting to development proposals in Kutzky Park, neighborhood leaders feel that often site design standards and zoning requirements are not compatible with the existing physical make-up of the neighborhood. The results can be seen in the form of development that in many cases does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Lack of design quality in both new development and remodeling of existing structures, and inclusion of detrimental uses to the urban environment, such as surface parking lots are problematic components of redevelopment in the neighborhood. Outside the scope of land -use and zoning issues, civic disinvestment and public policy played a major role in contributing to neighborhood deterioration and can be evidenced in such areas as sagging street infrastructure and substandard rental property. Within the set of challenges and needs facing the Kutzky Park Neighborhood, there are many assets worth protecting. As development pressure began to encroach into the neighborhood, leaders found themselves continually reacting to development proposals, often in negative terms. In the absence of an effective framework through which neighborhoods have been able to work with developers and the city, the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association was continually put in a position of reacting to development through opposition in an attempt to protect the neighborhood. An active Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association was established in 1996 as a response to crime. But in 2003, leaders recognized that the root of problems in the neighborhood needed to be addressed with comprehensive planning, and ultimately came to understand that a new model for neighborhood interaction was needed. With this in mind, Imagine Kutzky emerged. ��Acknowledging that redevelopmb, - will continue to occur and is needed it . e Kutzky Park neighborhood, recommendations have been developed in the Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan that address land -use, zoning, design standards and urban design principles to encourage redevelopment that is sensitive to the character of the neighborhood. Commercial and mixed -use areas in Kutzky Park exist and contain some wonderful amenities to the neighborhood. But some of these areas are also underused or vacant, and have great economic potential for Kutzky Park, the downtown area, and larger community if development is well -planned. We understand that addressing land -use is one portion of a larger set of improvements strategies needed for Kutzky Park, and the recommendations in the Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan reflect this. The intent of the proposed land -use plan amendment is to begin to establish a basis by which redevelopment can occur in a way that is compatible within the framework of an urban neighborhood exhibiting a unique and historical character, and contributes to the sustainability of the Kutzky Park neighborhood. We sincerely thank you for all the work you and your staff have contributed in facilitating the Imagine Kutzky process, and look forward to working with you throughout the process of amending the land -use plan in the Kutzky Park Neighborhood. I respectfully submit this letter as the staff coordinator for Imagine Kutzky, representing the Imagine Kutzky Citizens Council of the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association. Sincerely, Stephanie Kilen Coordinator, Imagine Kutzky i vmavune KUTZKY = Building on the past + Planning for the future Land -Use Plan Amendment Neighborhood Meeting Summary 41I1/06 The neighborhood informational meeting to present the proposed changes to the Land -Use Plan in Kutzky Park to residents, property owners and businesses in the neighborhood was held on April 11, 2006 at a meeting of the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association. Approximately 90 people attended. (Please see meeting sign -in.) Stephanie Kilen and Andy Masterpole gave an introduction to Imagine Kutzky and reasons for why the neighborhood began this initiative were given. It was explained that development pressures will continue to press on the neighborhood from all sides, and in responding to development proposal in the past, the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association realized the need to develop a long-term plan for the neighborhood. Through an extended and involved process, the need to make changes to the zoning ordinance and add design standards became apparent. Andy explained what land -use is, and that Land -Use is an underlying foundation for zoning, so we needed to propose changes to the land -use before dealing with zoning. After the introduction meeting attendees were able to visit information stations that included maps of the current land -use designations, proposed land -use designations, and maps that showed the changes in designations. Members of the Imagine Kutzky Citizens Council were available at each station to talk with people about their concerns and answer questions. An hour was given for viewing the information and one- on-one discussion, at which time the group was called back together to close the meeting. During this time, the approval process of the proposed Land -Use Plan amendment was explained and the date, time and place of the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing on April 26th was given. People were encouraged to attend. The issues of concern that arose at the neighborhood meeting during discussion were as follows: • On the 800 block of I st Street SW, a family owns three properties in a row, currently in a high-denstiy residential designation. One of the three properties falls within a land -use designation change to low density. The property owner mentioned they intended to sell the properties for redevelopment, but could have trouble if just one if in a residential designation. This property owner requested that we leave all three properties high -density residential so just one of their properties isn't put into a new land -use designation. • A homeowner on the 1000 block I st Street SW who owns two properties next to one another is concerned that the properties are within an area proposed to change from high -density residential to commercial. The concern was that the property taxes would increase and they would have to begin paying commercial taxes. Marcia Marcoux was in attendance at the meeting and explained that the majority of the tax is based on use, so if the use remains residential, there shouldn't be much of a change in taxes. This is an issue we will be seeking more information about prior to the P & Z Commission hearing on April 26th. • Two homeowners on the 1400 block of I st Street SW were dissatisfied with the proposed change from high -density residential to commercial. They were concerned their houses would be torn down for development, and then before that they would have to pay commercial property tax rates. Again, it was explained the tax goes with the use, and they would be allowed to live in their homes with residential use as long as they wanted. • A homeowner on the North side of I st Street SW, 1400 block, where a change is being proposed from high -density to low -density residential, was concerned that many properties were already multi - units and would be non -conforming. It was explained that the block was solidly intact and should be preserved as so with lower -intensity designations. • On 2nd Street NW, a homeowner on the 1000 block was concerned that their property was in a small section that wasn't changing land -use designation while much of the area across the street and further into the neighborhood was changing from medium density to low density use. This owner felt as though the block their property is on would be more likely to change and redevelop than other properties that seemed more protected by being changed to a low -density designation. It was explained that the decision was made due to redevelopment needs on 9th Avenue where deteriorated property exists and encouragement to redevelop is needed, and that to avoid spot -zoning we needed to designate more than just a half a block in the middle of the neighborhood medium -density. mp �m • �1lHIS MR .s EW 1LO Effill all � • - as �i��� �iI/' �/, IS. PI �1� 1i1�1�1i • �ll k� A.M 111 1 11 1 1 FA lM, 0 ' '�«"�IlllltIIIII III ME, • 1 //. .c ice. I 1 �.. �.n� :III ,��� � c.Q�►t�¢ �� x�„� !ll�:ii �� A U z ry W r Q Y (Z ry W� U) �} ❑Y ZN 4~ Y z z— wJ 0 z W W IL J Q W � ~ Z W ❑ N Q N W �. � 0 0 0 0= 0 W O 7 = U 0 a 2 0 z w ❑ z w o a r w ❑ J z 0 w o N K w g m 0 Z Z N Z N z N z Z j O O 2 ❑ 2 U 30 ❑ ❑ ❑ w wO WClQ 0 Q< W = U ��Z z dF ry LL uW O w E- QmQ � U) < < 4 z< t t t 3n WS < W MN z CO i0000 0000 0000 �t< 16 AVE NW fit IL Z g IL w cn D Z W D H LL C7 Z V) x Lll w U J 2 g < w Z QW w O e6 y w w � U ❑ j ❑ ❑ Q O S OO ❑ U 00 O -DO . •i.r ;0000 �O000' ;7O''00 G 00 J G'.:"J D000' 0000 0 00C,'j Pr 0i1 _ 0 C. 0 C, () r ,00 ^ 000 Z ` 4 _ 0006 Wg_ 00 '00 '0000 V 0000 ;_ _ iG'0\ DGGO 0000 0000 J60Gl0GGG �,OOOC 0000 _r .•OOO•: 000C 0000 0000 \ }0 12 \ �; G 4 Y Y I� \ �. •''~'_ sYiiS if_�L'pL� Yb i_yr >rY \ \\ \\ G Q Z l I z a w N D 0 g W F- D LL LL W O EL O d g z ZO F Z LLI 00 ❑ OO i O Z❑Z _ w W >}z w O 2 0 O LU U a W a0 w Qa 'S z ry U 00 00 OGC•000 n00G0 C'00000 6 00G 00G O C•00 000 0 000 \l3 P4 FA M m 3AV S; P MN 3 L MN 3/* 8 d ZA s --y LN 3A 6 11 16 AVE NW 95 R V/ U) N U Q U Pa r 922 1 FT QZ 2.00 1 .80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 History of Neighborhood Establishment` a There are 808 residential properties in the Kutzky Park neighborhood. The first was built in 1863. August Kutzky himself built his second home at 718 Center Street West where that property still remains as one of the neighborhoods architectural and historical anchors. Sixty percent of the homes in Kutzky Park were built between 1910 and 1930. These homes primarily consist of variations of the classic American four -square and bungalow, many influenced by classic Arts and Crafts styling. Homes built prior to 1940 are largely gathered on the East side of the neighborhood. Development of homes on the West side of Kutzky Park began in the late 1940's post-war era and into the 1950's. In 1953 Miracle Mile was built along Kutzky's West boundary and became Minnesota's first outdoor mall. A small portion of the neighborhood to the North consists of houses built in the 1960's, the latest being 1968. Neighborhood Location The Kutzky Park area is bounded by Highway 52 to the West, Civic Center Dr. to the North, 4th Street SW to the East, and 2nd Street SW to the South. This location within Rochester is a major asset for the neighborhood. Convenient proximity to Rochester's major employer, major thoroughfares, and commercial amenities and services provide great potential for revitalization in Kutzky Park. Neighborhood Characteristics Kutzky Park is a compact, walkable urban neighborhood. Census data indicates that Kutzky Park residents collectively have fewer cars than many other neighborhood in the city, and also consists 01 the largest number of workers that walk to work (see charts from Census data below). Vehicles per unit in the Downtown Core Downtown Eastslde Southeast Historic Kutzky Park Northrop Rochester Pioneers Settlers Southwest and Falwell ®Vehicles per unit, ownershil Vehicles per unit, renters (Neighborho--i Characteristics, continued from p. 1) % of Workers that Walk to work Downtown Eastside Southeast Historic Kutzky Park Northrop Rochester All Pioneers Settlers Southwest downtown and Folwell i® % of Workers that Walk to work Cascade Creek runs through the North edge of the neighborhood and is accompanied by bike trails and a system of public recreation area and green space. Mature trees, a traditional grid of blocks, and narrower streets enhance the traditional neighborhood characteristics of Kutzky Park. A neighborhood survey conducted in 2004 identified the top five things residents like most about Kutzky Park: 1.) Location or convenience; 2.) Architectural character, charm 3.) Bike path, park and other amenities; 4.) Neighborliness, friendliness of neighbors; 5.) Mature trees A diverse range of uses are mixed throughout the residential areas of the neighborhood such as private schools, churches, rooming houses, semi -transient homes and shelters, home offices, a music studio, stained-glass artist shop, and a Victorian home converted to a gourmet restaurant. Commercial areas exist within walking distance to the South along 2nd Street SW and Highway 52 to the East that contain restaurants, personal services, retail shops, hotels and offices. The intent of the land -use plan is to further encourage this type of mix of uses. Neighborhood Population Demographically, the Kutzky Park neighborhood is also diverse and unique. With a population of 3,310, census data indicates that Kutzky Park has the most diverse cultural population in the city, with approximately 18 percent minority population, and 21 percent foreign -born population. Median income in Kutzky Park is approximately $33,000 per year; comparative to $50,000 median income through the larger Rochester community. (See charts from Census data below) / .` f. (Neigh[ .food Population, continued from p. 2) 20% 18% 18% 14% 12% 10% 8% 5% 4% 2% 0% 2000 Minority Population ■ is is a a a a a� a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a■ -a ■ a is a a a is a a Downtown Eastside Southeast Historic Kutzky Park Northrup Rochester Pioneers Settlers Southwest & Folwell 60,000 50,000' 30,000 r11�• Q Downtown Eastside Pioneers 2000 Median Household Income :rs4 av 4 M�' n Southeast Historic Kutft Park Northrop Rochester Settlers Southwest and Folwell 3 ■ Minority Population ❑ Median Household Income The Imagine Kutzky Process 1' In 2003, Imagine Kutzky was begun as a way to find solutions to recurring problems, as well as encourage and promote neighborhood -friendly redevelopment. Through proactive, inclusive and long-range visioning and planning, a mission, goals, objectives and recommendations for neighborhood improvement were developed in the form of the Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan. The Imagine Kutzky process was based on the book, "Planning to Stay," by William Morrish and Catherine Brown. Using six planning steps outlined in this guidebook Kutzky Park neighborhood leaders and residents embarked on the following process: 1. Organizing - Agreeing to meet and work together for a common purpose: Developing structure and process, acquiring funding, developing partnerships. 2. Gathering - Evaluating what kind of neighborhood we have: Gathering historical data, demographic, physical and geographical data, seeking input from neighbors through a series of neighborhood workshops and a survey developed by the Planning Department, meeting with community leaders and city officials, and consulting an advisory board representing non-resident stakeholders in the neighborhood. 3. Ordering - Deciding what kind of neighborhood we want Creating the Mission Statement and Preliminary Vision Plan 4. Making - Creating a plan for what kind of neighborhood we can make: Seeking community feedback for the Preliminary Vision Plan, identifying specific neighborhood improvement projects, creating a final Vision Plan approved by the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association membership. 5. Taking Action - Putting the plan to work in the neighborhood: Establishing neighborhood leadership to lead plan implementation, establish collaborations and partnerships to implement neighborhood improvements. Neighborhood Challenges Census data shows that between 1990 and 2000, 200 housing units were lost in Kutzky Park. This is the most of any other neighborhood or area in the city. Median owner -occupied home value increased in Kutzky Park between 1990 and 2000, but at a significantly slower rate than the rest of the community. The neighborhood has a transient characteristic with 67 percent of housing units in Kutzky Park being rental. Higher home -ownership turnover occurs as well compared to Rochester as whole, with census data showing approximately 32% of homeowners living in the same house from 1995 to 2000, as opposed to 50% throughout Rochester. (See Census data chaffs below.) The neighborhood survey conducted in 2004 identified the top five things residents disliked most about living in Kutzky Park: 1.) Rental Property 2.) Traffic speed or volume; one-way operation 3.) Property condition 4.) Litter, noise, nuisances 5.) Condition of infrastructure 4 zoo 150 100 50 0 -50 -r00 -150 -200 -250 i (Neigh6(-.. good Challenges, continued from p. 4) 1990-2000 Housing Units Added (lost) Downtown Eastside Pioneers S & K rk Northrup 70% 60% 50 % 40% 30 % 20% 10% 0% 1990-2000 Median Home Value Increase - Owned Homes Downtown Eastside Southeast Historic Kutzky Park Northrup pioneers Settlers Southwest S Folwell I® Housing Units Added(lost) Rochestel ® % Increase h7 (Neighb'L .,00d Challenges, continued from p. 5) 100% 90% 80% 70% 50% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% so. 0% 500% 40. 0% 30.0% 20.0% 10. 0% 0.0% 1990 and 2000 Percent Rental units Downto x, EastsiCa Pioneers Southeast Historic Ku ky Perk Northrup Rochester settlers Soutl t & Folw ll Living in the Same House in 1995 as 2000 Downtown Eastside Southeast Historic Ku=ky Hem Nortnrup Kocnester Pioneers Setters Southwest 8 F01wa11 1990 IN 2000 ® Same House 1995 antl 200 Solutions The Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan addresses ways to meet these challenges and improve the neighborhood. Through encouraging redevelopment in targeted areas, building density as redevelopment occurs to recover population losses, maintaining existing unique character through preservation of high -quality, historically and architecturally rich properties that serve as neighborhood anchors, and addressing urban -design principles that maximize the walkable, mixed -use urban character traits already established in Kutzky Park, the desirability and liveability of Kutzky Park will be enhanced. In turn, this will lead to revitalization that will benefit the downtown area and entire community. Addressing land -use is one portion of a larger set of improvements recommended in the Imagine Kutzky Vision Plan. The intent of the proposed land -use plan amendment is to establish a basis by which redevelopment occurs that fits the character of an urban neighborhood with unique and historical character, and contributes to the sustainability of the Kutzky Park neighborhood. 1-1 9 KUTZKY Building on the past * Planning for the future Mission Statement To preserve, enhance and promote Kutzky Park as a vibrant and sustainable, mixed -use urban neighborhood. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 a.*4_AA NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS( t� Goal: Create a safe, functional and attractive street system that balances the needs of automobiles with the needs of pedestrians, mass transit and bicycles. Objectives: ■ Reduce cut -through traffic by introducing a comprehensive traffic -calming program in the neighborhood. ■ Encourage and promote alternative modes of transportation. ■ Encourage outdoor dining and street activity such as vendors and musicians on the sidewalks of 2nd Street SW. ■ Invest in the public realm and make streets safe, comfortable and attractive for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. ■ Increase public safety and street vitality by creating and maintaining human scale design elements through the placement and orientation of buildings, parking and streetscape materials. • Reduce traffic speeds through traffic calming measures. ■ Reduce the amount of non-resident parking in low -density residential streets. Provide a mix of parking that balances the needs of residents and businesses in mixed use areas. Recommendations: ■ Develop a long-range plan to phase in the following traffic -calming measures as a part of City's Capital Improvement Plan: Return First Street SW, Center Street West, First Street NW and Second Street NW to two-way traffic. Create a basket weave of stop signs and traffic circles throughout the neighborhood. Add mid -block chokers, neck -downs on strategic corners, and painted parking lines. Add pedestrian street crossing elements (such as bold, white reflective paint, special colored paving, etc.) through a hierarchy of crossing treatments based on street type. Narrow streets where feasible to slow traffic and preserve existing street trees. 2 (Neighborhood Streets( .recommendations, continued) ■ Add bike lanes where appropriate to facilitate safe bicycle transportation. ■ Provide wide, accessible sidewalks, street trees, landscaping, decorative lighting and street furniture to selected enhanced streetscape areas. ■ Design building openings that are oriented to the street, including well illuminated windows and welcoming entrances. ■ Develop an on -street parking strategy that uses the following criteria: :• Provides for parking on both sides of street in mixed -use, commercial and high -density residential areas :• Provides for parking on one -side of street in low -density residential areas :• Encourages the use of angle parking in mixed -use and commercial areas • Encourage the development of parking structures to accommodate employee and non -neighborhood parking needs and relieve demand on neighborhood streets. ■ Utilize permit parking where needed. 3 LAND USE and URBAN DESIGI( ta3 Goal: To create a sustainable, compact, cohesive urban neighborhood where residents can live, work, shop and play. Objectives: • Encourage a compatible mix of land uses that protect natural and built assets and create a sense of place. ■ Connect mixed -use areas with a network of landscaped "green" streets and walks. ■ Ensure that development contributes to the social and economic life of the community through quality design of the physical environment. ■ Strengthen small business activity in commercial and mixed -use areas that is compatible with the social and physical make-up of the neighborhood. • Encourage quality building practices that are enduring and will accommodate future alternative uses. ■ Encourage the design and placement of buildings that incorporate human scale design details and promote pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle usage. • Preserve historic structures when feasible and encourage adaptive re -use. • Encourage demolition of unsafe and condemned buildings and infill with architecturally compatible uses Preserve and create walkable commercial and mixed -use areas • Create on -site parking that is carefully and judicially placed as to not create a void breaking the continuity of the neighborhood assures safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation, minimizes negative visual impact an is well landscaped :• integrates parking with buildings whenever feasible through interior site design and podium parking using structures whenever feasible discourages over -supply of parking by setting caps on parking and facilitating shared parking 0 i (Land Use and Urbar: Jsign — Objectives, continued) Use the following basic urban design principles when developing commercial and mixed -use areas: ❖ Build to the sidewalk (i.e. property line). Create a strong "streetwall" in which each building meets or comes close to the sidewalk. • Locate the inside floor level as close as possible to the level of the sidewalk outside. ❖ Make the building front "permeable". ➢ Connect the inside of the building and the sidewalk outside with windows and doors. • Prohibit mirrored glass or window coverings that block visibility. ❖ Prohibit parking lots in front of the building. 7 Put on -site parking above, below, behind, or beside the building. • Allow on -street parking. Stop -and -go parking is essential to neighborhood shopping districts. Recommendations: ■ Prohibit surface parking lots as a principal use. • Create design guidelines and standards that shape the character of new development to the existing neighborhood character and are in accordance with the Land -Use Plan. Adjust parking standards to reflect neighborhood assets and characteristics of the neighborhood such as walkability, close proximity to downtown, amenities and employment and comparatively lower numbers of vehicles owned by residents of the neighborhood. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE Goal: Make the public open space system a unifying feature that strengthens the unique identify of the neighborhood. Objectives: ■ Strengthen the neighborhood's connection to the natural environment by improving pedestrian access to existing open spaces. ■ Create a variety of open space types (trails, woods, athletic fields, plazas, etc.) to accommodate changing demographics. ■ Establish a healthy urban ecosystem by protecting and restoring native vegetation and animal habitats. • Intensify the use of natural storm water management and sustainable landscape practices to enhance water quality. ■ Strengthen neighborhood identify through development of entrance features at key locations (signs, historic markers, etc). ■ Emphasize the Civic Center Drive entrance to the city as a Community Gateway through landscaping and beautification. Recommendations: ■ Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association continues the official "adoption" of Kutzky Park and Cascade Creek through semi-annual park clean-up events. ■ Eliminate non -user parking in Tennis Center and Kutzky Park lot year-round through parking restriction and enforcement solutions such as changing current parking restrictions from 'three-hour parking, May i through September 30, Monday through Friday' to 'three-hour parking, Monday through Friday.' Explore the feasibility of the following park programming improvements in Kutzky Park: C• Adding a Dog Park C• Adding a leisure ice skating rink Relocating the basketball court to a more site appropriate location within Kutzky Park Improving the public availability of programming and facilities at the Tennis Center to capitalize on this asset within the neighborhood 3 (Public Open Space( ,ecommendations, continued) ■ Close off the 13' Avenue NW vehicular entrance to Kutzky Park, converting to pedestrian -only entrance, and adding vehicular access to the Kutzky Park parking lot from 16' Avenue NW. • Upgrade playground equipment at United Way site through city Parks Department ■ Create pedestrian access from 2nd Street SW to St Mary's Park. ■ Create or improve safe path connections where needed, prioritizing Cascade Creek path connection at I It' Avenue NW and future connection to Cascade Lake at 16" Avenue NW. • Make the existing mid -block connection near the 13' Avenue foot -bridge more accessible. • Work with public and private interests in securing property for new mid -block connections; -% West Center Street to I' Street SW between I I' and r Avenue •: West Center Street United Way playground site to In Street NW PI HOMES AND YARDS Goal: Preserve and restore the charm and historic character of the neighborhood. Objectives: • Require review and site plan approval prior to issuance of demolition permit • Establish regulations to protect historic structures and encourage adaptive reuse. ■ Encourage reinvestment into former single-family homes that have been converted into multi -unit apartments. ■ Identify blighted or crime -ridden properties and work closely with the Building Safety Department and law enforcement to identify key issues, solve problems and make improvements. • Encourage infill development with well -designed compatible new structures. ■ Maintain affordable housing that contributes to socio-economic diversity and the diversity of housing stock. • Encourage remodeling projects that maintain the character of homes through incentives and guidelines. Recommendations: ■ Prohibit further conversion of single-family homes to multi -unit apartments. • Carry out a windshield survey to inventory types of housing stock and property conditions; identify improvement needs and target investment areas. • Create/identify funding programs that provide incentive and opportunity for those undertaking rehabilitation and reinvestment in residential structures. • Build a partnership program between landlords and neighborhood residents. • Produce architectural guidelines and/or standards for new housing development and major remodels. • Encourage home ownership and owner occupied rental property. ■ Work with the First Homes Heritage Homes program to identify at -risk homes in need of renovations. • Work with First Homes Community Land Trust program to ensure that certain homes are renovated and contribute to neighborhood character, yet remain affordable. 9 (LV v� Memorandum To: Development Review Staff, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department From Muhammad F Khan, Senior Transportation Planner Date: 4/1712006 Re: IMAGINE KUTZKY - LAND USE PLAN AMMENDMENT # 05-02 BACKGROUND The proposed Land Use amendment request include 109 acres of land within the neighborhood bounded by Highway 52, Civic Center Drive, 4d' Avenue and 2ud Street SW. The proposal is reviewed under the City of Rochester Land Development Manual for consistency with the policies and guidelines found in the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, which has been adopted by the City of Rochester as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The review will mainly address each of the key issue areas found in the adopted Transportation Plan that could influence appropriateness of the Imagine Kutzky Park goal, objectives and recommendations. FUNCTIONAL AND STREET DESIGN DESIGNATION IN TBE STUDY AREA The Functional Designation Map (Figure 1) of ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan designates: 1. 2ad Street SW as an Major Urban Arterial 2. Civic Center Drive NW as Strategic Urban Arterial 3. 16t° Ave as Secondary Urban Arterial 4. 11's Avenue as Major Urban Arterial, and 5. 6d' Ave as Primary Urban Arterial. 14 FIGURE 1 ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, August 2005: The Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Transportation Plan provides a comprehensive look at anticipated system development in Olmsted County for the next 25-30 years. The Plan is organized around four primary transportation networks: Road & Bridge Network, Non -Motorized Travel Network, Public Transit Services and Commercial Freight and Passengers Transportation. 4/17/2006 Street Design Classification Map (Figure 2) shows design designation of the major roads within the Kutzky Parks Neighborhood as follows: 1. 2°d Street SW as 4U and 5-6D facility (4-6 lane divided/undivided facility) 2. Civic Center NW as 4CD (mix divided/undivided expressway) 3. 16d' Ave as 4U (4 lane undivided facility) 4. 116 Ave as Street 2 and 2+ Median LTL (2 lane facility and 2 lane with center left turning lane south of Civic Center Drive) 5. 6d' Ave as Street 2 (2 lane facility) The average daily traffic (ADT) on 2nd Street is projected to range from 28,000 ADT (between west of 6t1' Ave and 116 Ave SW) to 17,500 ADT (west of 1 lts Ave and 14t° Ave S)A). The projected ADT on 2nd Street SW between 14d' Ave SW and 16'" Ave SW is estimated to range from 43,750 to 51,000 ADT in the Year 2035. The average daily traffic on Civic Center Drive NW is projected to range from 28, 000 ADT to 33,700 ADT (between 66 and 11th Ave NW). The projected FIGURE 2 f. •. ••_1 ♦ i.�Or � n CI�uXIC�MR .: — ADT on Civic Center Drive NW between 11 ° Ave and 16's Ave is estimated to range from 17,500 to 28,000 ADT in 2035. The average daily traffic on 6d' Ave, 11t6 Ave and 16'" Ave is projected to range from 11, 000 ADT to 17,500 ADT between 2nd Street SW and Civic Center Drive NW. The Long Range Bikeway Plan calls for the development of bike patb/trail connections to Cascade Lake Park on west of TH 52 and Bike Lane Study area in the Kutzky Park Neighborhood. Figure 3 highlights the adopted Bikeway Plan illustrating the future trail connection to Cascade Lake Park on the west of TH 52. The FIGURE 3 1 ez F Vi dotted area "C" on the Urban Bikeway shows the Bike Lane Study Area. The Long Range Plan recommends a study/feasibility of bike lanes in the area bounded by 2nd Street SW, 16d' Ave, Broadway and Civic Center Drive, NW. The future bike lane facilities should ultimately be tied to the exiting bike trail on the south (Soldiers Field) and Silver Lake bike trail system on the east of Broadway. F1 411712006 Review of Proposed Goals and Policy Directions In Light of ROCOG 2035 Plan 1- II: JII"III LU il.. •Y. D �. 'JIIII IH IAA. i/l' I VI' I il/ L II J /41IiI vl: / I/ /I // ♦w l • pp/. / /I / / / 4 I I iil. / / L/ 1Y/ /I /n\ / 11 YYI 11 / I i/Y.♦ The Policy Direction in the Long Range Transportation Plan is to "Design the transportation system to meet functional and structural demands safely, efficiently and effectively". The Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 sets out the following goals for: Major Highway System: 1. Preserve adequate capacity to meet current and projected demand for passenger and freight travel 2. Preserve reasonable levels of mobility along all major highway corridors Public Transit System: 3. Provide Fixed Route service to a majority of households within Rochester 4. Comply with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act related to the provision of comparable service on Fixed Route and Dial -a -Ride transit systems Bicycle Planning: 5. Provide safe and comfortable conditions for bicycle use on all secondary street corridors to supplement the system of paths and trails planned for the region. 6. Provide a network of safe and convenient facilities for bicycle travel between all activity areas in the region 7. Provide adequate residential access to the regional bikeway system 8. Make adequate provision for users with different abilities on all off -road trails Pedestrian System: 9. Provide adequate pedestrian accommodations to connect all developed property with other properties in the same or adjacent neighborhoods or business activity centers. 10. Provide designated transit corridors and non -freeway major highway corridors with adequate pedestrian facilities 11. Insure that paths and trails are suitable for pedestrian travel 12. Provide appropriate structural or operational measures to facilitate safe crossing of major highway corridors at locations with high levels of pedestrian activity 13. Provide convenient connections across limited access transportation corridors for non - motorized travel between residential neighborhoods and community education and recreation facilities 14. Provide wheelchair ramps at all sidewalk approaches to intersections i .- a aaose r1d aaa cbjeztrki. al 1mgM 0...I. 'J - tlA.l U in r OI n- en . all: HI b , l n a •a: n:a ll" R0C0G2035LcngRarlgpTrmWtatmP1m Tablel sbomhowf&LangRanWTmWat3bmPlangmlsaddtmtr wcma:rnrwaaaaa:an 3 zed•I- m '.n Table 1: Kutzky Park Neighborhood Streets Recommendation VS ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 Design Factor Return 1' SW, Center Street West, 1" Street NW and 2n° Street NW to 2-Way Traffic Neighborhood Traffic Calming devices and Pedestrian Facilities Add Bike Lanes to Facilitate Safe Bicycle Transportation User Friendly Parking Strategy Future Mass Transit Routes/Personal Rapid Transit 2ntl Street NA Three minor Bicycle Compatibility 2e° Street SW Table 1 in the Long SW pedestrian crossings Index (110) and Bicycle provides limited Range Transportation and one major Level of Service (BLOS) parking supply. Plan summarizes the pedestrian crossing analysis for god Street Off-street study regarding amenity at the shows extremely low parking is minimum density levels - intersection of 61b Ave BCI and BLOS. available in the to support various types and 2'd Street SW will Therefore, bike lanes proximity to serve of rail services and the be beneficial for the are not safe to be place the commercial costs to implement such high pedestrian on 2"d Street SW". and high servite. The study movements an 21d employment suggests that Rochester Street SW. They may The Imagine Kutzky areas. had significantly lower require warrant from Park has no proposal levels of residential and the City. The minor for bike lanes on 2"d There is a employment density pedestrian crossing at Street SW. shortage of than found in other It* Ave and mid- parking on 2" cities which have block of 12'a and 13n Street that has successfully implement Avenues and 10 Ave caused a spillover the rail services. will improve parking in the pedestrian movement residential areas Personal Rapid Transit across 2"" streets. in Kutzky Park system has not been neighborhood. tried in any community As per the Long Range in USA to date. It may Transportation Plan be a future option for the proposed Rochester Downtown pedestrian crossings area including Kutzky have to be friendly for Park Neighborhood due people with disabilities to its significantly lower or people on wheel capital investment and chair and visually operating costs. impaired people. Sunway connection to Proposal offuture St. Mary is in line with personal rapid/mass long term goals as it transit route on 2'd will provide safe and Street SW, 6" Ave SW friendly pedestrian and Center Street West facility to able as well is line with the City's as people with thinking for Personal disabilities. Rapid Transit System. Monorail may be another options to be consider on 2"d Street SW. 4 4/17/2006 Civic NA Future Major BCI and BLOS for Civic Center NA center Pedestrian Crossings Civic Center Drive is Drive is no - Drive, NW at 0 Ave, 6n Ave, extremely low and parking and 11n Ave may meet unsuitable for bike expressway. The the warrant for lanes. However, Multi- proposed plan pedestrian crossing. purpose off -road trail does not show any on the south side of parking facility Civic Center as along Civic proposed in the Imagine Center Drive Kutry is a good which is classified connection to the future as as Expressway trail system in Cascade on the Functional Lake area west of TH Designation Map. 52. 6n Ave NA Future Major BCI and BLOS for 60 60 Ave provides The proposed mass between 2° Pedestrian Crossings Ave is moderately low limited on -street transit route along 6" Street SW at 6n Ave, and 2" Ave and some what suitable parking supply Ave is tine with the long and Civic intersection may meet for bike lanes. Imagine but capable of term goal of the City. center the warrant for Kutry Park does not providing more Drive NW pedestrian crossing. show a bike lane along on -street parking 6n Ave but the Long facility because of Range Transportation its wide roadway Plan identifies 60 Ave as width. a candidate street for future bike lane facility. 110 Ave NA Future minor and BCI and BLOS for 116 lln Ave provides The proposed passenger between Zed major pedestrian Ave is extremely low limited on -street train route along IIn Street SW crossings along I In which is an indication parking supply. Ave requires a careful and Civic Ave may meet the that bike lanes are not research and feasibility. center warrant for pedestrian suitable for this Personal Rapid Transit DriveNW crossing. Other traffic corridor. Imagine System may be more control devices Kutzy Park shows a suitable alternative than proposed in the plan bike lane along lln Ave. passenger train system. may be discussed with There will be some The ROW of 11" Ave is the City public works challenges in relation to too tight for the for their additional roadway development of train warrants/suimbility. width and bicycle system or Personal compatibility on IIn Rapid System. There is Ave. need to develop an Official Plan to meet the additional ROW for such facility. 16n Ave NA Future minor and Connection with the 10 Ave provides Proposed transit hub between 2" major pedestrian new bicycle friendly limited on -street seems a good idea, Street SW crossings along 16" interchange at 2°d street parking facility. however, there may be and Civic Ave may meet the is intine with the long need to do a traffic center warrant for pedestrian term goal of the Long study to answer specific Drive NW crossing. City Public Range Transportation questions related to works will make the Plan. transit routes and how final determinations. to manage high traffic in the vicinity of TH 52 411712006 I" Street 1` Street SW has Traffic calming BCI and BLOS for Ia User friendly NA SW been changed from devices proposed on Street is moderately parking policies one-way to two, fist Street needs to be low which is an needs to be way traffic and discussed with the City indication that bike discussed with the fanctiouing fine. Public Works for their lames are somewhat City Public suitability and suitable for this Works Dept warrants corridor. Imagine Kutzy Park shows a bike lane along 1" Ave. There will be some challenges in relation to additional roadway width and on -street parking facility. Center This street can be Traffic calming BCI and BLOS for User friendly NA Street changed from one- devices proposed on Center Street West is parking policies West way to two-way Center Street needs to moderately high. It needs to be traffic in he discussed with the indicates that the street discussed with the consultation with City Public Works for is suitable for bike City Public the City Public their suitability and lanes. Imagine Kutzy Works Dept Works as there is warrants. Park shows a bike lane sufficient roadway along Center Street width to bring West that may put in about this changes place in consultation with the City. I° Street This street is a Traffic calming BCI and BIAS for la User friendly NA IN-W narrow compare devices proposed on lv Street NW is parking policies to 19 Street SW. Street NW needs to be moderately low. It needs to be Two-way is discussed with the City indicates that the street discussed with the possible at the cost Public Works for their is somewhat suitable for City Public ofon-street suitability and bike lanes Imagine Works Dept parking. Other warrants Kutzy Park shows a possible bike lane along this alternatives may street that may put in be discussed with place in consultation the City. with the City. 2i° Street 2" Street NW has Traffic calming BCI and BLOS for 2°" User friendly NA NW similar/more street devices proposed on Street NRW is very high. parking policies width as we have 2n° Street NW needs to It is an indication that needs to be on I" Street SW be discussed with the the street is most discussed with the which means it is City Public Works for suitable for bike lanes. City Public possible to change their suitability and Imagine Kutry Park Works Dept from one-way to warrants shows a bike lane on two-way. Traffic this street that may put volume on this in place in consultation street is with the City. anticipated to be very low which is good to change this street from one way to two -ways. /11 411712006 SITNDLARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The goal and objectives of nagineKutsky Parkare generally in line with thepoliicy d'¢ection and goals of the ROCOG 2035LongRange Transportation Plan. 2. The proposed traffic cahnmg and traffic conbvl devices on Y Street SW, Carter'Strrd, V Street NW and 2°d Street NW may mgmrvs some traffic analysis to suppcatthe suitability ofthe proposed device ovceodw option that may be available to address traffic issues. It may be achieved by doing a comprehensive traffic calmin studyforKulzkyParkNeighborhood inconmitationwiththe road conbulfm."authority. BrilwLaneaccommodation proposal on number of streets in Kutzky Park Neighborhood requires more consultation with the City Public Works Department and Downtown Bike Lane Working Group. For the purpose of land use plan amendment review, feasibility of the proposed bike lanes in Kutzky Park Neighborhood is tested using Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCf) and Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Analysis. The analysis results are shown in Table 1. The analysis shows that West Center Street and 2nd Street NW are most suitable for bike lanes followed by l't Street SW and 1 Street NW. More information on BCI, BLOS or Side Walk suitability is available on: http://,Pv-ww.bikelib.orE,/roadsfblos/index.htm 4. The Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 summarizes the study regarding minimum density levels to support various types of rail services and the costs to implement such service. The study suggests that Rochester had significantly lower levels of residential and employment density than found in other cities that have successfully implement the rail services. However, Personal Rapid Transit system may be a future option for Rochester Downtown area due to its significantly lower capital investment and operating costs. The concept of future personal rapid/mass transit route on 2nd Street SW, 6tn Ave SW and Center Street West is line with the City's thinking for Personal Rapid Transit System. 5. Proposed transit hub at south-west corner of 16t' Ave and 1" Street SW seems a good idea, however, it's location has to be supported by the traffic study/analysis to answer specific questions related to transit routes and how to manage high traffic in the vicinity of TH 52 and 2°d street interchange. 6. The proposed passenger train route along 11t° Ave requires more in-depth research to support such a big financial commitment. Personal Rapid Transit System may be more suitable alternative than passenger train system provided it is feasible. The high projected daily traffic on Ilth and narrow ROW may not justify the proposed development along this corridor. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Apri126, 2006 Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch presented the staff report, dated April 19, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ellerbusch referred to an email sent by Renee Hess. This email is on file at the Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department. The letter was with regard to three properties adjacent to each other that are owned by the family. She requested that the land use remain the same for all three properties. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that the request is not a rezoning of any property. This would only change the text of the Lane Use Plan. Mr. Ellerbusch gave the history of the entire planning of the project. He discussed the working relationship with Imagine Kutzky. Mr. Ellerbusch showed the currently adopted Land Use Plan map, proposed Land Use Plan map, and a map of the specific changes. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that the Rochester Public Works Department noted that any of the "recommendations" or "recommended actions" following the goals and objectives submitted in the documents should not be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. Each recommendation related to infrastructure would need to be studied in detail prior to any actual approval by Public Works. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that the CDC zoning district has special overlay zones. These are defined by the land use plan map. Therefore, the Commission shouldn't change the two block area east of 6`h Avenue NW from Medical to High Density Residential, since doing so would constitute a zone change. Mr. Ellerbusch reiterated that staff would support Ms. Hess' request. Mr. Burke asked if the recommendation listed in the staff report was a combination of Imagine Kutzky and staff's recommendation. Mr. Ellerbusch responded yes. He explained that a neighborhood meeting was held. Notes from the meeting are provided in the staff report and are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. McGuine asked if zone changes would need to be applied for all the land use designation changes. Mr. Ellerbusch responded yes, for some of the changes, but at a later time. He explained the zoning amendment process. He also discussed the non -conformity process and possible zoning designations for the future. Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 Mr. Burke asked if there were any legal issues with changing the Land Use Plan for those properties on the map. Mr. Ellerbusch responded that there are no specific ramifications. They are going through the appropriate process at this time. Mr. Burke asked what process would occur after this proposed land use plan amendment. Mr. Ellerbusch responded that goals and objectives of Imagine Kutzky are to get the amendment added to the official Land Use Plan. In the future, when staff looks at any redevelopment or change to the Zoning Ordinance text, they would need to try to support the goals and objectives listed in Land Use Plan. Discussion ensued regarding problems with approving zoning that deviates from the Land Use Plan designation. Mr. Burke questioned what would happen to an existing duplex if they wanted to remodel it and it doesn't meet with the proposed goals and objectives. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that the land use plan does not make it nonconforming but zoning. Under Minnesota law, the interests of those owning non -conforming properties are protected. There was a short break to change meeting tapes. Mr. Andy Masterpole presented with Ms. Stephanie Kilen on behalf of Imagine Kutzky Ms. Kilen explained that she has served as paid staff and Mr. Masterpole is paid as a consultant. She explained that the main decisions have been made by the Citizen's Council (they stood up), which are residents of Kutzky Park neighborhood. The decision to bring forth the proposed plan was due to the amount of time the neighborhood has spent reacting to development proposals. Mr. Masterpele thanked Mr. Ellerbusch for his presentation and indicated that most of his comments were covered by Jeff. He stated that Imagine Kutzky is in agreement with the staff recommendations. He explained that they have met with Mayo regarding the areas of transition. Mr. Masterpole stated that he agreed with staff about the corner of 11 th Avenue and 2nd Street SW in terms of trimming back to keep it even with the dental office. Ms. Kilen stated that the three properties owned by Ms. Hess were proposed that way due to their alignments with the 700 to 800 block. They were trying to preserve the single family homes. She asked that the Commission consider moving the lines as Imagine Kutzky has proposed, or at the least, move one property over to the west as a compromise. She explained that there is a shared driveway for two of the properties. Mr. Kenneth Fiebelkorn (residing at 1119 2nd Street NW, Rochester MN) addressed the Commission. He questioned what would happen to the individuals that live in the apartments. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 Mr. Burke explained that, as long as the building is maintained as a duplex, the use would not change. If there was a major renovation or it was torn down, it would have to convert to a single family home. Mr. Fiebelkorn questioned how the entire process would be paid for. Mr. Ohly explained that no one would be purchasing any property. Ms. Renee Hess (residing at 4037 41" Place NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Commission. She stated that she lived in the Kutzky Park neighborhood for 13 years and that her family now owns property at 806 1st Street SW, 802 1st Street SW, and 730 1" Street SW. She requested that the three properties remain in the same land use designation. The properties have always been bought and sold together as a group. She stated that the property behind the homes (along 2ntl Street SW) are rental properties and are not proposed to be changed. She reiterated that Planning staff is in agreement with the three homes having the same land use designation (as stated in the staff report). Mr. Jim savage (who owns property at 718 West Center Street, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed plan has major future changes. Parking is already a concern for the area. There will be snow plowing problems if they change some of the streets to be two way. He explained that there are a large number of rental properties in the neighborhood. In the past, they have been able to go from a duplex to a single family home back to a duplex, which makes it flexible for the property owners. He discussed the traffic concerns and expenses that could occur from the proposed changed before the Commission. Mr. Ed Pompeian (residing at 952 Skyline Lane SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He stated that he is against the change of land use in the CDC Medical district. He owns property that is planned for future development. He stated that he would like to retain his flexibility. Ms. Rivas explained that staff's recommendation is that nothing would be changed in the CDC Medical area. Ms. Julie Walter (manager of Realty Growth RGI Management) addressed the Commission. She stated that they manage 12 properties in the Kutzky Park neighborhood. She expressed concern about the snowballing affect of the proposed plan. She stated that she spoke with Rob Mathias, from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, about the potential to rehabilitate the properties. He expressed concern about the underlying zone change that could occur that could affect their ability to receive funds. Also, the criteria that may be imposed on them by owning in the Kutzky Park neighborhood with the proposed changes might make it difficult for them to make affordable improvements. Ms. Rivas questioned how zoning would affect obtaining funding. Ms. Walter responded that Mr. Mathias wasn't specific but listed concerns. RGI wants to be a good neighbor, but need to keep affordable rentals. She also expressed concern about any change in traffic flow. Mr. Wheeler explained that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is part of the Rochester - Olmsted Planning staff. They have done a lot of rehab in that area, which is already zoned R-1. 13� i *� Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 He explained that there is nothing in the proposed land use plan that would influence whether rehab loans or grants would be denied. Ms. Lonnie Heimer (residing at 9021" Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She explained that over half of the properties on 1"Street SW are rental units. She indicated that she likes the diversity. She indicated that she likes the overall idea of having a plan to be proactive to development in the neighborhood. There have been several meetings that have been widely broadcasted and have left well informed. Her only concern is that the neighborhood disappears to development. Mr. Dave Edmonson (residing at 807 1"Street NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Commission. He has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years, is on the Citizen Council, and is the neighborhood association president. He discussed the overall vision of the neighborhood. They are looking to the future and for the prosperity of the neighborhood. He explained that he loves to fix up old homes and that there are many people in the neighborhood who love to do this as well. He stated some of the properties are kept in a minimum state of repair. Mr. Curt Walter (residing at 1507 1" Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He expressed concern with a minority of people making a major change to the neighborhood (ex. zone changes). He stated that all property owners' rights are equal, whether you live there or own property there. Mr. Scott Hebbring (residing at 2011th Avenue NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Commission. He stated that he is the Chair of the KPNA. He asked that the residents of the neighborhood stand up. He explained that they accept the changes over the years, but now want to have a say in what occurs in the future in their neighborhood. Mr. Wheeler stated that there is confusion between being a resident and a home owner; they are not the same thing. A home owner is a member of one subset of residents. There is also confusion between multi family and single family dwellings. Single family residents and home owners are not equivalent. There can be renters of single family homes. Mr. Wheeler explained that land use planning has little to do with whether the tenure changes from renter to homeowner or vice versa. It has to do with whether you are establishing single family uses, mixed uses, multi family uses mixed with retail, etc. It is highly likely that the area will continue to include a large number of renters. He explained the benefits of integrated communities. Ms. Jody McCarty (residing at 211 11 m Avenue NE, Rochester MN 55906) addressed the Commission. She stated that she knew that the meeting would not be kept a land use issue but an opportunity to bash landlords, which is why most people do not attend the Kutzky Park neighborhood meetings. She reiterated that 806 1" Street SW property is on the other side of 2nd Street SW where there is a seven unit apartment building. Her family is trying to keep all their rental properties together. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 OTHER BUSINESS: 1. As may be brought up with members No discussion items were brought forward. ADJOURN: Motion made by Mr. Pestka to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Rivas. Mr. Burke, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP E Mr. Jay Burke, Chair AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PLANNING DEPT: MEETING DATE: 05-15-06 ITEM#O.� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #06-07 by Big DE Development, LLC to be known as PREPARED BY: Bendel North Commercial. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 13.03 acres into Brent Svenby, 2 lots for commercial development. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for Bandel Road Senior Planner NW and Overland Drive SW. The property is located along the south side of Overland Drive NW and east and west of Bandel Road NW. May 11, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2006 to consider this preliminary plat. The applicant's representative, Mr. Ward Opitz (Bigelow Enterprises), addressed the Commission stating that he is in agreement with the staff -recommended conditions. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Final Plat shall include: • Dedicated of controlled access along the entire north and east lines of proposed Lot 1, Blockl and along the entire north line of Lot 1, Block 2 and the entire west line with the exception of a 36 foot wide access opening centered on the existing water tower driveway access and a 36 foot wide access opening as indicated in the Second Supplemental Development Agreement at approximately STA 309+50. • A utility easement over Aquila's gas line that is installed on Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Roadway names must be modified as stated in the April 18, 2006 letter from the GIS/Addressing staff prior to submitting a Final Plat. 3. The approval of this plat is contingent upon Big De Development, LLC obtaining ownership of all of the land included in the plat or all property owners signing the final plat. The final plat shall not be submitted until the applicant owns the lands included within the plat or all property owners sign the application. 4. The applicant, Big De Development, LLC, shall be responsible for the cost of rerouting the overhead electric distribution and main feeder tie located on this property. If the lines are not going to be rerouted than an easement shall be dedicated for these facilities. 5. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #06-07 by Big De Development, LLC to be known as Bandel North Commercial, with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated April 20, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 1 RCA #06-07 Bandel North Commercial 5/11 /2006 COUOcd ACt101f Needed x COWF31r. � � s f the Counr�mep apprave� a p cave pex�l�rermcit. nicista��s' Faea ed `i�r t3 a��g r'.7yc �„yc. aye. aAkl s.r ��..mY+ k.'a ssa. x «y .'c$ r � �..:+sa3 - 8n£' s• "�`�'4 �' staff�t'eperriv�Asmaflnn 3® den,�r� t mc�ud��,� ,�s�r� i��n otr� �; least a»e of the Mteen #lndrn e ¢ Attachments: 1. Staff report, dated April 20, 2006. 2. Minutes of the April 26, 2006 CPZC Meeting. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 500 ft Notification Area of Preliminary Plat #06-07 to be known as Bandel North Commercial located in Pt NW 1/4 NE 1/4 and Pt NE 114 NW 114 Sec 9 Cascade TWP PMi..1 PM1"0 7 L5 as DE De.mmq LL Pei: 74A9.12Aetm1', 74p1.IZM W M; 74M.12474956', 74 M 12.074955: 74.09.11.111, 74.0912.07=, 74,09. 12a74957: �,,,ri were: a Wi9lNcrrwotl Aamc Nme aiams z — iiii 1 �1 u tr IM rr n rrr■ as n rrr■ v as rr.r orr 1 rr �— �� •rr • Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map, please notify the GIB Division, Rochester -Clouted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive BE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232. Z @ d - ll § _| \ . � w , M e % a\�•mm,� « \ AS -| f 4 \ . wlm., m its. ■ | m-Zie tr k ¥;A !I )A ! | | : a= &� »... . \ | pigs UE.: � � � er s !} f- La o NNi >t aE¢�2 ~ RRY yy w? ya 8N 00 z� �¢ uEEEEal -N— bIL]E Ylls[n LL MII ILYp Vl I/13N - b/tMs lsyt3 �L.n' yl .R mm 6+0y )3 uL{ �bB iiti uoi e+Nerc,in um — ;see b/13M-MANIt / fiG: W f Ej 1� E?l` li lEI�j #F ss I � sSES` +aZ,j,, Z Li {: a� � i (i � ��� � _•�G! niGi im � r -we xrnn---.•-.. Glxma nitl•b la tx]mmx mvl itGi b//35- 6/fMS - RNi'V f•11 •.� issaPL1 b/IMN- 0/135 I pig SS 0 srlL ueamm .:� :� 4 b ya 6� ¢ �• II fui x; LFill¢ L u _- 1n• � •9nit.. 3 9 sss .ue•. ,•1 GG (u �+1 l Hil E� Inds t IIyy { �! !I glllljl F ZFEi e�l MMN- bnMs Z ji F i �Ei Ga.w{iumw Lr �C'�it i i4j Xllsir`IGI xMt V{ t;i6� `gf r �� � {rl3xHl3x 15 Y ieew a ow 'u]'ue _ b/!MN- b/lM.NILI � u'ers•we n 9 } Ieannxox bx] Lsn oil xy a y�, as ac 5 F � a r •.y .^ : E F mean Y91a1]I Le -Lon sR. ma.n � � Z Ina bn oum xvu vi y gm a Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 regarding Fees with no recommendation. Ohly seconded the motion The *otiar�} F carried 5-0, with Mr. McGuine abstaining u Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch presented the staff report, dated April 20, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ward Opitz (Bigelow Enterprises) addressed the Commission. He stated that he was in agreement with the staff -recommended conditions. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr. Ohly moved to recor Development, LLC to be 1. Thee-Fina[ Pfat shall rriclude �� E Dedicated of controlled: access,along the entire �ior> proposed Lot 1, Blockd and along the' entire nosh f the entire west hne with the excepbon ofa 3S foot v m, centered on­thl existing water tower dnvewayasce_ .access opening as indicated in the econd5upp...l ih Agreement at ap-roxtrnately STA 309+50` a 1 0A&N-A RAM E • A utility easement over Aquiia'a gas tine that is lnst 2. Roadway names must be modified as stated in the.Aprii 18 GtSlAddressing staff prior to submitting a Final Plat 3. The approval of this, plat is contingent upon Big De Deelo ownership of all. of the land included in, the plat or all props final plat The final plat shall not be submitted until tFie app included within the plat or all property owners sign the apr 4. The applicant, Big De Development, LCC,,shall,bq responsl rerouting the overhead electric distribution and main feede property. If the lines are not going to be rerouted than an e dedicated for these facilities. 5. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is Storm water management must be prof 006: fetter from the. IentlLC otatmng r� oatiners signing the x„ ant owns'tFe aion IVL.GLGV VIL VIL.'Y vent shall`be 5. a`t submittal \�1 ROl,rg,STER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAnrMENT �o4.Ro�?�EsxER.yt N� 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 o CCU„T, of www.olmstedcounty.com/planning 'i oR .....: • 9. DRA xED•AU GUST•S•P TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: April 20, 2006 RE: Preliminary Plat #06-07 by Big DE Development, LLC to be known as Bandel North Commercial. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 13.03 acres into 2 lots for commercial development. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for Bandel Road NW and Overland Drive SW. The property is located along the south side of Overland Drive NW and east and west of Bandel Road NW. Planning Department Review: Applicant: Big DE Development Company, LLC 3428 Lakeridge Place NW, Suite 200 Rochester, MN 55901 City of Rochester 201 41" Street SE Rochester 55904 Owner: Big De Development Company, LLC 3428 Lakeridge Place NW, Suite 200 Rochester, MN 55901 City of Rochester 201 4" Street SE Rochester 55904 MnDOT 2900 48'" Street NW Rochester, MN 55901-5848 Engineer: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: Zoning: Lot 1, Block 2 is zoned B-1 (restricted commercial) while Lot BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507t287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �m.a. Page 2 April 20, 2006 1, Block 1 is Zoned B-4 (general commercial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The land was rezoned in January of 2006. Roadways: The plat dedicates the right-of-way for the recently reconstructed Bendel Road NW. The right-of-way width is 150 feet. The plat also dedicates the southerly right-of-way for Overland Drive NW which is on the northerly portion of the property. Utilities: People's Cooperative Services has an overhead electric distribution and main feeder tie between substations on the property. If these lines need to be rerouted, the total cost of this work will be borne by the property owners. Static water pressures within the area will range from the upper 60's to mid 70's PSI. A water main extension is necessary with the construction of the roadway along the west side of Lot 1, Block 1. Aquila has a gas test station on the property with a gas line running to the south. If the gas test station isn't relocated then a utility easement would need to be dedicated over this line. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities are already constructed along the south side of 65" Street NW/Overland Drive SW. Pedestrian facilities will need to be constructed along both sides of Bandel Road NW. Drainage: The property located east of Bendel Road NW generally drains in the northeasterly direction. There is a stormwater management pond located on the adjacent property to the east. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved prior to the submittal of the final plat. Wetlands: No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements will be reviewed when development is proposed on the individual lots. Parkland Dedication: Not required for commercial developments. General Development Plan: The plat is consistent with the recent amended GDP #149 (Hidden Oaks Valley) and GDP #210 (Bandel North Second and Third). Staff Review and Recommendation: Currently Big De Development does not own all of the land included within the plat. The westerly portion of Lot 1, Block 1 is parcel 523M of MnDOT Right -of -Way No. 55-65 and the City of Rochester also owns a Page 3 ,6k April 20, 2006 couple of parcels. At this time the timing of the transfers and releases of these properties are not yet known. The property that is included in MnDOT Right -of -Way Plat No. 55-65 will be reverting back to the City and then likely to Big De Development at some future date. The approval of this plat will need to be contingent Big De Development obtaining ownership of these parcels. 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 Ordinance and Land Development Manual including approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Final Plat shall include: request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends Dedicated of controlled access along the entire north and east lines of proposed Lot 1, Blocki and along the entire north line of Lot 1, Block 2 and the entire west line with the exception of a 36 foot wide access opening centered on the existing water tower driveway access and a 36 foot wide access opening as indicated in the Second Supplemental Development Agreement at approximately STA 309+50, • A utility easement over Aquila's gas line that is installed on Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Roadway names must be modified as stated in the April 18, 2006 letter from the GIS/Addressing staff prior to submitting a Final Plat. 3. The approval of this plat is contingent upon Big De Development, LLC obtaining ownership of all of the land included in the plat or all property owners signing the final plat. The final plat shall not be submitted until the applicant owns the lands included within the plat or all property owners sign the application. 4. The applicant, Big De Development, LLC, shall be responsible for the cost of rerouting the overhead electric distribution and main feeder tie located on this property. If the lines are not going to be rerouted than an easement shall be dedicated for these facilities. 5. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. Storm water management must be provided for this development. REMINDER TO APPLICANT: • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public roadways and utilities. Page 4 April 20, 2006 Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual 61.225 Findings for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: 1) The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. 2) That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. 3) That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. 4) That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. 5) That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. 6) That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. 7) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. 8) That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are pre- ded for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 9) That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. 10) That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. 11) That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. 12) That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. 13) That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. 14) That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 15) That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. Page 5 April 20, 2006 15) That the proposed land subdivision, if approved, would not result in a violation of federal or state law, or city or county ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. 411, ROCHESTER H4vwwlau TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 4111/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4� Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Preliminary Plat #06-07, for the proposed Bandel North Commercial subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. There is an existing executed Development Agreement, and a Supplemental Agreement that includes this Property. Development of this Property is subject to the terms of the Agreements. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to final plat submittal. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this Property. 4. Dedication of Controlled Access is required on the Final Plat along the entire north and east lines of proposed Lot 1, Block 1, and along the entire north line of Lot 1, Block 2, and the entire west line with the exception of a 36 foot wide access opening centered on the existing water tower driveway access, and a 36 foot wide access opening as indicated in the Second Supplemental Development Agreement at approximately STA 309+50. 5. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development Agreement, and / or will be addressed in the City -Owner Contract and include, but are not limited to (rates through 7/31/06): Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2098.99 per developable acre Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2098.99 per developable acre 65`h St NW Interchange Transportation Improvement District Contribution (ITID), estimated @ $0.75 per developable square foot as specified in the Development Agreement Storm Water Management Charge — TBD Seal Coat Charge Pedestrian Ramps — TBD based on final construction plans Street Signs as determined by the City Engineer 0:0ocuments and Settings\plajgarnlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilestOLK611PP06-07 Bendel North Commercial.doc 151 People's Cooperative Services y Your Touchstone Energy' Cooperative st A ,= 7 Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, Minnesota 55904 RGCMESTER. CLMSTED =c�R7MENT RE. GDP 9210, GDP #149, LUPA #05-10 & ZC #0516 Dear Ms. Garness: 3935 Highway 14 East P.O. Box 339 Rochester, MN 55903-0339 Phone: (507) 288-4004 Fax: (507)288-9438 April 10, 2006 People's Cooperative Services has, and has had for many years, an overhead electric distribution and main feeder tie between substations on Li, 131 of this land. People's Cooperative claims "easement by prescription" for this line. The lines are shown on the attached map, highlighted in yellow. If these lines need to be rerouted, the total cost of this work will be borne by the property owners. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at 507-259-5009. Very truly yours, PEOPLE'S C00PERAT1VfF SERVICES Richard A. Wellik Engineering Department Attachment j El4 �=alri�('#:`j: rs Fyiaae i Le s apk$r��rR EE �Igoark( z � f Pi Pill 7 1 a LL Ilk �r � Fd6 �s9L i'ssoiL��.`_.'dddt�t. t37 1 1' _Alp — l.r \� �� i �i� _ .__ _—_`A•' ' �__�p.J / / / IN _ f \ 9 • , L_'SJ-gym if q iy _ '$•-I'll Ir IN NPJ 77 �Y '�-�� I�• r.LST �1�0a11_ Ilk w csss }jp � '__ 3 f _ /!'• i f--__ mom. O { S jai 1 la E 0 OFI Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 2900 48" Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901-5848 April 10, 2006 Jennifer Garness, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Southeast -Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us RECEIVED APR 12 2006 RE: Preliminary Plat #06-07 by BIG DE DEVELOPMENT, LLC to be known as Bandel North Commercial. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 13.03 acres into 2 lots for commercial development. The property is located along the south side of Overland Drive NW, and east and west of the Bandel Road NW. US 52 CS 5508 Dear Ms. Gamess: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Planning Office has reviewed the above described proposal for new development east of US Highway 52 and south of Overland Drive (65`s Street NW). Mn/DOT recommends this development be accounted for in the current Operational Analysis (OA) which has been requested by Mn/DOT to identify transportation needs and options to accommodate growth in northwest Rochester. Thank you for keeping Mn/DOT informed. You may contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist, at (507) 281-7777 with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Chris Moates District 6 Planning Director cc: BIG DE DEVELOPMENT, 706 County Road 3 NW, Byron MN 55920 McGhie and Betts, Inc., 1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904 Fred Sandal Debbie Persoon-Bement File �S 1 DOCS4479764 Rochester -Olmsted Planning _apartment Phone: (507) 285-8232 G!S/Addressing Division Fax: (507) 287-2275 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 PRELIMINARY PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 18, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: McGhie and Betts Inc. RE: BANDEL NORTH COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT #06-07 A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. The labeling of Overland Drive NW is in the wrong place on the roadway. RECOMMENDATION: Overland Dr NW should be labeled only east of the intersection with Bandel Rd NW, and should be labeled as 65 St NW west of this intersection. 2. The intersection of the cul-de-sac that was created with the reconfiguration of Bandel Rd NW needs to be given a roadway designation with the roadway type Lane and directional of NW. RECOMMENDATION: Work with our staff in naming the cul-de-sac. The hand tc reach for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: April 19, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Preliminary Plat #06-07 by Big DE Development, LLC to be known as Bandel North Commercial. . With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. a) The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the buildings being proposed. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) The split street on Bandel Rd NW at the intersection of Overland Dr NW shall be designed to accommodate a Fire Department Ladder Truck turning radius. Also each side of the divide shall be provide with a minimum width of 10 feet. b) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. c) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only) Mark Baker— Rochester Public Works (e-mail only) Big DE Development McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only) i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1�1 DATE: 05-15-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEp. ` PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING rp �v[ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #04-31 by Todd Fiedler to be known as The Wilds. The plat PREPARED BY: proposes to subdivide 39.54 acres into 23 lots for single family residential development Theresa Fogarty, and 2 outlots. The property is located west of Marion Road SE, north of 30* Street SE and Senior Planner northeast of Pinewood Road SE. May l 1, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated May 11, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall be revised as follows, prior to recording: a. Include the document number for the existing easement across part of proposed Out/ot `A'. 2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land as outlined in the memorandum from Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated May 2, 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 May 1, 2006 memorandum from Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 4. A Development Agreement and First Supplemental Agreement has been executed for this Property and development is subject to the terms of the Agreements. Council Action Needed. 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. Ty on Monday, May 15, 2006 in the Council Chambers COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: SERIES SIEMENS if "N- e�dad! fil Vpi 11 F I � a i w Iwn � N VAN➢AVS raw `s s �a e � WcW� 6�Seay.e9�9e r: E^ �gyo�6Sq[q rM �m888888 �88 x8888 �R_-- \ I C m a mm — -- _ w 111 _ W00' w-w ■R .e 111 —. ... -. • • S � •.E ! J� 1 — � .qy 97 r N Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. if discrepancies are found within this map, please notify the GIS Division, Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232. FA ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 04:RocxesrEE.y N^e 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904.4744 o, I OF www.olmstedGounty.com/planning _10�Rp •..... O DRA TED•gUGU5T'S• P TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: May 11, 2006 RE: Final Plat #04-31 by Todd Fiedler to be known as The Wilds. The plat proposes to subdivide 39.54 acres into 23 lots for single family residential development and 2 outlots. The property is located west of Marion Road SE, north of 30th Street SE and northeast of Pinewood Road SE. City Council Hearing Date: May 15, 2006 Plannina Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Todd Fiedler 4545 North Frontage Road, Highway14 West Rochester, MN 55901 SurveyorsiEngineers: GGG, Inc. 14070 Highway 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Planning Department — GIS/Addressing Staff Planning Department —LGU Wetlands Staff Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat 2. Copy of The Wilds GDP 3. Location Map 4. Referral Comments (5 letters) Development Review: Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester Zoning map. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for two new roadways. The first roadway is identified as "Cassron Street SE" and is designed with a 56' right-of-way. The second roadway also identified as "Cater Road SE" and is also designed with a 56' right-of-way and 50' right-of-way ending in a cul-de-sac with a 50' radius. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 05/11/06 15:32 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. + CTY ADMIN. 2002 � Page 2 Final Plat #04-31 The Wilds May 11, 2006 Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all Pedestrian Facilities: new public roads within this property, as specified In the executed Development Agreement. The Grading Plan for this final plat has been approved. Drainage: A Development Agreement and First Supplemental Development Agreement for this property has been executed. Development is subject to the terms of said Agreements. Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments Wetlands: be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, wetlands do exist on this property. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. The grading plan indicates there is no planned impact to the wetlands on the property. Public Utilities: Final utility plans have been approved. As stated in the executed Development Agreement and First Supplemental Development Agreement, Outlot'A' shall be dedicated to the City, at no cost, upon request by the City. 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 28 spillover 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 61.200 of the LDM, any person seeking of a subdivision activity, development activity approval 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. Burning on site and Salvaging and removing from the property. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department that dedication requirements be met via: recommends Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. General Development Plan: This property is included within the "The Wilds' General June, 2004. Development Plan (GDP), approved Page 3 \,UI Final Plat #04-31 rrr The Wilds May 11, 2006 Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: A preliminary plat and design modification (Section 64.143 Access Spacing Standards of the LDM) for this area was approved by the Council on October 18, 2004. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to nine (9) conditions: The conditions are listed below: 1. There are on and off site public facilities that are currently inadequate to accommodate the proposed development, specifically the abutting roadway system, & utilities and therefore 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. Altematively, 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, contribution for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties. 2. Dedication of parkland shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated September 8, 2004. 3. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalk) shall be required, at the Owner's expense, along entire frontages of both sides of all new public roads within this Subdivision. The owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of Marion Road SE 4. Due to the location of the property hydric soils may be located on the property. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the necessary information to the Local Government Unit prior to the submittal of the final plat. 5. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal, and payment of a Storm Water Management Fee will be applicable for the entire property. ON -site sedimentation facilities may be required to provide treatment of stormwater from this site prior to reaching the wetlands and/or Badger Run. 6. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the owner shall execute an Ownership and Maintenance Agreement with the City if Outlot A is to remain private. T The plat shall be revised: Dedicating the entire right-of-way for the proposed public road off of Pinewood Road SE. 6. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon the applicant receiving approval of the needed Design Modification to Section 64.143 (Access Spacing Standards) of the LDM. 9. The Owner, by way of a covenant or declaration, must include a statement to the effect that a farm operation is adjacent to the site, the farm's noise or odor may interfere with a lot owner's quiet enjoyment of his property and the farm is entitled to continued its operation despite occurrence of this development. 9 Page 4 Final Plat #04-31 The Wilds May l 1, 2006 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 document number for the existing easement across part of proposed Out/ot 'A'. 2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land as outlined in the memorandum from Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated May 2, 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 May 1, 2006 memorandum from Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 4. A Development Agreement and First Supplemental Agreement has been executed for this Property and development is subject to the terms of the Agreements. Reminder to Applicant: • 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. • The Owner, by way of a covenant or declaration, must include a statement to the effect that a farm operation is adjacent to the site, the farm's noise or odor may interfere with a lot owner's quiet enjoyment of his property and the farm is entitled to continued its operation despite occurrence of this development. kd ROCHESTER PARK AND F ''REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: The Wilds Final Plat #04-31 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 39.54 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 24 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .59 a Fair market value of land ............................................. $15,000 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $8,850 (.59 a X $15,000 i a) with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. J2895 C:\Documents and Settings\plas fear \Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKlC\W1LDS. DOC �Q ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 5/4/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4M Street BE 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 #04-31 for the proposed The Wilds subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. A Development Agreement, and First Supplemental Development Agreement have been executed for the Property, and development is subject to the terms of the Agreements. 2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to constructing public infrastructure to serve this development. The document number for the existing easement across part of proposed Outlot `A', is "A-911900". Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are / will be addressed in the Development Agreement / City-Ovmer Contract and will include, but are not limited to: Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC to J9598) developable acre + down stream capacity. Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge (to J9598) as specified in the Development Agreement :• Water Availability Charge Transportation Improvement District (TID) Contribution Storm Water Management First Seal Coat Pedestrian Ramps 3 Traffic Signs C:\Documents and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK61\FP04-31 The Wilds.doc r. rru wr plaGor, wr drtivrr May 5, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #04-31 by Todd Fiedler to be known as The Wilds. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections. The final utility plans have been approved. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, .(,�n'.,D, - 06-OA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 t1/ Rochester -Olmsted Plannin, partment - Phone: (507) 285-8232 GIS/Addressing Division Fax: (507)287-2275 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suit. �00 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: May 1, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle, Mark Welch RE: THE WILDS FINAL PLAT #04-31 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: $1610.00 (23 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 825.00 (25 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats must be legally recorded before request for address Applications are submitted to E911 A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: Upon review of THE WILDS the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. 03 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: The Wilds ❑ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. ® A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. ® A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. ® Other or Explanation: The grading plan indicates that there is no planned impact to the wetlands on the property. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5-15-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM1�10.� PUBLIC HEARING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #05-35 by Platinum Development Group to be PREPARED BY: known as Rochester Towne Club. The plat proposes to subdivide Mitzi A. Baker, 139.78 acres into 9 outlots for future development as part of the Senior Planner Eastwood Hills Golf Course redevelopment. The property is located north and south of Eastwood Road SE, west of 401" Ave. SE and east of Rose Harbor. May 11, 2006 Staff has reviewed this final plat for compliance with the applicable regulations and recommends approval subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Prior to recording the Final Plat Documents: The geometric layout of the intersection of Towne Club Parkway SE and CSAH 22 must be approved by MnDOT; and 4 The Final Plat documents shall be revised to include controlled access as stated in the executed Development Agreement. 2. Mid -block pedestrian connections will need to be provided consistent with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual regulations and will be review at future platting stages (when the outlots of replatted). 3. The segment of Eastwood Road lying east of the future collector parkway intersection with Eastwood Road, must remain in -place and open to motorized traffic until such time as the roadway network is completed in the area to provide a southern extension of 40'h Ave. SE that connects to the future collector parkway. 4. The owner shall provide a driveway connection from Towne Club Parkway to the Municipal Well # 21 site must be constructed by the developer in an approved location with the capability of accommodating large chemical trucks removal rigs for the operation and maintenance of thg well. and pump proper ¢. I Prior to development of any structures on any Outiot, the Outlot must proceed through a preliminary and final �f plat which requires the dedication of the necessary roadway system. Any deviation of the roadway system at the proposed connection point between Outlots shall be agreed upon by the lot owners. Dedication of additional utility easements for future infrastructure shall be provided with the future platting/re-platting of the Outlots. i Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution:,�y1 G,.I 1. City Administration 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on May 15, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second to: NVId iN3WdOl3A34 1. 43 VIOUNNiw'a3i53N]Oa emD 3NMOI aOi53H:)a I mR inr i J U) 0 0 c 0 U co 0 a� 0 L a T 00 N IM W!¢o0,Ii-1K_:I__@ila:F=fir IN e,asaiel: SggF'FAI2 C a N8AN88 n B SBE8 $SI3 SIB 88g RR � CO.'.SXe C@caklRz�A sk k:npp�:o : 886'vsee 4 CG W F 4 LL z u RhH�i=i3a•' o.i � 41 ^• uNRl-�� tM�38' N m� rl" 0 1011M G3f111V7dNn 3w s V F Xcz r_4 nr M Q `w 3 tC U7 a � Yr—•r—r' An n W to �Aj II yx o� { W N w Q311'd7dNfl o a t� .roti S ti 1b O d^a G W H 177uB-CO Dc m� 00o yR J ' 1.lOz Z b •a ; m i 0 i ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Dnve SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C O U N T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: May 11, 2006 �r��inN�A ��rw w�.r• a�iniir�ioni� _ mr.Ips l RE: Final Plat #05-35 by Platinum Development Group to be known as Rochester Towne Club. The plat proposes to subdivide 139.78 acres into 9 outiots for future development as part of the Eastwood Hills Golf Course redevelopment. The property is located north and south of Eastwood Road SE, west of 401h Ave. SE and east of Rose Harbor. Plannina Department Review: Applicant/ Platinum Development Group Owner: PO Box 44424 Minneapolis, MN 55344 City of -Rochester 201 4" Street SE Rochester 55904 Surveyors/ Yaggy Colby Associates Engineers: 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 Report 1. Referral Comments Attachments: 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of The property is located north of 45'" St. SE, east of St. Bridget Road, and Property: south of the future extension of 40th Street SE. Zoning: Outlot A is zoned B-1 (Restricted Commercial). Outlots B & C are zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Outlot D is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) Outlot E is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Outlot F is zoned R-1 X (Mixed Single Family Extra) Outlots G & H are zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) BUILDING CODE 507/265-8345 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-B224 �rvbw.« PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 TC�7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER r. Page 2 May 11, 2006 Proposed The plat proposes to subdivide 139.78 acres into 9 outlots for future Development: development as part of the Eastwood Hills Golf Course redevelopment. Wetlands: N/A Streets: The plat dedicates the right-of-way for two new public roadways. The first roadway, Towne Club Parkway SE, is the major that runs through the development. This roadway connects with Highway 14 at the intersection of East Circle Drive. The roadway will be built on 80 feet of right-of-way and be 50.68 feet back of curb to back of curb. There will be a center median in parts of the roadway. The second roadway is being designed on 60 feet of right-of-way with a roadway surface of 37.34 feet and is labeled as "Platinum Avenue SE". This roadway provides a connection from Towne Club parkway to Eastwood Road at Rose Heights Drive. This roadway needs to be named. Removal of The applicant may use a combination of burning on -site, chipping on -site Trees/Brush: and salvaging and removing debris from the property as methods of disposal. Parkland Dedication requirements will be met via deferred dedication with dedication Dedication: to consist of the neighborhood park shown in the southwest corner of the development. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the development is to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of the neighborhood park site. Preliminary Plat: The Preliminary Plat was approved with the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall include: a. Dedicated of controlled access as stated in the executed Development Agreement. b. Drainage and utility easements as determined necessary through final construction and grading plan review or as determined in the development agreement. 2. Prior to the submittal of the Final Plat, the geometric layout of the intersection of Towne Club Parkway SE and CSAH 22 must be approved by MnDOT. 3. Roadway names must be modified as stated in the August 31, 2005 letter from the GIS/Addressing staff prior to submitting a Final Plat. 4. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication requirements are outlined in the memorandum from the Park and Recreation Department dated August 25, 2005. 5. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding stormwater management, are addressed in the Development Agreement. 6. The portion of the existing right-of-way for Eastwood Road SE that is not consistent with the roadway alignment proposed in the Plat shall be vacated at the time of final platting. 11 Page 3 `%l May 11, 2006 7. Mid -block pedestrian connections will need to be provided consistent with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual regulations and will be review at future platting stages (when the outlots of replatted). B. The segment of Eastwood Road lying east of the future collector parkway intersection with Eastwood Road, must remain in -place and open to motorized traffic until such time as the roadway network is completed in the area to provide a southern extension of 40" Ave. SE that connects to the future collector parkway. 9. The owner shall provide a driveway connection from Towne Club Parkway to the Municipal Well Jr 21 site must be constructed by the developer in an approved location with the capability of accommodating large chemical trucks and pump removal rigs for the proper operation and maintenance of the well. 10. The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. Planning Staff and Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the Final Plat Documents: • The geometric layout of the intersection of Towne Club Parkway SE and CSAH 22 must be approved by MnDOT; and • The Final Plat documents shall be revised to include controlled access as stated in the executed Development Agreement. 2. Mid -block pedestrian connections will need to be provided consistent with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual regulations and will be review at future platting stages (when the outlots of replatted). 3. The segment of Eastwood Road lying east of the future collector parkway intersection with Eastwood Road, must remain in -place and open to motorized traffic until such time as the roadway network is completed in the area to provide a southern extension of 4dh Ave. SE that connects to the future collector parkway. 4. The owner shall provide a driveway connection from Towne Club Parkway to the Municipal Well # 21 site must be constructed by the developer in an approved location with the capability of accommodating large chemical trucks and pump removal rigs for the proper operation and maintenance of the well. 5. Prior to development of any structures on any Outlot, the Outlot must proceed through a preliminary and final plat which requires the dedication of the necessary roadway system. Any deviation of the roadway system at the proposed connection point between Outiots shall be agreed upon by the lot owners. Dedication of additional utility easements for future infrastructure shall be provided with the future platting/re- platting of the Outiots. f v o q� aq; & lfrcreat�. V---X--ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION a Rochester. "" DEPARTMENT DATE: May 1, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Rochester Towne Club Final Plat #05-35 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 139.78 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. NA Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park shown in the SE corner of the development. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of the neighborhood park site. C:\Documents and Settings\plastostlocal Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK1C\ROCHESTER TOWN CLUB.DOC 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROOM 150 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6164 FAX 507-281-6165 DSTOTZ ®CI. ROCHESTER.MN.US Rochester -Olmsted Plannint _apartment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: April 2, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gayness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; Yaggy Colby Associates RE: ROCHESTER TOWNE CLUB Phone: (507)285-8232 �� J Fax: (507)287-2275 U UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE PLAT IS RECORDED. THIS APPLIES TO ALL PLATS RECORDED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2005. E911 ADDRESSING FEE: GIS IMPACT FEE: $70.00 (1 LOTS/ADDRESSES) $570.00 (S 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 A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: 1. The roadway illustrated on the plat as PLATINUM AVENUE SE has to be renamed. RECOMMENDATION: Rename the roadway, but keep the roadway type Avenue and directional of SE. NOTE: The E91 I addressing fee seen above is for the Golf Course Maintenance building that was issued in January of this year. WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: FP#05-35 Rochester Towne Club ❑ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey ❑ Hydrcc soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. ❑ A wetland delineation has been carved out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. ❑ A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. ® A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. ❑ No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. ® Other or Explanation: A wetland replacement plan has been completed and approved for this project. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative i ROCHESTER G%G/2e�sfCG TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENTWORKS 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 DATE: 5/4/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #05-35, for the proposed Rochester Towne Center development. The following are Public Works comments: 1. A Development Agreement and Supplemental Agreements have been executed for this Property and all development within the Property is subject to the terms of the Agreements. 2. Controlled Access must be provided on the Final Plat as specified in the Development Agreement. Development Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are/will be addressed in the Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract CADocuments and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings%Temporary Internet Files\OLK614FP05-35 Rochester Towne Club.doc MEETING %9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 05-15-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 5-5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #05-11, by Mark Hamann, Platinum Development. PREPARED BY: The applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of the Eastwood Road right-of-way, Theresa Fogarty, including utilities. The right-of-way to be vacated begins just east of Harbor Drive SE, and Planner extends approximately 1440 feet east. This petition is in conjunction with the Rochester Towne Club development. May l l , 2006 Planninq Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 3, 2006. The Planning & Zoning Commission considered this vacation request at their May 10, 2006 meeting, as a consent item. Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the following consent items. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. 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 the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 3, 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 15, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4'h Street SE, Rochester, MN. i/ COUNCIL ACTION: Motlonby: Second RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION MAP PART OF EASTV O ROAD S.E. CITY OF ROCHESTER OLMSTED COUNTY, MINN SOTA 0 100 200 400 °o ¢ r Z9 3 SCALE IN FEET FUTURE CUL-DE rr T r' i 5 ••5, tr� � •r •y 'ti s 'r vW r•V � � SHEET 1JOF 2 r� .5i v J ry yr ,-NORTHEAST CORNER / LOT 1, BLOCK 4, ROSE HARBOR SECOND SUED. .......................................... _....... ......... �33': R.D.W. ; TD REIdUN t•55• \. •—N.:LINE LOr.1 ;w• E. P.O.B. HARBofj.JS, 5'�•'' DR SE j 15, :•'::S••'r 11 �Y v/ •55 55 1 ^i •... :r:iJJ ..........; •5 f•.........10 '...::.......... 11 14 ......- 7 y PROJECT NUMBER 9125 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR ENGINEERS- ARCHITECTS 9125V2CQtiGn0l.dwg DATE OF SURVEY D4/21/06 REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT i AM A DULY NSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS SURVEYORS • PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS OF T E STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAFTED BY MJH 717 THIRD AVE. S.E. SURVEYED BY YCA ROCHESTER, MIN 507-288-6464 FAX 507-288-5058 DOUGLASG DE ll NSE EXPIRE56/30/06 SURVEYED FOR 22422 E-MAIL: INFO®YAGGY.COM CfTY OF ROCHESTER y;�...--'.•_,;_:.... DATE NUMBER 500 ft. Notification Area of proposed vacation of part of Eastwood Road M --L THWY 14 THWY 14 Vacation #05-11 by Platinum Development PIN: none Neighborhood Assoc: None Council Ward: 4 (Pat Carr) O V09l06 ;c Onwro G.niy �. mi numude wnmms.um arras ca+an.a M.n. as®w+q.. r•ioww..nw. n.o. p.... miry IQ� koCHBSTER-TESTERPLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 O D U M T♦ OF www.olrnstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: May 3, 2006 RE: Vacation Petition #05-11, by Mark Hemann, Platinum Development. The applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of the Eastwood Road right- of-way, including utilities. The right-of-way to be vacated begins just east of Harbor Drive SE, and extends approximately 1440 feet east. This petition is in conjunction with the Rochester Towne Club development. CP&ZC Meeting Date: May 10, 2006 Planninq Department Review: Petitioner: Mark Hemann Platinum Development PO Box 44424 Minneapolis, MN 55344 Architect / Engineer: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Reason to Vacate: The existing roadway and utilities within this roadway are being relocated as a part of the Rochester Towne Club project. The final plat for Rochester Towne Club will be considered by the City Council at their May 15, 2006 meeting. Referral Comments: Report Attachments: No comments 1. Copy of Site Plan 2. Location Map Planninq Staff Review and Recommendation: The City Council will be considering the final plat for this development to be known as Rochester Towne Club at their May 15, 2006 meeting. The relocation of right-of-way and utilities are included in this final plat and shall be dedicated at the time of final plat recording. Upon receiving no objections by the referral agencies, staff recommends approval this vaCa+inn n_atitin aSS req UestFd BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-6232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Al DATE: 05-15-06 4GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ?UBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #06-04 by the City of Rochester to vacate a 20 PREPARED BY: foot wide public utility and drainage easement on property located along the Theresa Fogarty, south side of Overland Drive NW, east of Bandel Road NW and west of Outlot A Senior Planner Bendel North First. May l l , 2006 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 11, 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 May 11, 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 15, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: P:\PROJECTS\J—PROD\J970a\Oesign\Dwgs\RCp13009.G.g, I/14/2DO5 2:39:53 PM, r.onoce. 1:2 / I jg � IA3 •I Iwu I � I m N I�Y s}.uYY----r---_-- b I � it I a R ¢liar 1� r ( I Ca I II a$ yy ;;' 6V L I ,i...r. i 2rI j i It I � I I I I I {I ,1, I I I jrdra nr n• r N r I ouam Y/ 1 �a r T J C }� / asp , , ,• c it a h `tea eF / 1 gZi / ieI OV�!A3 4Y�M1M Yr rnri YMr'rin )w..m SP !hJ !Sg_pgp-t,' ""- SRMH A'RER {{ ••i��`tt'1�1 I �i.. .i(:uw.lu z�u`r.. 1�. .,. w.�.��^.:` .'"�' �� � Rn..v� IM IN_Id IO Jnq A•• mm ••m nm�.— 1%d.�IglavMl •. �9'1' m� ._.. G 200 ft. Notification Area of proposed vacation of utility and drainage easment located along south side of Overland DR NW Vacation #06-04 by City of Rochester PINS: 74.09.12.074955:74.09.12.061294 Ward: 3 (Bruce Snyder) Neighborhood Assoc: None 511106 N Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies am found within this map, please notify the GIS Division, Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE. Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232. \ `r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON,gOGRESTER .MINN 2122 Campus Dnve SE, Sude 700 • Rochester, MN 559D4-4744°:•' .Fso� O,r — C O U R,., OF www.oimstedcounty.com/planning oR I`�'�V� JKD'r/J✓ DR9 TED•pU GUST•5' TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner DATE: May 11, 2006 RE: Vacation Petition #06-04 by the City of Rochester to vacate a 20 foot wide public utility and drainage easement on property located along the south side of Overland Drive NW, east of Bendel Road NW and west of Outlot A Bandel North First. City Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2006 Planning Department Review: Petitioner: City of Rochester for Big De Development RPW: Jamie Miller 201 Fourth Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Reason to Vacate: Easement was for a culvert under Overland Drive NW. The plan either changed or the culvert was removed during the course of construction. The approved construction plans for Overland Drive NW show no storm sewer outfall between Bandel Road NW and Bluestem Drive NW. Rochester Public Works see no further need for the easement. Referral Comments: No objections received by referral agencies Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Site Plan 2. Location Map Planning Staff Review and Recommendation: The Department of Public Works indicates there is no future need for the easement. There were no objections received by the referral agencies, therefore staff recommends approval this vacation petition as requested. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/AODRESSING/MAPPING 507/286-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE AOTION EMPLOYER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING L `� / DATE: 5-15-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment Official Street Map #12 to remove the alignment for the southerly extension of Garden Drive (to be Mitzi A. Baker, changed to Maine Avenue SE). Senior Planner May l l , 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this item on May 10, 2006 and recommended approval 8-0; Ms. Wiesner moved to approved, and Mr. Haussenger seconded. Council Action Needed: The City Council must hold a public hearing. If the Council wishes to proceed, the City Attorney should be instructed to prepare an Ordinance amending and Official Street Map #12, and adopting the Third Supplemental Amended Official Street Map No. 12. Distribution: 1. City Adm inistrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday May 15, 2006 in the Council ! Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning DATE: May 4, 2006 TO: Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner RE: Amendment to Official Street Map #12 @usr�� nn�a �NtliH�Inyj1 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 SE 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. Several of the properties have now been acquired by The Maine Street Development Company and Final Plat was approved by the City Council on May 1, 2006 for Maine Street Development. This'Plat dedicates the right-of-way for a new public road extending from 481h St. SE to the western edge of Garden Drive SE. This road is being platted as "Maine Avenue SE", and will provide access and circulation consistent with the goals of the Official Street Map, but with a modified alignment. On May 1, 2006 the City Council initiated an amendment to Official Street Map #12 to remove the alignment for "Maine Avenue SE" as identified on the Map, and accepted the Final Plat right-of-way alignment and dedication for "Maine Avenue SE". Action Requested: Recommend approval to amend Official Street Map #12 to remove the right-of-way alignment for the future north/south road extending south from Garden Drive SE to 48`" Street as identified on the attached maps. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGRONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287.2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �me Right -of -Way to be Removed t 0 W O w m iU m O O u t U U n 2 a a Proposed Third Supplemental Amended Official Street Map No. 12 S,nnyy_ JI <m 3r I r Fa— W J e§ a a $ is a . $ Wuj 9 uj 2 ff1 =iSry yg5c� 3 6 g UF� �i i g Z B �: ��ea• o ._`�Li Pr Pn m nr5 2r, d �b mni Sim zvi z =•1O n�^P �y'PM M1 j P SIHO13H a fie. �@_• kkk:::99fi::§°p9� pax:=a ep^_- _ i 8� bnI �<g�ill z . � Mn . . k / Ik �e �| i r O W 0 2 W d J F Z W W J A [I9 N5 W � � a'u 5 e U� :}°iiii r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/0T SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 6 Text PREPARED BY: Amendment #06-04 initiated to amend Section 60.175 regarding Larry Fees of the Rochester Planning and Zoning Ordinance and Land Klemenhagen Development Manual. Planning Administrative Service Committee: 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 1CPZC1: 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 issues 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 approving or denying the amendment. Council Action Needed: 1. At the May 1, 2006 meeting, the public hearing was continued to the next Council meeting. 2. 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: (The following items were previously included in the Council's May 1, 2006 meeting packet) 1. Staff Report to City Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Proposed Fees 3. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 60.175 Land Use and Development Processing Fees. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney �j 1 3. City Administrator rr" 4. Planning Department File dated April 19, 2006 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, related to COUNCIL ACTION: Motlonby: second i L- Fr - 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 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Number of Permi&Appl. 4,280 4,022 4,035 4,188 4,135 3,753 Time (Hours) 16,743 16,117 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 County's Tax Levy $261,084 $257,719 $291,878 $383.605 $186,180 $169,231 Recovery Rate 68% 67% 66% 61 % 80°! 82% 76 The zoning and development activity is described in following table: Zoning Administration 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Number of Permits 3,756 3,504 3,485 3,64E 3,655 3,292 Time (Hours) 8,250 7,695 6,896 7,372 B,179 6,511 Expenses $423,333 $380,525 $381,671 $529,955 $461.500 $432,028 Fee Revenues $347,341 $351,734 $352,327 $368,704 $394,050 $396,510 County's Tax Levy $75,992 $28,791 $29,344 $161,251 $67,450 $35,518 Recovery Rate 82% 92% 92% 70% 85 % 92% Development Applications Number of Applications 524 510 550 540 480 461 Time (Hours) 8,493 8,422 9,000 8.493 8,750 8,521 Expenses $364,436 $393,072 $464,505 $464,505 $468,880 $466,396 Fee Revenues $199,344 $164,144 $209,251 $242,151 $350,150 $352.683 County's 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. VA 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 May 2006 January 1, 2007 January 1, 2008 $1 to $500 $501 to$2,000 $2,001 to $25,000 $25,001 to$50,000 $50,001 to$100,000 $100,001 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 $1,000 $24 $24+$1.30 per$100 $44 + $2,60 per $1,000 $104+$1.85 per $1,000 $150+$.55 per $1,000 $177+$.25 per $1,000 $25 $25+$1.35 per $100 $46 + $2.65 per $1,000 $107+$1.90 per$1.000 $154+$.60 per $1,000 $184+$.25 per $1,000 B. Multiple Family and Non -Residential Uses: (Values of improvement building, grading, etc., according to the following schedule) C. Double Fee: When the building construction or remodeling has occurred prior to issuing of the zoning certificate, a double fee maybe imposed. 1 D. Other Zoning Permits: Other Zoning Permits ff May 2006 January 1, 2007 January 1, 2008 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 Non -Residential Use Non -Residential Zoning Certificate fee Zoning Certificate fee Zoning Certificate fee Advertising Sign New Sign $180 per application $188 per application $190 per application Sign Credit $125 per application $130 per application $135 per application Moving Permit $83 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 $43 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 Permit $260 per application $270 per application $280 per application Subd. 2. Wetland Fees: Wetlands Exception Determination $235 per application $245 per application $250 per application No -Loss Determination $235 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 $1,280 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 Other Zoning Permits Is May 2006 January 1, 2007 January 1, 2008 Wetlands Banking Plan Less than 1 acre $570 per application $590 per application $61 D per application 1 - 10 acres 11+ acres $1,240 per application $1,850 per application $1,280 per application $1,900 per application $1,320 per application $1,950 per application Annual Monitoring Report $100 perappiication $100 per application $105 per application Subd. 3. Development Application Fees: a Rate oi:Fee:'; May 2006 January 1, 2007 1 January 1, 2000 Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Amendment Less than 1 acre $1,650 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 1 Home Occupation $160 per application $170 per application $175 per applicaton 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 Performance Residential $490 per application 5505 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 II $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 - 10 acres $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 II 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 1$3,385 + $1 per acre 1$3,465 + $1 per acre 0.0 May 2006 January 1, 2007 January 1, 2008 Type III - Phase III Less than acre $1,150 per application $1,200 per application $1,250 per application 1-10 acres $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 I - Variance Residential Use $440 per application $455 per application $470 per application Residential Use with $440 per application $455 per application $470 per application Mulitiple Lots $155 per additional lot $160 per additional lot $165 per additional lot Non -Residential Use $880 per application $910 per application $940 per application Appeals $220 per application $228 per application $235 per application Type II Land Subdivision Permit $1,030 per application $1,065 per application $1,100 per application plus $20 per lot plus $20 per lot plus $20 per lot Type III Land Subdivision Permit $1,240 per application $1,280 per application $1,320 per application plus $20 per lot plus $20 per lot plus $20 per lot Type III Final Plat $880 per application $910 per application $940 per application plus $20 per lot plus $20 per lot plus $20 per lot New Special District Less than 1 acre $1,650 per application $1,700 per application $1,750 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,650 + $47 per acre $1,700 + $49 per acre $1,750 + $50 per acre 11 - 99 acres $2,120 + $13 per acre $2,190 + $14 per acre $2,250 + $15 per acre 100 + acres $3,277 + $1 per acre $3.436 + $1 per acre $3,585 + $1 per acre Special District Project Development Plan, Amendments, or Final Site Plan Less than 1 acre $1,350 per application $1,400 per application $1,450 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,350 + S47 per acre $1,400 + $65 per acre $1,450 + $68 per acre 11-99 acres $1,820+$13 per acre $1,890+$14 per acre $1,950+$15 per acre 100 + acres $2,977 + $1 per acre $3,136 + $1 per acre $3,285 + $1 per acre Annexation Less than 1 acre $880 per application $910 per application $940 per application 1 - 10 acres $880 + $52 per acre $910 + $54 per acre $940 + $56 per acre 11 - 99 acres $1,400 + $5 per acre $1,450 + $5 per acre $1,500 + $5 per acre 100+acres $1,845+$1 per acre $1,895+$1 per acre $1,945+$1 per acre Vacations Utility Easement $440 per application $455 per application $470 per application Right of Way, Alley & Other $885 per application $920 per application $960 per application i .,. May 2006 January 1, 2007 January 1, 2008 Traffic Impact Study Rezoning Traffic Analysis $155 per application $160 per application $165 per application or Traffic Impact Report plus $77 per hour (over 2 hrs) plus $78 per hour (over 2 hrs) plus $80 per hour (over 2 firs) Traffic Design Analysis $77 per application $79 per application $80 per application Report Thoroughfare Plan Amend. $880 per application $910 per application $940 per application Environmental Worksheet Less than 1 acre $1,650 per application $1700 per application $1,750 per application 1 - 10 acres $1,650 + $71 per acre $1,700 + $73 per acre $1,750 + $75 per acre 11 - 99 acres $2,360 + $15 per acre $2,430 + $15 per acre $2,500 + $15 per acre 100+acres $3,695+$1 per acre $3,765+$1 per acre $3,835+$1 per acre Environmental Impact To be determined on a To be determined on a To be determined on a Statement contractual basis contractual basis contractual basis Manufactured Home Park 1 - 10 homes $1,350 (1-10 homes) $1,400 (1-10 homes) $1,450 (1-10 homes) 11 - 99 homes $1,350 + $20 per home $1,400 + $20 per home $1,450 + $20 per home 100+ homes $3,150 + $5 per home $3,200 + $5 per home $3,250 + $5 per home Manufactured Home Park Amendment $875 per application $900 per application $925 per application 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. Q� Gi LL C O R V_ a a a C d E G O d Q R C C O N w N d V O a) d 0 O a O a` E `m IDt N C ea°a°eeea' C=' N I1? W m m N m< s !N I I 1 N 0 0 0 0 0 p O O O f9 i9 df t9 Gl N 6 m N @ 6 6 m n n J O O m m m M M� w vi + E9 M Hi W F9 f9 m 40 O 0 g o 0 5N O _ l9 @ a ao n a C + :• @ m n m N M f9 fA tl! f9 Hi + # r m N N N N H f9 fA W to fA di 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 m is C N d W m m N th E9 f5 (9 # # } + + 4 + M N t M O M n N N m N N Ui lA fA i9 IA U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 `@ o n n o n a @ m o m o m IL h m C } } # + + m m m 0 0 0 0 c n ° clNN V 9 3 O N� 0 0@ F O F/i O 7 0 0 0 A ° 0 0 0 O r «nwwww w E eeeeee m N O m m m M N N M M F e e 'U'n M rym,mma o;o v eN�iMne N eeazo a a° -.5o v CCi t7 riN `v a C W O < 0 0 0 0 N J m m O O N M D N N + + + + + + n e a m m m cow M fA f9 19 i9 H j1 �J 0 coo !vip O O O O O N O O 0 C y � d mm J C O O m m :: @ M m m N N f9 19 (R + + i _ + + p o r v a v o m r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `m o0_00 N � N m m m O m f V M di tei + + + + + + + M M N o a r �w p» woes 0 w o 0 0 0 N O d d N d � ry Han n y o 0 o m LL m r m N + + N G + + O W W 4 O i + O m J N N 01 O m V O w uawwww 0 0 00an ° ovi m voi�a O N 9 Y C J O N� O D@ q O 9 D R O p C O Lo r w ww«,ww O N N v `m. N `c a a a e o a a° o e a a m 0 OR CO Q N m O m a C{ N ID( i. > e e e e o ij{. m O IO Oo N m O+ O tO m .- O C N I f i I'm i +o c 0 0 0 0 0 o c m ° 0 o ° 0 0 0 m. m 0 m n m m m m Z In In m 'c rn n o rn m n o � m NM NN rK mN rnM m• D N FA M bN9 f9 e N (p C 0 C C C 0 0 C 0 0 0 rc m 0 O �� 0 0 m m m 0. a n c m m m a m n m m m m m c U m m m m m m m m Z n n n a a n n n n n c O O _ m t7 m m C M m r N N ei m �+ m 0 7 N w w to i» es w w in ei 7 o m f0 = 0 0 0 c ON c ;... c O c OOu 0 0 _0 0 totpp N n n •',. � a n m a n c y m m n m n a n m m m m c U m m m m Z n a N m N m W < m N NW O � � N sA to � w w Vi f9 W to c c 0 0 c c 0 c c c c 0 c 0 .q 0 .m o 0 0 'm 'm o v U U U LL 6 6 m m m m R 0 m m m m � U `mn da Z c n a n n o a s n n 0 0 U Nvi � 7 N wen w w e» w m w vi a c c m O E m m m u r m U 0 Q 2 'm t!I U N LL > Z N E in O E G 0 f O W S N N Q N Q O N N m m O (7 m N N N m m N In m UI N C. O N N iC N Q y m m m m m [V N N r7 m lV O m a. 0 �+ N C' - e as a° 2..m N N arm mmm m o comet m r. C E 4 d m m ;m '9 o a o m o n a u W m a IC @ @ @ @ m @ N @ @ @ m y @ o. a nno noo a n noo n m N 0 C'1 CI �y y Fq Fq W 4A M f9 f9 FA M f9 fM ff1 r. m m = = 0 0 G C _ O O G O o O O O° o. n an n noo a n noo n N N m et m N `W m m Y� F9 M E9 19 w W 19 Vf N 19 diN fA m ",. c c c c c c c c 0 c 4 0 �� c o u 'n Mu � 7o. n T .9 �n n a m m@@ n m m m m m m m m m a n o. o.a noo n n o.00 n F9 (A M f9 f9 4! fA f9 M F9 Vi Vi (A f9 c c c c= c.cs a c c °.2 g o ° o 0 0 0 u. co - @ C�1 Cam') M O N h et H N N qm U N NW NW OW mW � f9 IA K N � � � um9 r � O O = n d E F C N N C R m O y C @ E d C@ d L a d y o y c y c c c o o_to m O y N 4 @ y 4 C O) N + O � V Cf Q e Yl 01 G7 LL O R O a. a C d E O. O d M c w rn c O N i w d 0 V d 0 O a 0 a` a -I o e i0 T N 1p N N m 41 N O. a 7 a a \ fam e e 3` d° m N Q (j A 1p O d d R o a° e v o e a o o a •:•: Q O A m m m m m m N Q d N N m m N N O O (7 t7 N N m �C ryN O C 0 E m O c v m c m m N D G C C C C C = = C D O O O D U U tOp (Op 6 6 6 R n 6 U 'g 'gcn n n m m� n R R a na mmm rW 'W c R N n R c. R m D. R n R m R R R m W t9 y f9 a1 � n+++ a n n n a n n 000iD 000�n N NNm oo � n n m O M m N N N N N N N m N d d Q - A d d m m ul Vl D) m N m C4 m M F9 iA F9 Vf 4! Vf N lA i9 H1 b! F9 fA Ui Vi fA bf Vi M Vi fA f9 A O C = R R ❑ d UI '!. N C R m O V m O c O C = _ = C = = C c .� U U d - U U O 'R '� o 0 o D o D D D D R R m R R R R m u un m R R d R R a n n n m R n R n R n R n R m w in is y» w w + + + a n n n a n n n ov� oo 0 o mN wo n o voim d O A A Q O N ^ n N O O O O O N N 07 d n m m d ID �D N N Oi m N m N N f9 W i9 Vf W M V! fA M f9 W 19 e9 !9 Vi fA t9 f9 V! H F9 _ c c =mD =dm = c Oq c O c c c O O O ry R R m ryO (Op �Op ryO 4 N 6 6 6 m G u U U 'a U 'a 'a U 'g U 'a [) 'n tR] n d Q 0 6 d n ® � A m a � a 'a 'a n m• N in n � N In (O R m n a n n a tD n + + + n n O n N IOp [m0 N O N fOD h N [�') d Omi d Omi Q T d D�f d n m ri CAi i» e» w w m a c O O O O D O O ,�D m u2nnd nna d m o R m d Vi 49 fA y Vf � M) n+ ++ a n n a n n 000rmi oo� o 0 o n n n o 0o n Io ID ON o �M �N H � � � U M 1A fR fA fA fA M fq i9 (9 f9 di f9 f9 19 f9 IA R N R E LL E c c a 9 N R R a R R O U C E E O a m m m LL L m m m R m d N In � r K J r l7 F r d Q a Vi d d LL a O m U .Q C a C d E n O d 0 ca R 07 C C N aa) U) 07 L U a d 0 O O a a a as a as a° 9 as as as aaaa aaaa'. c N m N— m m .- m no 0 n 0 T A lh N m N m cD m N N m I i ti ri n m C Pi G c7 ci CV CV d d M m d V c aaaa a as a a as as as aaaa aaaa' O O N 0' a�aa a as a a as as as aaa� aaaa- m m m N I[I w m N N O O m O h O d N m O d m l O d p ry N HJ m m m C m O m G C) m lV N t7 d [V lV f H ITNi c @ m O O O c U tl V U M@ ry@@ U O D laD @ q U D U@@@ {p @ 6 a@ U 5 L 6 U G 6 — C. — a+ ++ n++ + coom a a n n a oNly o� nN lO@II�IO@m O (N] IO IO Iom A N Ill d d O! N N N clN N C t�l N N W w w» w win w i» is w w � is w w w n in a e w w w c C C m N C m d ^N c U U m C C C C � C U U p U O m @ @ U O O @ C NN U 6 �d p 6 6 a 6 n n W d m n a n v n a @- �- - m m m m m a d o m a `mwww yw er in N N a + + + n + + + 0 0 o In d m a a a In N m o m a o 0 o m 0 0 01 m moo fc o o Ol 0 o d' N N m ul o 0 m N O N N N m N h r d d d m N m 1U m f9 M f9 f9 (A Vi f9 19 f9 19 6 f9 6 f9 2 fA (9 fA f9 19 F9 f9 Yf c d y o c c c m@@ 2 o m d m c c c c c o o ' @ totj @ o w @ @ @ @ o o @ o� m � @� B a@a a`+ m In e»w @ @ @ @ n+++ y y y y n o n o y o n+++ n+++ N O 6 6 6 a n N� Od n W N N N r 10U N N n 4o'I •- f O 0 m O O O N N N o N ID fD N IQ R m m - c� V O m w N f9 IA i9 F9 f9 69 f9 19 f9 f9 O. F9 G M 6 M f9 Yi f9 iA di W f9 a a a N N N C c -NJ c 0J 3 C N@ y 0 f O y U U d C C C C C U U '2 U V p @ @ @ @� @ m u �Ho �np a o aaap. Hasa www y @ @ ii ov o 0 o n a a n a a o o o cl a O O O A o o N o o p o A 0 m8 Ih o m o 0 o m r O m N o o m N O N N N O N x Ip b O N N N m m :.: f9 fA 19 M 19 19 F9 � fA f9 6 f9 n IA 6 19 M 19 F9 @ W f9 {9 W a $ c � @ A t N d N @ N_ O N N N N WE N L N 9 N R d U d j N@ G 5 d L C@ U J �� c corn a 9 a K m o 3 � allorn+ morn+ + m -Eo Gm C J O a 0 J 0 x 2 Z L T T T C N E IL Z N 6 Q 0 d h Q 0 �29 a e o> e e ��e o o e e MY adm inn , m M am mm m �t a mm O M M N N M V M N N M N N M N N q 0 N c t' e at a e o° m n 0 A Q m n m V O N M t7 V O O O) m 00 th N N N M O vi M t7 ni M N N 0. C- N d' V s o e a° a' o o e o a e ato 0 0 o e ado vein moo m-- MIS r m � mn m, m�c� ma O N a C h ° L � N G ?N c d d d C C c 0 G V V m O W o O o 0 0 U q d Uq a O E L •.. g U �0p (0p 6 6 N s n V U d d U O d U 6 d L a `m mc m'O ww q q q n a m d we»i m w+ q p q n}++ i+ y 00 N n O O O N Oi N A n Op V CM da O O ei e» va w rn w w � vi w w ii en a' F» w ei � d N r N c o o N L O O d V O O O c O E m g U d 9 O _ R q q U O V N p q d q +f+ + M 6 O O M m d m O O O n O O m m a m N O O m N m p n A? A a C V V N O o f9 � M W �qN � 1A f9 6 � f9 19 fA M fA 1- U t9 i9 F9 tli N N ° o d iO C o m i C C C O O O C V U d R m d U O d L O O O U U 2 O C �0ry �Op L 6 d U nE a n °- gannn nn d - a a a m 'W o o N'q n n m d N �f9 nn q d ny q 6 n d y (A Vf 10 fE d � q 6 i +# d .3_, + + v+ d (q + # 6+ 00 � 6 6 A 6 to d N LO m m d d N IOCi N n O - A ww w w N M wvf O I- O m M w i»w m e» �ww vi w a uiw c N o d ` y > d m U c O d L 0 D N O u V O O O C O jp m m d" L `v `m o w a q d d m onn n`m c w L nd a n d ii n n LL n in q f+ f9 n d q q n q d F N? w y+ q w+ m `m n + ++ d a ++ d c n+om nn nn� a 000�n 0 opo n M A N m m M m C M M m ww w w w w w a w w ww N»w Fd- u wi»� w U `m L_ H O T Y N d d q N L n E m 9¢ of c c `o a E o o m N i. : n t6 v E v E E o d :° d w .10• o y U 3 m d L c c c o m m 0 ` p t m n@ m t o m+ E B o n o y o m+ o o rn o ` Q R y o" r o f O c J 7 �' q Q! O H (L L C J e- O C q m " q m ¢ q > N N a E m O � N C O 00 � E 6 C n � q _ L_ O O v_ m � n O a � d N @ m 6 C X � d a N N c q O L 0 0 a q d C U n n N w `1 m Ln y � d d m O U O 3 O .� > a O m v q d d d N — c C � m m V OL. C > � E d L C a q d q m c D> R T � a 'c c N d d q d n 6 2 c ° E N q (Cp 0 C L U N 6 [ u o m i a U ui n v m C m d ti u � m n n d i q ' N c ' G n = E 0 0 o w c _ m C k Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Conirnission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 Ms. Sherri Hyatte (residing at 5162 Nicklaus Drive NW, Rochester MN 55901) address the Commission. She stated that the homeowners were there first. Individuals know w they are buying into when they see a tower nearby before purchasing their home. With no one else wishin o be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public ring. Mr. McGuine moved to appro Type 11 Conditional Use Pe #06-05 by Midwest Wireless with the staff-recomm ded findings and con ons. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. CONDITIONS: 1. The equipment building Aated ith exterior building materials and colors similar to the exihe golf course, which the tower and equipment building will 2. The applicant agree o comply withthe ap able provisions of the Rochester Zoning Ordinan and Land Development Ma al. 3. The grope owner is responsible for identifying land on the property. 4. The licant shall verify that the facilities will be a mi um of 10' away from the exis Mina T Dublic water main that runs throuah the ao ourse Mr. Larry Klemenhagen presented the staff report, dated April 19, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Klemenhagen submitted an email to the Commission that he received from the Rochester Builder's Association. This is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Burke asked if staff was willing to discuss the email with the builders. Mr. Klemenhagen responded that this meeting was only one of several public hearings/meetings. He explained all boards/commissions it went through and would continue to go through. Mr. Wheeler stated that any delay in the fee increase would affect the Planning Department's budget. He explained that the hearing process is set up for public review. Extending or delaying for one group implies that other groups may also have a valid reason to request delay (neighborhood groups, taxpayers, etc.). He stated that there are 3 options: Reduce the quality of service from the Planning Department IPage S City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 • Charge taxpayers more • Increase fees for those that incur the service Mr. Wheeler explained that the PASC recommended that the fees be increased. The PASC is made up of representatives from the City and County. He explained that if any entity should continue the public hearing process, it should be the City Council instead of the Commission. Mr. Haeussinger expressed concern that the expenses from 2000 to 2005 and time and hours didn't balance. Ms. Rivas stated that Planning staff has had to do more hand holding with developers to walk through special districts ordinances, etc. She questioned if the developers shouldn't be held responsible for those added expenses. She questioned if they could have a different billing process. Mr. Klemenhagen responded they had an accelerated growth in 2003/2004 at which time they adopted a multi -year schedule. Due to State changes that occurred in the department and within the County, they did not. Development applications were paying 50 percent of the expense. The fees placed more of a burden on the user rather than the general taxpayers. Mr. Wheeler explained that expenses went up from 2000 to 2005 by approximately $111,000 (12 percent change). A greater share was assigned to those receiving the service. The City Council and County Board did not want to raise taxes to support the expenses. He explained that the levy support has gone down by approximately $100,000. He stated that health insurance, salaries, etc. are necessary to keep the quality of staff (not necessarily the quantity). From 2000 to 2005. Planning staff has had much more involvement with the neighborhoods and we spend no more time than is available. He explained that there is less staff than in 2000. He stated that he would be happy to meet with interested individuals to go through how he is managing the department. The overall question is whether the Commission and Council are getting too much service from the Planning Department. Mr. Haeussinger asked how he was controlling operations relative to expenses. He asked if the types of services and the way they are put out could be looked at. He stated that it is projected that development will be slow for the next three years. He stated that increased gas prices will have an impact on the delivery of materials. Also, developers material cost go up each year. Mr. Wheeler explained that there have been vacancies in the department that have not been filled and noted that the department is currently short one clerical person, one inspector, and one planner. We are trying to maintain the quality of service provided. If the building activity slows down, we will reduce the number of hours going into that activity through layoffs or through reassignment to grant funded activities (which is currently being done). Mr. Burke asked if there have been any studies at looking at the base application fee and, if there is additional work required due to lack of a reasonable plan, additional fees be charged. Mr. Wheeler stated they charge the same fee for all applications of the same type. If someone's application is denied and they have to reapply, they pay another fee. If they have an amended plan due to some change they had to make because their plan was found inadequate in some way, they pay an additional fee for the amended application. Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 Mr. Wheeler stated that, from time to time, they have looked at some private sector firms that have gone to bar codes to track changes. They have looked at efficiencies of putting public information on the web, which has reduced the amount of time staff has to spend on the telephone. GIS has made improvements in City and County addressing. He explained that they haven't fine tuned the tracking of expenses for particular applications. He also explained that City and County have waived fees due to certain circumstances. Ms. Rivas stated that there is some benefit to the community to lending more time and energy to create better plans. If staff had to charge by the hour, it could discourage any improvement to a plan. Mr. Wheeler explained that the PASC did cut the cost of filing an appeal by half. Mr. Klemenhagen explained that some of the fees were lowered due to the amount of staff time that is put into it. The overall intention was to provide a 3 percent increase. Mr. McGuine asked how staff arrived at an hourly rate. Mr. Klemenhagen responded that each staff person enters their time into a time system. There are categories that time can be entered to calculate the amount of time spent on a particular development application (ex. General Development Plans). He also explained that the rate covers staff salary, fringe rate (vacation, sick, health care), and overhead costs (rent, attorney fees, human resources, etc.) Mr. Mike Paradise addressed the Commission. He stated that he was present on behalf of the Rochester Area Builders Association. He stated that the association's biggest concern is to have the opportunity to review the reasons for the proposed fees. He indicated that he didn't have a lot of time to review the current proposal. Mr. Paradise explained that they are subject to a lot of fees. He explained that these expenses are affecting the affordability of homes. The association would like to meet with staff to make sure that the increased fees are justified. He also expressed concern with increasing across the board. Mr. Wheeler reiterated that he is happy to meet with the builders any time. However, the Commission should not be the entity to hold up the public meeting process. He indicated that the City Council has the ability to postpone the meeting if they want to. The Council hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2006. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke stated that the home builders have stepped up and have gotten more involved in decisions that affect them. He stated that staff needs to present reasons for the fee increases. He explained how the Rochester Building Safety explained all the reasons for the increase. Mr. Ohly expressed concern with recommending who should be responsible for the additional fees. He stated that it is his opinion that the City Council is the only body that should make this type of decision as they are the elected officials. Mr. Haeussin er moved to forward Text Amendment #06-04 to amend Section 60.175 �1 II Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2006 regarding Fees with no recommendation. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr. McGuine abstaining. _ Mr. Jeff Ellerb ch presented the staff report, dated April 20, P06, to the Commission. The staff report is on\wishing chester-Olmsted Planning Dep rtment. Mr. Ward Opitz rprises) addressed the Corrifnission. He stated that he was in agreement with mmended conditions. With no one elbe heard, Mr. Burke c, sed the public hearing. Mr. Ohly moved to recommerf approval of P Development, LLC to be know s Bendel No findings and conditions. Mr. Ha ssinger se. CONDITIONS: 1. The Final Plat shall include: • Dedicated of controlled a' c s proposed Lot 1, Blockl gnd a the entire west line with the ex centered on the existing water t access opening as i�5dicated in Agreement at appr ximately ST, rel' mary Plat #06-07 by Big DE Commercial with the staff -recommended onded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. along the entire north and east lines of ng the entire north line of Lot 1, Block 2 and tion of a 36 foot wide access opening er driveway access and a 36 foot wide th Second Supplemental Development A utility easemei over Aquila's gas hat is installed on Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Roadway names must be modified as stated in they'�t pril 18, 2006 letter from the GISIAddressing staff prior to submitting a Final Plat 3. The approval of this plat is contingent upon Big De De topment, LLC obtaining ownership of altlbf the land included in the plat or all pro rty owners signing the final plat The enal plat shall not be submitted until the ap ' ant owns the lands included within the plat or all property owners sign the apply tion. 4. The applicant, Big De Development, LLC, shall be responsible fe cost of rerouting khe overhead electric distribution and main feeder tie lotated on this property -.' If the lines are not going to be rerouted than an easemen,1shall be dedicatWd for these facilities. 5. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat Storm water management must be provided for this development. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5 DATE: 5/15/06 .. —M Reports & Recommendations Income City Administration for is BY: In May, 2005, the City Council adopted policies pertaining to deferral of special assessments. Those policies contain a requirement that deferrals will only be considered for persons 65 years of age or older, or individuals who are totally or permanently disabled, whose incomes qualify. The income qualifier threshold the City adopted at that time was the U.S. Census Bureau"s Poverty Threshold data. After a year of experience with the deferred assessment policy, staff would recommend an amendment to the policy related to the income threshold requirement to utilize the most recent HUD "Very Low income" threshold data rather than the Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds. Over the course of the past year, the City has received 4 applications for deferrals, 2 of which were turned down due to not meeting the income requirements. The attached memo provides information as to the rationale for this amendment. Council Action Requested: Request a motion to adopt a resolution amending the deferred assessments policy income threshold to lize the most recent HUD "Very Low Income" standard for the Rochester, Minnesota MSA as the ;ome threshold. Attachments: 1. Memo to Stevan Kvenvoid dated May 5,2006 2. Copy of FY 2006 HUD Very Low Income Limits data —OUNCILACTION: Motfonby: semndby: m: 1 Office of the City Administrator Memo To: Stevan Kvenvold From:Terry Spaeth` Date: 515/2006 Re: Income Threshold for Deferred Assessments Steve, as I mentioned recently, I am concerned that the income threshold that was adopted as part of the City's deferred assessment policy last year is too low, and because of that, we have had several property owners whose annual incomes exceed the threshold and their applications for deferral have been turned down. Approximately 1 year ago, the City adopted the deferred assessment policies. At that time, I had recommended using the U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds for its income limitation. I realized it seemed somewhat low at that time, but my concern was that if it were too high we would have a large number of requests. Since the time of the policy's adoption, we have received 4 requests, 2 of which have been turned down. (The number of requests is consistent with the information I had received from other communities regarding numbers of requests they typically receive in a year.). The most recent request we received was for a deferral of a $4435 assessment for the 7"' St. NW street improvement project by a single elderly woman who had an annual income of $12,675. The present income threshold is $9300, and she exceeds that by $3375. 1 recently sent out an information request to other Minnesota cities to find out what thresholds those cities have adopted in their policies. The table below contains that information. • Page 1 r CITY INCOME LIMITATION ON COMMENTS THRESHOLD HOME VALUE Brooklyn Park None None Removed threshold in 2004. Burnsville $25,000 None Assets, excluding home must exceed $60,000. Total assessment must exceed $400 or 3% of annual gross income. Maple Grove None None Plymouth None None Champlin Assessment is in None excess of 3% of owner's annual income. Robbinsdale Assessment is in None excess of 1.5% of owners annual income Albert Lea HUD "Very Low' None For 2006, the income Income Standards threshold is $19,300 and for Freebom $2750 for additional Coun persons. I believe utilizing the HUD "Very Low' income standards for the Rochester MSA would be a more realistic threshold for the City to utilize in determining qualification for a deferred assessment. For 2006, the income threshold for Rochester would be $26,000, with an adjustment for additional persons in a household. Looking at what we have now, and using the recent example I mentioned above, a person with an income of $12,675 is likely struggling to cover basic needs, much less an assessment of $4400, yet that individual did not qualify under our policy because her income was too great. I would like to recommend that the income threshold within the City's deferred assessment policy be changed from the U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds to the HUD Very Low Income Threshold. This is adjusted annually, as is the Census Bureau threshold. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. 0 Page 2 Cc m m D m x s r m T d v C m -i m m Y, p•f 9 O () Y m p d T 7 T m T l T Y D O C! ❑ n O C N 3 N m R ❑ O O m O O O z O O W n C C O O N W Z O S N� �"� K �"� 'G N 2 i? Z m N O T i • Z 2 m D t+ an d m i m Z m VI m a O W + m m z V T m C N m N O J A Z p W O D p z ❑ O O O 0 D o x o O� m O O W D T a c a r< W r G W r G W r< W r< W r W W r< W p r< W O O r G W O m p r< W 0 m o r < W O m D 9 a o m o o rn D O m o o m D O rn 0 m o O m p m m o o •+ o �-+ o o .. p p o z •+ o 0 z o z a D o z r m z r T z z r m z r m z-r m r T z r I. r T o z r T n o r T n o r T n o n o n o n o f= n o o: s n o o o E z n o o n o o f o s o o s v f s o s m m m z m m m s m c m z m z m m v m m m m v m v m z o z v m z v� m z v rn z o m z v m z v o n z D z n 9 n D n D n D a D n D n D cz) 9 D O O Z o D Z Z Z Z Z Z c 2 Z O Z O Z Z m m m m m m m > m m m m v O N N O N m N W m+ 9 p f0 + ❑ m+ O m+ A W A N N J m N m O m V m V 0 m j J A m W N A J m N m J m m W m m W m W W m m D 0 m P O ❑ m O O O m m O 0 0 O O 0 m❑ m O N O ❑ m m 0 0 0 O m a 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 a o o O o 0 D o m o 0 0 ❑ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o z N Q J m V W A V W W + m UI m N W 9 UI N W m N W [Ii N W fp P A m A A m W (T m J V A m p J N N W m m O m m W W m W O N W❑ N W O N VI V m OI N O VI O O O m O O O UI O m O O O N O 0 O O N m O N m O OI m m❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 o p o D z 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑❑ 0 W 9 W m N m m- m m m b V O m m 3J m A A b A A m A A A V m m V W J m V W P W O A O m W N m m 0 m N V m N m 0 0 m V m m J m b O O V m b O O 0 m O O O O❑ m m m m O O m O O O O O m m ❑ m m O z N O O O 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 00 oO D o❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 z A n 9 A N C A N+ A N+ A W+ A W E m W N m W N A N+ A N C m W+ A N C m O m O m N O O m N m❑ m m O m ❑ O O m N O O D m m 0 0 0 O m (S1 ❑ o 0 O m N 0 0❑ W O m o 0 0 OI p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ p o 0 0 0 0 0 o z rn r m N 9 b O + m m m m O m 9 J ID V J b V J b J W W O N N O A O A A N m Y ❑ N m m❑ m O O O m O m m N m m m m m D UI O O m O 0 m m m m !T 0 0 0 m UI N ❑ 0 0 00❑ a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0❑ 0 0 0 0❑ o 0 0 o z -i 0 0 0 m m v A A O A W O O V N N (O 9 m m + b V m m m m W m O m 10 m J N W m W m O V N W V m V W W m + m N + b N + b N N m O W m m N m O W N+ O O O m O UI m m O N m O O lT N O O O O O U1 O z m m O o❑ 0 m m O 0 0❑ 0 0 0 a o o 0 0 0 o D❑ o o D O D O 0 0 a 0 0 0 p❑ 0 V T OI W N m W N m W N m W N m W N J A N J A N m W N m N m W N J m m A N A O A m W N m A O m 3] A A O a A O A a❑ m W O O J N N m m W m V V O m W m m f0 m N m J V O V m N W N N m J m V m V m O m O J m ❑ m O WW O❑ p O m m O m m O N O O❑ O O O m O O O m N O o 0 o O z O m O o D 0 p p o D o 0 0 0❑ p o o a o o ❑ o 0 0 0 0 a o o 0 0 D m 9 � m W N m W N m W N m A N m A N A N J m W N N m W m W N + m W m A N m N m m W N m m N m A pp m m m+ m m+ m O A A O P + m m m P A m m m m N O A A A O m m V m V O m N W m N W m N W m m UI N m UI m O❑ 0❑ O m O m m O O O m m m O m m O m O OI N O O Ut m 0 p o ❑ U1 N 0 0❑ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ o 0 o p 0 0❑ o 0 0 O p p p o 0 0❑ o z REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-15-06' AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING —�k ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning PREPARED BY: Commission, to amend Section 63.2241 of the Rochester Zoning Mitzi A. Baker, Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning Senior Planner districts are permitted to have banners. May 10, 2006 The City Council acted on this text amendment on April 17, 2006. After taking action, it was apparent that additional edits would be necessary prior to the second reading of the Ordinance. Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 2, 2006 and consider the additional changes suggested by staff. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the additional changes to the Ordinance, as identified in the attached memorandum dated May 2, 2006, the City Council should instruct the City Attorney to incorporate those changes into the second reading of the Ordinance. Distribution: 1. City Administrator k ` 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 9t, (JLtnu' ^ COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to ROCAESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT o4;Roc''ESTER'""NN�s rl 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 .y www.olmstedcounty.com/planning •. 11 OF p.- . GRA TED•AUGUSTS• DATE: May 2, 2006 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner RE: Text Amendment #05-06, initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend Section 63.2241of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify which zoning districts are permitted to have banners. On April 17, 2006, the City Council voted to approve this text amendment, as identified below. Council member Blenker expressed concern that a 4-unit building would be able to place a banner on a wall facing a 24-unit building, but that the 24-unit building would not be able to place a banner facing the 4-unit building. She was correct, that the modification to the recommended Ordinance would result in this situation. Staff recommends that the City Council re -consider the modifications made to the Ordinance, and amend the left and right columns of the table so that the density of the development allowed to place a banner is the same as the density of the development which the banner may be oriented toward. For example, the number in the left column could be changed to "6" and numbers in the right column could be changed to "6" as well. Then the playing field" is even, allowing ail multi- family developments of 6 units or more to orient banners toward other multifamily developments of 6 units or more. Banners can also be oriented toward commercial districts and non-residential uses. Following additional internal discussions regarding the administration of these regulations, staff recommends additional modification to the Ordinance to provide further clarification. Please note that the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual allows any "For Sale" or "For Rent" sign which advertises either the sale or rental of the premises upon which the sign is located as long as the sign does not exceed twenty-four square feet in area or four feet in height. 'If the City Council changes the base number of units from "4" to a larger number, the column on the right should also be changed to include the R-2 district in the list or zoning district toward which a banner may not be oriented or visible. 63.2241 Banners: Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, the term "banner" shall mean a strip of cloth -like, vinyl, lightweight or other woven material on which a sign appears. Subdivision 2. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code to the contrary, no person may install or maintain a banner unless the banner is mounted parallel to a building fagade or other vertical building surface. A banner may not be mounted more than 18 inches from the wall surface to which it is attached. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 . GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 wq, PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • wELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 lJ� AN ECUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i �� \ City Council decision of April 17, 2006: Subdivision 3. Banners in Residential Districts shall be subject to the following limitations: Non- Residential Uses No more than one banner shall be permitted per use or (i.e. office, personal per tenant. If located adjacent to a residential use of service, area accessory less than 24 units, or a RS-a, R-1 or R-1x District, no —church, school, etc) banner is permitted on any wall where the banner is visible from said use or District. Multi -Family Residential One banner shall be permitted per multi -family developments with 4 development with 4 units or more, when the banner is units or more oriented toward an abutting major collector road, or higher order roadway. If located adjacent to a residential use of less than 24 units, or a RS-a, R-1 or R-1x District, no banner is permitted on any wall where the banner is visible from said use or District. All other uses in Banners are prohibited. Residential Districts Subdivision 4. Residential Districts shall include, for the purposes of administering this Section of the Ordinance, all Residential Zoning Districts and B-5 (Residential Commercial) zoning districts and any Special District used for residential purposes. With additional edits recommended by Staff: Subdivision 3. Banners in Residential Districts shall be subject to the following limitations: Non- Residential Uses No more than one banner shall be permitted per use or (i.e. office, personal per tenant. No banners are permitted on any wall service, area accessory abutting a residential use of less than 9Opgted — church, school, etc) G GeF;i tc a rGsWooAW us;e ^"^sn t.ap 24 4 units, or adjacent to a RS-a, R-1 or R-1x District. ae aaaraeF ,sa�� Multi -Family Residential One banner shall be permitted per multi -family developments with 4 development with 4 units or more, when the banner is units or more oriented toward an abutting major primary collector road, or higher order roadway or adjacent to a R-2, R- 3. B-5 B-1, B-4. M-1 or M-2 Zoning District. No banners are permitted or any wall abutting a residential use of less than 4 units, or adjacent to # feaated a RS-a, R-1 or R-1x District. 9istraot. All other uses in Banners are prohibited. Residential Districts i Subdivision 4. Residential Districts shall include, for the purposes of administering this Section of the Ordinance, all Residential Zoning Districts and B-5 (Residential Commercial) zoning districts and any Special District used for residential purposes. al33 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/19/06 I AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works i- 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Establishing the Westside Transportation P7PARED BY: Improvement District; TID #4 R. Freese The City Council adopted on July 7, 2004 Resolution #350-04 Establishing Transportation Improvement District Program By adoption of an additional Resolution, the Council may establish a Transportation Improvement District (TID) for any geographic area of the City experiencing or anticipating new growth and substandard streets. The Council's determination of those areas experiencing or anticipating new growth will be based upon review of the City's urban service boundaries and all other relevant factors that might reveal development trends over the next 40 to 50 years. The TID will be established after reviewing the growth areas containing substandard streets, the transportation system needs of the area based upon its land use plan and zoning classifications, and the amount of each of the area's vacant developable acreage. The resolution advises the Council that when creating a Transportation Improvement District to consider the following factors: A. The hansportation system improvements necessitated by current or anticipated development in a particular geographic area of the City. B. The particular geographical area of the City that would be served by the TID improvements. C. The total costs of the necessary transportation improvements. D. The amount of the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to serve a particular geographic area that should be allocated to the development and to the city. E. The method of cost allocation that should be used to establish a proportional and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement project costs. Attached for use and reference by the Council are Attachments A thru E that will correspond to the above listed factors for the Council to consider in establishing the Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID). The Attachments provide the information required by Resolution #350-04 and needed by the Council to establish the WSTID. The additional Resolution will establish a cost allocation for each TID. The cost allocation will be calculated as 75% of the costs of all the transportation projects within the TID. These costs will include, but not be limited to, the costs of design and construction engineering services, acquisition of right-of-way and construction. Revenue collected within a specific TID must be spent only within that TID. Revenue collected in excess of that ultimately needed in the respective TID must be refunded to the property owners in the TID at the time the TID is dissolved. In cases such as the WSTID where the State and County will contribute funding to the Project, the City will use these State and County funds to reduce the overall Project cost for the TID before calculating the TID cost allocation. Zoning representations made in Exhibit E for specific parcels not currently in the city are illustrative only and are not to be constructed as an official city endorsement or approval of the depicted zoning. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the Resolution Establishing the Westside Transportation Improvement District; TID #4 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion ey second To: Stevan Kvenvold From: Richard W. Freese Date: May 11, 2006 Re: Creation of Westside Transportation Improvement District The City Council adopted on July 7, 2004 Resolution #350-04 Establishing Transportation Improvement District Program. By adoption of an additional Resolution, the Council may establish a Transportation Improvement District (TID) for any geographic area of the City experiencing or anticipating new growth and substandard streets. The Council's determination of those areas experiencing or anticipating new growth will be based upon review of the City's urban service boundaries and all other relevant factors that might reveal development trends over the next 40 to 50 years. The TID will be established after reviewing the growth areas containing substandard streets, the transportation system needs of the area based upon its land use plan and zoning classifications, and the amount of each of the area's vacant developable acreage. The resolution advises the Council that when creating a Transportation Improvement District to consider the following factors: A. The transportation system improvements necessitated by current or anticipated development in a particular geographic area of the City. B. The particular geographical area of the City that would be served by the TID improvements. C. The total costs of the necessary transportation improvements. D. The amount of the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to serve a particular geographic area that should be allocated to the development and to the city. E. The method of cost allocation that should be used to establish a proportional and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement project costs. Attached for use and reference by the Council are Attachments A thru E that will correspond to the above listed factors for the Council to consider in establishing the Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID). The Attachments provide the information required by Resolution #350-04 and needed by the Council to establish the WSTID. n The additional Resolution will establish a cost allocation for each TID. The cost allocation will be calculated as 75% of the costs of all the transportation projects within the TID. These costs will include, but not be limited to, the costs of design and construction engineering services, acquisition of right-of-way and construction. Revenue collected within a specific TID must be spent only within that TID. Revenue collected in excess of that ultimately needed in the respective TID must be refunded to the property owners in the TID at the time the TID is dissolved. In cases such as the WSTID where the State and County will contribute funding to the Project, the City will use these State and County funds to reduce the overall Project cost for the TID before calculating the TID cost allocation. The WSTID is comprised of three (3) Subdistricts; Valleyhigh, Kalmar North and Kalmar South. These three subdistricts were considered at one time to each be independent TIDs. Howvere, upon staff analysis it became evident that individual TIDs would create a considerable inequity in the respective TID rates from one district to the next. Staff recommends a single TID encompassing the three subdistricts. A total of 9,868 acres is included in the WSTID and 7,103 acres (72%) are assumed to be developable. Attachment E reflects the breakdown of the areas assigned to various conceptual zoning classifications. Approximately 76% of the gross acres are assumed to be zoned RI / RIX. Approximately 19% of the gross acres are assumed to be zoned non-residential (Bl, B4, B5, MI, and M2). Zoning representations made in Exhibit E for specific parcels not currently in the city are illustrative only and are not to be constructed as an official city endorsement or approval of the depicted zoning. At this time 319.035 acres (5.9%) of developable land included in the proposed WSTID are covered by executed Development Agreements between the City and the ten (10) different developer/owners. These development agreements date back to 1999. To date the City has collected $1,601,685.27 of the estimated total WSTID charges from these ten (10) developments. An additional $2,370,197.24 of TID charges is estimated to be collected from these ten (10) in the future at the time the balance of the land is platted. These ten parcels when completely developed will contribute an estimated 7.3% of the total WSTID revenue. The Public Works staff met with the members of the Kalmar Town Board on March 20, 2006. The Board asked that we send a letter to the property owners in the 0-10 year area designated in the Kalmar Township / City Orderly Annexation Agreement inviting them to a Kalmar Town Board Meeting on April 17, 2006 to discuss the proposed WSTID. A formal presentation on the proposed Westside TID was made to the Board and the township property owners at that time. On May 3, 2006 the Public Works staff met with owners of property in Cascade Township that is designated in the proposed WSTID. This area is included entirely in the Valleyhigh Subdistrict. A presentation on the proposed Westside TID was made on March 15, 2006 to the Rochester Area Builder's Development Council. NOTE: Additional documents have also been attached for the Council's information and use. 0 Page 2 A t`k }lw x h I " Westside TO :r i `r k a r tr` Valley High Subdistrict z 'e V ..- �r v�r 3 �F' , I \_ "4 � �„ 'fit}, �• v ,F �zt rzz v a n: "'�•r�—�' i s. . o V % 'sa 1e•��" f NNLl� f+ t 1 ,.v ` T In 'I I r I l C� 3. 5 : et a �. 3 n 4 d }l` VE• l I—� Y t � � ` ' CIVY ParceK yr Y) T S _, � V( I`_ J FNwe WvebpmmlPrea Ce-W..q Agreement F "- NI Ad Wh n Parcevs -ravdexA.e. ATTACHMENT A Westside Transportation Improvement District Roadway Roadway Limits Description of Improvements Length 55th Street Phase 3 60th Ave to CR 3 2 lane+TWLTL Major Urban Arterial 3960 55th Street Phase 4 CR 3 to 75th Avenue 2 lane Major Urban Arterial 4100 CR 3 Phase 1 Valleyhigh to 55th St 2 lane+TWLTL Major Urban Arterial 3660 CR 3 Phase 2 55th St to 65th St 2 lane+TW LTL Major Urban Arterial 5280 Valleyhigh Road Phase 3 60th Ave to CR 3 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 4150 Valleyhigh Road Phase 4 CR 3 to 75th Avenue 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 6000 60th Avenue Phase 4 Valleyhigh to 55th St 4 lane Strategic Regional Arterial 5280 60th Avenue Phase 5 55th St to 65th St 4 lane Strategic Regional Arterial 5280 75th Avenue Phase 1 Valleyhigh to 55th St 2 lane Major Urban Arterial 1320 75th Avenue Phase 2 55th St to 65th St 2 lane Major Urban Arterial 5280 65th Street Phase 2 60th Ave to CR 3 2 lane Major Urban Arterial 3960 65th Street Phase 3 CR 3 to 75th Avenue 2 lane Secondary Regional Arterial 3960 50th Avenue Phase 2 51 Street to Valleyhigh Rd 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 6400 50th Avenue Phase 3 Valleyhigh Rd to 19th Street 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 5500 50th Avenue Phase 4 19th Street to 7th Street 2 lane Major Urban Arterial 2220 Valleyhigh Road Phase 1 CSAH 22 to 50th Avenue 5 / 6 lane Major Regional Arterial 3960 Valleyhigh Road Phase 2 50th Avenue to 60th Avenue 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 5280 41at Street Phase 1 CSAH 22 to 50th Avenue 2 lane+TWLTL Secondary Regional Arterial 3900 41st Street Phase 2 50th Avenue to 60th Avenue 2 lane+TWLTL Secondary Regional Arterial 5200 19th Street Phase 1 Valleyhigh Rd to CSAH 22 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 1000 19th Street Phase 2 CSAH 22 to Ashland Avenue 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 2000 19th Street Phase 3 Ashland Ave to 60th Avenue 4 lane Major Regional Arterial 8200 60th Avenue Phase 1 CR 34 to 14th Street 4 lane Strategic Regional Arterial 5280 60th Avenue Phase 2 14th Street to 34th Street 4 lane Strategic Regional Arterial 7920 60th Avenue Phase 3 34th St to Valleyhigh 4 lane Strategic Regional Arterial 2640 CR 34 Phase 1 60th Ave to 70th Ave 2 lane Major Regional Arterial 5280 CR 34 Phase 2 70th Ave to CR 3 2 lane Major Regional Arterial 7920 CR 3 Phase 1 CR 34 to 14th Street 2 lane Major Regional Arterial 5280 CR 3 Phase 2 14th Street to 34th Street 2 lane Major Regional Arterial 7920 CR 3 Phase 3 34th St to Valleyhigh 2 lane Major Regional Arterial 5280 70th Avenue Phase 1 CR 34 to 14th Street 2 lane Major Urban Arterial 5280 70th Avenue Phase 2 14th Street to 34th Street 4 lane Major Urban Arterial 7920 70th Avenue Phase 3 34th St to Valleyhigh 4 lane Major Urban Arterial 4650 19th Street Phase 4 60th Ave to 70th Ave 4 lane Major Urban Arterial 5280 19th Street Phase 5 70th Ave to CR 3 2 lane Primary Regional Collector 9000 14th Street Phase 1 60th Ave to 70th Ave 4 lane Secondary Regional Arterial 5280 14th Street Phase 2 70th Ave to CR 3 4 lane Secondary Regional Arterial 7920 34th Street Phase 1 60th Ave to 70th Ave 4 lane Major Urban Arterial 5280 34th Street Phase 2 70th Ave to CR 3 4 lane Major Urban Arterial 7920 Traffic Signals 25 Locations air Attachment A (coat.) • Total Estimated Project Costs • MnDOT and County Share of Total Estimated Project Costs • City Share of Total Estimated Project Costs • Developer's Share of Total Estimated Project Costs ➢ R-1 / R-lX $3,851.46 per Developable Acre ➢ R-2 / R-3 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre ➢ B-1 / B-5 $13,863.14 per Developable Acre ➢ B-4 / M-1 $34,663.16 per Developable Acre ➢ M-2 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre $90,027,191.25 $17,137,739.25 $18,222,363.00 $54,667.089.00 6 9 West Side TO i Attachment B1 F 1 i S ti. cro i � 1 \y y r IT ., x t d-Ey Y3.a.v' .. ♦ i •Vn#t"° 1 € � � lo�l •..,` .a �j,w'- 99 yy 1 ' fs e ;. 1♦ aK,,,r °�, 4�A��t - , �.� rr°~ •rY,f E +M� a Y�% fifi i r Ri..ai -Y $ i L�j 3 i, 3 ♦ i 3 9 .R � i.. ' � r M1 � � g .✓> �* • � ,®oar— . �, a Y' Rid,. ♦. 4, Y 4..�'.a,.^ r.; �1 •. `� .��p' ,,,m. .wn...en•s`Ji"en+e5y}3 E wPRV M. Bifls.'bAM.. _� Imni.. ,.,.» ♦ l os- �Wy/ RW -r 1 i Cwpu2M pe6 '.. a � � •a. tdAUrPM.$im�pYY.y _ i `� `E +�-MWUlMfY16 & JI mr; �l j3 vyyp UpM.Rt6 :�. ♦ a ♦ �. mu M1SUDMs,b) Y Wa UDMfaH �.�.� S 1 8 °—SecmWyRp M1jM'= � a �ScmMyRq M.14 d % Cw varz-SxmesYRW M.4i4 -f 44t L}1 i °a ✓ „ c" �rnP+rvwou a+4 ^hT 5P �y�r v ♦ f l $fj�'�bp11 � uu°d.Ti `F 3l fE SPYltl6 . • West Side TID Attachment B2 � •V g P �� i W !i Kalmar Soutl Subdistrict __. aao ceo +.uxo zaeo MW I� L r_ 0 V 0 'Zf11 N L.• U La r Q 4� 0 N 0 V r V Q1 00 L EL o� o6 f �' �! of o '2 O (O Op W O; N d ((1 (Di pp N N) O a 0 N N .N V (`�] cc �� l0 O H ' I M_N cqI m V N N N U �i OIi Obi (NO (NO R 'C N m N (D II rl O 03 O O O 0 toI 1 --0.-_-(7 j.. Ln M MI -__ r- = n C = co LO co In Z N Mvr n r N N O m O I I I O O O O O O', O C co O coco Oil V M N m � T N (OCl W rM CO Vi 69 N� HMII Ili O (0 N N O O Cl) j « (NO (NO (�+J p Q N Q a CJ U ai (ri v rn rn r C W N N U N !➢ n en � is isr a co 0 O MLOMM N y0 (n M nl N W O 0 O m U n o N w (°poi m O LO O rl cCO ro o v o (o (o 0 o I U ! 5 C 00 I C.)o (n V O 0 LL a CD 4 2, ml Q y, �.,` Ma o I o H Ul lido w ciI U.. .1 A ATTACHMENT D Westside Transportation Improvement District Allocation of Transportation District Improvement Costs to Vacant Undeveloped Property and to the City Construction Costs Future Traffic Signals Design and Construction Engineering Costs Right -of -Way Acquisition Costs Contingency Costs Federal Funds TOTAL Project Costs Total Project Costs $63,384,725.00 $4,302,083.33 $10,153,021.25 $6,768,680.83 $6,768,680.83 State and County Project Costs $11,559,205.00 $1,135,416.67 $1,904,193.25 $1,269,462.17 $1,269,462.17 $90,027,191.25 $17,137,739.25 TOTAL Transportation Improvement District Cost 75% Share Allocated to 7,102.713 Acres of Developable Property 25% Share Allocated to City of Rochester Substandard Street Reconstruction Costs $36,444,726.00 Substandard Street Capacity Costs $36,444,726.00 Total WSTID Project Costs $51,825,520.00 $3,166,666.67 $8,248,828.00 $5,499,218.67 $5,499,218.67 $1,350,000.00 $72,889,452.00 $72,889,452.00 $54,667,089.00 $18,222,363.00 W ,- co pla, pp pppp n M O sF Cp O C3 O co CO O N M Of CC to J U IO Q O'er M' O P N O co n ti m OMO_ a I M IN (OD N D�f co CMO_ O, w 0.�l(n (a (a Ccli L LL g��}j O W m i @D O M CoQ W O. Vi th '.. �'FA 0 -0 k3 5 W r 0 W Y p, W . r 01 01 (O t0 N d' pIn(D N (D M .- N 'r �t .O- Cl) N to M N t0 CD a fD a W M M N N P O N O tO N N V I- �j N Y d ` CO N f- f) LO N 0 d' O O O CA Go . O L6 ' aV 7 tOM(l N 00 7 000 � �tp0 Of CCOpp coO 4mM0 OOi m d= tLl co co N M M �- (D N M M '- t j, I — -- wf� O(D n M M O LO CA M 1O A M ma IMco CD NP- (D .- A CV O •- .M- 'It A 1O O IO 0) N .- N (D O N M q Cl) (DO CD CD M O M 11, W yy CL aC� Z >�3 t0 (NO( to (O O t, O w NtNIt N CD fl"O t0 1WA co 1n NO 0 CO) r co to CO M N ~ m � I I.00Mco N co OWN M ((pp 07 N N(O� pppp A �(MD M N N r O tD t0 1� n t0 C9 D1 N R1 tD W Cn Q 07 Cl) (D IA co CCpp O N CV M �A M N M N W M N7 CA O 40 DD N P, W N N O! IO N (D O M 'Q (D M IO CO O N N i cl 7O o= 7 o_ '00 � OOO 000 0 000 000 000 :o 'Z ix=K — N Z— I}W=OCR W Z— ==K co Z— y � _ Z— K=OC y Z— y I J I J� Q! J Q J J Q [y=�K J Q a J ♦- 0 ' �Q i J yp sJ QJ QJ Y QJ Y..� QJ 0 Y.� QJ QJ 0 �. Y �i `l. 0 F i.Y..� Y Y Y Y U IM Attachment E: Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID) Proposed WSTID and Special Assessment Rates Zoning District Rate Ratio to R-1 R-1 $3,851.46 per Developable Acre 1:1 $0.088417 per Developable S.F. R-1X $3,851.46 per Developable Acre 1:1 $0.088417 per Developable S.F. R-2 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre 2:1 $0.176835 per Developable S.F. R-3 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre 2:1 $0.176835 per Developable S.F. B-1 $13,863.14 per Developable Acre 3.6:1 $0.318254 per Developable S.F. 13-4 $34,663.16 per Developable Acre 9:1 $0.795757 per Developable S.F. B-5 $13,863.14 per Developable Acre 3.6:1 $0.318254 per Developable S.F. M-1 $34,663.16 per Developable Acre 9:1 $0.795757 per Developable S.F. M-2 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre 2:1 $0.176835 per Developable S.F. Special Assessment Rates and TID Charges will be adjusted annually beginning on August 1, 2007 based on the change in the ENR CCI for Minneapolis over the preceding 12 month period. NO E. DiQ�Q�s��j�sJ9! .%Iv_q grit; gv Ei 'S��'gyy,g _ Hill w S J= ZZZ 6 R�'.SFBfi�g^-8M^8g5&85�:88 ! minummal k' All p 81 Sd' m gyka»SS CS&»» »»I 111 0.4 1 ii »5«a 8 C4. a� �y�p 080g88Sdm8tltl08tlA8A0�g0�g0gtl� � I»' g xc y nei'i�aiA bei si r_�Krinsinn nsfA 8 W gk i�$ IIL I' ; g $ RRR3'gRRCi�BA�g8a8 11 — 8 m » saaaa.ssgseasas 88888 e a ��S 3 $ [y�� 3 Ngg'db�ygg3 'n»dei��nl: S� nl g Qg Qg Qg QSH sO, gO, QO SH pO pS'... QS yg Qg SsS 8OpO r�a��Lf��l��n r'1: E@ 25 a Rg 8n S'��0 �.'f: QS ESQ AS�S5 yay tl ib yXy��gg��E aiN gSg iS �.T,��d{b �Syyy yyffi��8a 3'v�� � $ryrye5 gEg ��y3�y :3 i wi tt-aiai`.Yw a� s as a�yay>s a a 8Y ai35A an. e yys Ina i C_ I V I A l°$' 3 $'AdS�F- -AF R" A 'ffi Effigy -m I, fi �8� Rsih$�R$CAg E &^SRC$:'R`eAEIS ^ . ARRe R - R �� f7��ARFA'AwE - A i -��A"�"=9�8.n MIN 9 AC ='8§d RfrRms � Si R f P r sF iQF R R�%RRR 6.i Mnwn^^nwn^ pB cp`Y8$7.8in.8i�R��,�000R�$8 $8c W ��y 9AnA•E- A�99_ G88R8 89":E6• Re.Bw. mq$eARg RE c � o^y-gg '(� I- '',.� -bi�SNA�%y ¢¢pp qQ� i1F `n N$'n YY i%RB�N�SF p9 ppggpgy Stl iii .S.S R��iod gpgp d'd Nb qy ER, y y F E I� I� `m o � j 8288888888888 ag SRIC 11 $ as 88888881 fLR � aw 1 gas I yy 19 f E sn> ia11IIR9In! s I I '. A €IjiJill "i ii €€MjEi .11 yy iE �47 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 (507) 285-8232 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Freese Rochester Public Works FROM: Transportation Planning Division Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department RE: Calculation of Trip Generation Ratios The Transportation Planning Division was requested to prepare an analysis of comparative trip generation rates for various zoning district classifications to serve as the basis for calculating Transportation Improvement District (TID) charges in mixed use TID's. Public Works and Planning staff concluded in earlier discussions that zoning classifications provided an equitable basis for assigning transportation costs and a straightforward means of measuring the relative share to be assigned to each property within a TID. Staff also felt that zoning classifications could be categorized into five groups for purposes of this process. These five groups and the zoning classifications associated with each are: o Low Density Residential (R-1 and R-lx districts) o Medium Density Residential (R-2 and R-3) o General Commercial and Business (B-4 and M-1) o Neighborhood Commercial (B-1 and B-5) o Industrial (M-2) The goal of this analysis was to develop a comparative ratio of traffic impact for each land use group using the Low Density Residential group as the benchmark (ratio = 1.00). Table 1 on Page 3 summarizes the analysis. The resulting ratios for the five categories are: Low Density Residential = 1.00 General Commercial = 8.99 Industrial = 2.04 Medium Density Residential = 1.99 Neighborhood Commercial = 3.58 The assumptions and data used for this analysis as shown in Table 1 area as follows: 1) (Column B) The analysis is based on calculating the traffic impact created by theoretical 40 acre site (net developable acreage) being fully developed with the predominant land uses permitted by the zoning within each zoning group 2) (Column C) Column C shows the land use types utilized for purposes of this analysis. Land use types that typically account for the majority of traffic within a given zoning group were used for purposes of this analysis. 3) (Column D) Column D indicates the percentage of the typical 40 acre development area assigned to each land use type for purposes of this analysis. In the case of the B-4/M-1 zoning group, the percentage distribution was arrived at based on an evaluation of how existing non-residential square footage in the city is distributed among the different primary land use types used in the analysis. In the case of the B-1B-5 zoning group, distribution ratios for specialty retail and hi -intensity retail were set at a level to effectively provide for a small specialty retail center of approximately 25,000 sgft and a single hi -intensity use (drive-in bank or convenience store) for every 40 acres of development, with the remainder divided between office and small business use 4) (Column E) Column E reflects the intensity of development that is assumed for each land use type. This is calculated in semis of either density (dwelling units per acre) or Floor Area Ratio (reflecting the amount of floor area that can be developed as a % of available land area). The factors used are reflective of development that has occurred in the city over the last 10-15 years. 5) (Column F) Column F simply reports the resulting level of development when the density or floor area ratio factors are applied to the share of the acreage assumed to be developed for each specific land use type within a group. 6) (Column G) Column G reports the PM Peak Hour trip generation rate for each type of land use used in the analysis. These figures are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, which is recognized as the primary source of trip generation data in the United States. The trip generation rate reflects external trips per unit of development; for example, in row 6 the figure 1.01 means that we can expect to see 1.01 trips for each dwelling unit in a single family development in the late aftemoonlearly evening peak hour. Similarly, in row 20, the figure 3.75 means we can expect to see on average 3.75 trips for every 1000 square feet of floor area in a shopping center development. In the Industrial zoning group (rows 29-32) an adjustment is made for heavy truck traffic to reflect the added impact to traffic operations created by length, speed, turning radius and other operational characteristics of heavy trucks. In column G the percentage of traffic accounted for by heavy trucks is reported; in the analysis each heavy truck is counted as the equivalent to 1.5 passenger cars or light trucks in the traffic estimate reported in Column H. The % factor is based on information found in a report from the Transportation Research Board (NCHRP Synthesis 298 — Truck Trip Generation) and the article "Truck Trip Generation Characteristics of Non -Residential Land Uses" that appeared in the July 1994 issue of the ITE Journal. 7) (Column H) Column H simply reports the total PM peak hour trips that are expected arrived at by multiplying the PM rate (column G) by the assumed level of development (column F). A trip total for each zoning group is reported that illustrates the assumed level of traffic given full development of the theoretical 40 acre site. 8) (Column 1) Column I reports the comparative ratio for each zoning group, which is calculated by dividing the total trips estimated for the theoretical 40 acre development site by the level of trips estimated for a theoretical 40 acre low density site (which is 144.85 trips as shown in row 8) TABLE 1 Trip Generation Ratios for TO Charges RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NON-RESIDENTIAL. LAND USE 0 Changes reflected in Version 2 of Exhibit 1 In the B-1 / B-5 decided to emphasize the B-1 since that is by far the largest zoning classification in this group In B-1, we typically see some retail so added a level of retail that would provide for — 25,000 small strip center an( a single hi intensity use. The rate if 45.33 is blended average of drive in bank, fast food with drive thru and C-Store with gas pumps; rate is very close to bank rate. C Store rate is —60, and fast food rate is —35 Trip Generation Ratios for TID Charges RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE 2006 NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO: OWNERS IN CASCADE TOWNSHIP TO: DEVELOPERS IN CASCADE TOWNSHIP TO: OWNERS IN KALMAR TOWNSHIP ow EdLIiL— ROCHESTER April 21, 2006 1. 3 'ZF - 0. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4th Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 (507) 287-7800 FAX (507) 281-6216 You are invited to attend an Open House meeting to learn about the proposed establishment of a Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID). The meeting has been scheduled for May 3, 2006 from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm in Room 104 of the Rochester City Hall. City staff will be available to answer any questions you may have about the creation of the WSTID and what it means to you as a property owner in this area. Meeting Objectives - To inform the public about: • Proposed future roadway projects. • Proposed roadway cross-section (roadway type, urban/rural, width, design speed, etc). • Proposed methodology for equitable cost allocation of project costs using zoning trips per net developable acre as the basis for WSTID Charges. • Emphasize that property owners are NOT being asked to pay for these road improvements until they or others develop or redevelop the property. The City will have information on proposed projects, cost estimates and WSTID rates. An example application of WSTID charges for 6 parcels is shown on the attached sheet. If you are not able to attend the meeting and desire information on the proposed Westside Transportation Improvement District you can access the information that will be available at the meeting at: wryvw.rochesternm.trov/departments/publicworks/hottopics/index.asp . City of Rochester Transportation Improvement District Program: The City's Public Works and Planning Departments have identified the potential transportation needs for newly developing areas within the City of Rochester and within the City's future Urban Service Area. The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan for the urbanizing area in and around Rochester was approved in 2005 by the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG), County Board and City Council. The ROCOG Transportation Plan included certain general assumptions on land use / zoning. The result is a comprehensive transportation network of freeways, expressways, arterials and collectors to serve the traffic demands in the WSTID area. The Rochester City Council has directed Public Works Department staff to determine the estimated cost of potential roadway improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve the future growth areas of the City- and develop an equitable method for allocation of these future project costs to benefiting property in the area. The City will collect the W STID Charges when the property is developed or redeveloped in the City. In 2004, the Rochester City Council adopted policies related to Transportation Improvement Districts and funding for the associated transportation improvements. The City Council has created two (2) Transportation Improvement Districts in other parts of the City since that time. The TID policies include the following provisions: • Federal, State and County Funds received for any particular TID project will be used to reduce the total project costs associated with the TID projects. • Cost sharing between the general public tax payers and the developers of the property shall be made on a 25% public and 75% property developer basis. • Allocation of costs per parcel based on an equitable cost allocation methodology. • TID Charges payable at the time of development of vacant undeveloped property. • TID Charges are payable at the time of redevelopment of existing developed property. (Developed property abutting a TID. roadway may be subject to a Special Assessment for a portion of the road reconstruction costs at the time the roadway is reconstructed). • TID Charges for areas that have future interchanges, such as the proposed interchange at TH 14 / 60'h Avenue NW (CR104), shall be calculated such that the property developer shall pay for the equivalent cost of a signalized expressway intersection and not the higher cost of the interchange. If you have any questions please visit the web site or attend the Open House on May 3, 2006. www rochestermn gov/departments/publicworks/hottonics/index asp Sincerely, Richard W. Freese, P.E. Director of Public Works / City Engineer April 21, 2006 r 4 fq r ;ii� 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4th Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 (507) 287-7800 FAX (507) 281-6216 You are invited to attend an Open House meeting to learn about the proposed establishment of a Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID). The meeting has been scheduled for May 3, 2006 from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm in Room 104 of the Rochester City Hall. City staff will be available to answer any questions you may have about the creation of the WSTID and what it means to you as a property owner in this area. Meeting Objectives - To inform the public about: • Proposed future roadway projects. • Proposed roadway cross-section (roadway type, urban/rural, width, design speed, etc). • Proposed methodology for equitable cost allocation of project costs using zoning trips per net developable acre as the basis for WSTID Charges. • Emphasize that property owners are NOT being asked to pay for these road improvements until they or others develop or redevelop the property. The City will have information on proposed projects, cost estimates and WSTID rates. An example application of uTSTID charges for 6 parcels is shown on the attached sheet. The Olmsted County Recorder's office shows that you own property with the proposed WSTID area and that you have a recorded Development Agreement with the City of Rochester. This Development Agreement includes provisions for payment of TID Charges. You have been required to pay estimated TID charges at the time you platted portions of your property. The Development Agreement also requires there be an adjusted payment based on the final TID rates when adopted by the City Council. The proposed WSTID rates will apply to your property. It is anticipated the WSTID rates (attached) will be formally established by the City Council on May 15, 2006. If you are not able to attend the meeting and desire information on the proposed Westside Transportation Improvement District you can access the information that will be available at the meeting at: www.rochestermn.Qov/departments publicworks/hottopies/index.asp . City of Rochester Transportation Improvement District Program: The City's Public Works and Planning Departtnents have identified the potential transportation needs for newly developing areas within the City of Rochester and within the City's future Urban Service Area. The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan for the urbanizing area in and around Rochester was approved in 2005 by the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG), County Board and City Council. The ROCOG Transpgrtation Plan included certain general assumptions on land use / zoning. The result is a comprehensive transportation network of freeways, expressways, arterials and collectors to serve the traffic demands in the WSTID area. The Rochester City Council has directed Public Works Department staff to determine the estimated cost of potential roadway improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve the future growth areas of the City and develop an equitable method for allocation of these future project costs to benefiting property in the area. The City will collect the WSTID Charges when the property is developed or redeveloped in the City. In 2004, the Rochester City Council has adopted policies related to Transportation Improvement Districts and funding for the associated transportation improvements. The City Council has created two (2) Transportation Improvement Districts in other parts of the City since that time. The TID policies include the following provisions: • Federal, State and County Funds received for any particular TID project will be used to reduce the total project costs associated with the TID projects. • Cost sharing between the general public tax payers and the developers of the property shall be made on a 25% public and 75% property developer basis. • Allocation of costs per parcel based on an equitable cost allocation methodology. • TID Charges payable at the time of development of vacant undeveloped property. • TID Charges are payable at the time of redevelopment of existing developed property. (Developed property abutting a TID roadway may be subject to a Special Assessment for a portion of the road reconstruction costs at the time the roadway is reconstructed). • TID Charges for areas that have future interchanges, such as the proposed interchange at TH 14 / 60"' Avenue IrTW (CR104), shall be calculated such that the property developer shall pay for the equivalent cost of a signalized expressway intersection and not the higher cost of the interchange. If you have any questions please visit the web site or contact me at 507-281-6195. www.rochesternm.,gov/departments/publicworks/hottopics/index. asp Sincerely, Richard W. Freese, P.E. Director of Public Works / City Engineer ti 'MRILk Lin.ROCHES t. r r DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4th Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 March 31, 2006 (507) 287-7800 FAX (507) 281-6216 You are invited to attend a meeting to discuss the proposed establishment of a Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID). The Kalmar Town Board has asked City of Rochester Public Works staff to attend their April 17, 2006 Board Meeting to discuss the proposed Westside Transportation Improvement District boundaries, roadway improvements and cost allocation. An Agenda Item has been scheduled for the Kalmar Town Board Meeting on April 17, 2006 at 8:00pm at the Kalmar Town Hall. City staff will make a presentation to the Board and attendees and will answer any questions you may have about the creation of the WSTID and what it means to you as a property owner in this area. Meeting Objectives - To inform the public about: • Proposed future roadway projects. • Proposed roadway cross-section (roadway type, urban/rural, width, design speed, etc). • Proposed methodology for equitable cost allocation of project costs using zoning trips per net developable acre as the basis for TID Charges. • Emphasize that property owners are NOT being asked to pay for these road improvements until they or others develop or redevelop the property. The City will have information on proposed projects, cost estimates and WSTID rates. An example application of WSTID charges for 6 parcels is shown on the attached sheet. If you are not able to attend the meeting and desire information on the proposed Westside Transportation Improvement District you can access the same information that will be available at the meeting at: www.rochestermn.Qov/departments/publicworks/hottopics/index.asp . City of Rochester Transportation Improvement District Program: The City's Public Works and Planning Departments have identified the potential transportation needs for newly developing areas within the City of Rochester and within the City's future Urban Service Area. The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan for the urbanizing area in and around Rochester was approved in 2005 by the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG), County Board and City Council. The ROCOG Transportation Plan made certain general assumptions on land use / zoning to prepare a comprehensive transportation network of freeways, expressways, arterials and collectors to serve the traffic demands in the WSTID area. The Rochester City Council has directed Public Works Department staff to determine the estimated cost of potential roadway improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve the future growth areas of the City and develop an equitable method for allocation of these future project costs to benefiting property in the area. The City will collect the WSTID Charges when the property is developed or redeveloped in the City. The Rochester City Council has adopted policies related to Transportation Improvement Districts (TIDs) and funding for the associated transportation improvements. The City Council has created two (2) Transportation Improvement Districts in other parts of the City since that time. The TID policies include the following provisions: • Federal, State and County Funds received for any particular TID project will be used to reduce the total project costs associated with the TID projects. • Cost sharing between the general public tax payers and the developers of the property shall be made on a 25% public and 75% property developer basis. • Allocation of costs per parcel based on an equitable cost allocation methodology. • TID Charges payable at the time of development of vacant undeveloped property. • TID Charges are payable at the time of redevelopment of existing developed property. (Developed property abutting a TID roadway may be subject to a Special Assessment for a portion of the road reconstruction costs at the time the roadway is reconstructed). • TID Charges for areas that have future interchanges, such as the proposed interchange at TH 14 / 60`h Avenue NW (CR104), shall be calculated such that the property developer shall pay for the equivalent cost of a signalized expressway intersection and not the higher cost of the interchange. Sincerely, Richard W. Freese, P.E. Director of Public Works / City Engineer The Kalmar Town Board Supervisors and their contact information are listed below. John Meyer: 507-635-5726 Ray Wiest: 507-635-3261 Tom Tweite; 507-365-8035 Westside Transportation Improvement District (WSTID) Special Assessment Rates and WSTID Charges Zoning District Rate Ratio to R-1 R-1 $3,851.46 per Developable Acre 1:1 $0.088417 per Developable S.F. R-IX $3,851.46 per Developable Acre 1:1 $0.088417 per Developable S.F. R-2 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre 2:1 $0.176835 per Developable S.F. R-3 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre 2:1 $0.176835 per Developable S.F. B-1 $13,863.14 per Developable Acre 3.6:1 $0.318254 per Developable S.F. B-4 $34,663.16 per Developable Acre 9:1 $0.795757 per Developable S.F. B-5 $13,863.14 per Developable Acre 3.6:1 $0.318254 per Developable S.F. M-1 $34,663.16 per Developable Acre 9:1 $0.795757 per Developable S.F. M-2 $7,702.93 per Developable Acre 2:1 $0.176835 per Developable S.F. Special Assessment Rates and TID Charges will be adjusted annually beginning on August 1, 2007 based on the change in the ENR CCI for Minneapolis over the preceding 12 month period. IF iam µfp RNMiN6�OD%Gul1/ WYR9Mt AtlO-B]$fmtN E mmr it.P.t4EM T.ffi ' i 3 ! ..... Wp V2at sjss-tlYtwy' 8��^ Q.Y! ubMAm {�"'' O WF1AbM i215 .. S ♦ 'm'T_SmLLryRNM535 F 4�' v p 6Ew�y RNM S 6.eeM'RNMS= ]E F 4 ! .®rvnn as ZL31N a+ ,I y e Jer drn+pemtTrer F y WEST SIDE TID EXamDIe Illustrations Parcel #4 10 acres gross acres - Existing Vacant Parcel 9 acres developable Zoning 9.0 acres B-4 Commercial Mat Side TID charges: 9.0 X $34,053.16 per acre = $311,968.44 Parcel #5 4 acres gross - Existing Developed Parcel Zoning 4.0 acres B-4 Commercial Nest Side TID Charges: None Street Reconstruction Charge: $109.87 per foot X 175 feet frontage = $19,227.25 Parcel #6 10 acres gross - Existing Vacant Parcel 9 acres developable Zoning 9.0 acres B-1 Commercial Nest Side TID Charges: 9.0 X $13,853.14 par acre = $124,76B.26 WEST SIDE TID RATES R-1/R-1x Zoning = $3,8 51.46 per acre R-2/R-3 Zoning = $7,702.93 per acre B-1/9-5 Zoning = $13,863.14 per acre B-4/M-1 Zoning = $34,663.16 per acre M-2 Zoning = $7,702.39 per acre a 3 Parcel #1 20 acres gross - Existing Vacant Parcel 15 acres developable Zoning 15 acres R-1 Single Family Residential Neffi Side TO Charges: 15.0 X $3851.46 per acme = $67,771.90 1 ,: ix. 1 - . N 0 490 980 1,470 1,960 2,450 W+E Feet s West Side TID - Sign I Name Company Add ressefyc, Telephone Email Address ,-2,oa S fletot^fzr jJ-k,Vj r r S7 -r ,v •� Z8 ( 160E r1, r4cL t4-m t �r4i 57 F Ad'9- rys 1 West Side TO - Sign In Name Company Address Telephone Email Address �Aw LL-Qu- 39a.l(aa'At ' Z.g (-160 Z J alb nfnl w Irc . C. C 05/15/06 12:29 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. , CITY CLERK [�002 I ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT V,Q OCNfi57ER•M7 7A 2122 Campus 9nve BE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 U: C o U r.. OF www.olmstedcounTy.conJplanning no; 'Air I TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: May 15, 2006 RE: Substantial Land Alteration for Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty known as Willow Heights 5th Addition. The applicant is 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. A group of citizens have petitioned the EQB requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be prepared for the Willow Heights 5t' Addition development. The Council recently approved a GDP and preliminary plat for development however the requested substantial land alteration was tabled to the meeting this evening. The petition will be brought before the Council on either June 5th or 19th for the determination on the preparation of an EAW. No action can be taken on the pending substantial land alteration until the governing body responds to the EAW petition. BUILDING CODE 5071205-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/2a5-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/2B5-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/265-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 �(� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 05/15/06 12:29 FAX 507 28 d* Svenhy Brent ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. CITY CLERK f71003 Page 1 of 2 From: Adkins, Terry [tadkins@ci.rochester.mn.us) Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:48 PM To: Svenby Brent Cc: Baker Mitzi; Neumann, Gary; Freese, Richard: Wheeler Phil Subject: RE: EAW petition Minn. Stat. Section 116D.04, subd. 2a (c) says an EAW must be prepared when a petition is presented to the governing body calling for such action and when the body determines there is the potential for significant environmental effects. I believe these are commonly referred to as discretionary EAW petitions. Minn. Stat, Section 116D.04, subd. 2b(1) says "[]f an environmental assessment worksheet ... is required for a governmental action under subdivision 2a, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit, approve a project, or begin a project, until: (1) a petition for an environment assessment worksheet is dismissed;" In Bolander v City of Minneapolis. 502 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1993), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a scenario where the City of Minneapolis refused to approve a pending license application once a petition for a discretionary EAW was filed. In a decision authored by Chief Justice Keith, the Supremes upheld the City's action and stated as follows: 502 N.W.2d 203 Supreme Court of Minnesota. CARL BOLANDER & SONS COMPANY, petitioner, Appellant, V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Respondents, State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Hubert H. Humphrey, III, applicant for intervention, and Prospect Park and East River Road Improvement Association, Amicus Curiae. Nos. C4-91-2538, C7-92-48 and C9-92-116. July 2, 1993. Government action was required under Minn.Stat. chap. 116D when the petition was forwarded to the city by the EQB, and the license could not be granted by the city until the EAW petition was dismissed. Minn Stat 5 116D 04 subd 2b(1) (1992). Clearly, granting a license is among the activities described as government action in Minn Stat fi 116D 04 subd la(d) (1992). Bolander's argument that granting the license under these facts is merely a ministerial action not requiring governmental action is erroneous. In other words, 116D.04, subd. 2b(1) applies to those situations where a petition fora discretionary EAW has been tiled before the governing body makes a final decision on a pending license or permit. Permission to engage in substantial land alteration activity occurs in the form of a conditional use permit. 62.1101, (2)(a)(2); 62.1104; 62.1105; 62.1106. Since 116D.04, subd. 2b(1) applies to a pending permit, since Bolander v City of Minneapolis says 116D.04, subd. 2b(1) applies to petitions filed under subd. 2a (c), and since we have a pending substantial land alteration conditional use permit pending before the Council, the law requires the Council to not take action on the pending substantial land alteration until the governing body responds to the petition. Richard, you should probably so inform Ms. Caron of this latest development. cn vnnne MEETING ns� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS — Tabled Item PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Substantial Land Alteration for Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty known as Willow Heights 5`h Addition. The applicant is requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for grading that exceeds 10 feet of cut or till on the property. The property is located along the north side of 401h Street SW, west of Willow Heights. May 11, 2006 DATE: 5-15-06 Brent Svenby, Senior Planner On May 1, 2006 the Council held a public hearing on General Development Plan # 268 and Preliminary Plat #06- 02. As part the preliminary plat, the applicant was requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration for the grading work proposed on the property. The SLA is required because of the elevation changes proposed, the amount of material being excavated and the 2:1 slopes proposed on the property. The Council approved the GDP and the preliminary plat but the SLA request was tabled to the May 15th meeting. During the public hearing, the testimony seemed to center around how this development would affect the adjacent properties which complain at they have drainage problems. Staff met with the Public Works Department to review the requested SLA and what measures would likely be necessary to help prevent additional drainage, both surface and subsurface, from affecting the property owners who live on Willow Court SW. The conclusion reached was that the applicant should install surface and subsurface drainage facilities on the back portion of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2 consistent with the final approval grading and drainage plan to mitigate any surface water runoff or groundwater discharge from the site within the dwelling units of the residents on Willow Court SW. This would require that the preliminary plat shall be revised so that these drainage facilities are located within an outlot. The maintenance and ownership of the outlot would to be addressed. If the council approves the requested SLA staff recommends that the following condition be added: The applicant shall install surface and subsurface drainage facilities on the back portion of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2 consistent with the final approval grading and drainage plan to mitigate any surface water runoff or groundwater discharge from the site within the dwelling units of the residents on Willow Court SW. The preliminary plat shall be revised so that these drainage facilities are located within an outlot. The outlot shall be deeded to the residents living on Willow Court SW, if the residents are agreeable to maintaining said outlot, so they can maintain the surface and subsurface drainage facilities, otherwise said outlot shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association that will be established for the subdivision. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity. 2. The motion shall also include approval or denial of the proposed slopes at 2:1. Attachment: No I E A n L 4) I%g Fes^ SA�mr TTV 1. SLA Findings 6 ,/ t C ,t a�� �+' pot. -I- A corn o4 7� `f% Mr:r,• vi�,annr� Q[! I t Distribution: 1. CiAdministrator pr �47'on It v�1 �C i� Cr � f`, fiymin • 07�1GC 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m, on Monday, May 15, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second to: ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 c c u w TT a r www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: May 11, 2006 �ia+s�9ii�A � Nkr�f11 r�rYti , fv�ia:fiwriia RE: Substantial Land Alteration for Preliminary Plat #06-02 by North American Realty known as Willow Heights 5th Addition. The applicant is 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. 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 400,000 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 401h 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 however the proposed grading will need to meet engineering standards adopted by the City. 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 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-6224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 r FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER to comply with City standards as well as the reclamation standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 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 401h 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 401h 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. Single family residential uses surround the property to the east, north and west. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The adjacent properties can still be used for single family residential uses. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed in within 24 months. 8) 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 requirements if the proposed slopes of 2:1 are not approved. 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. At the time the grading and drainage plan is submitted for approval by the City detailed studies will need to be provided so that drainage patterns and stormwater management facilities can be adequately studied. 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 ("r i Unit on any mitigation. It appears that the grading to affect a wetland located on the western portion of the site. Approval to fill this wetland will need to be granted by the LGU. 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. 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 however at this time a formal grading plan has not been submitted for approval. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. The Public Works Department will need to determine the amount of surety needed that will allow the site to be fully restored to a safe condition. 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 if 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. CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 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 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; 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; 8) 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. 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. 0 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. 61.147 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. NVId 315 XTH kL LU C/) LU OR wit Ik I -TT T JL\ TT -TT- , , I _ 'tT F q�n r� m "'� IMM X1+`�84Sdwou xuarw xrallow as Nv' "JNI�Yt1� 1d3ON0� 1 � — -•— 068 Ntl01a3Wtl H1bON s!° w .. _.... _ _ _ .. �„�.,, ;LralaN Morw ��II I t m ` O tao c7.. -rm Z 0 Z Luba €u 3 I s ? pp 3 G SH W O 0 U 1=- s,�J.--..J� _C n OF 1 ���}�1yYYr!�1•i �4465 xVl'Y33SlIIna 90/S�/CO - xuoxa ��•auimxuoc "ld x011tlWvl]3tl 7 i9WSWL sWdw. Br - re ve 19 1 W E N 20 �3 his" '\ F;-Ellas:6a1 ui E01 Cq -�•vuczesna.rriNr, ' + •' - � ass? : [ •/ J a � �• �, iA waiONR Fvan�iN uui 0Nv ON10 NOl$3LONV103tl 0NV 5"IM41,00Vtl ' f0%pico nsaocMai NIOWV HiaoN 1.9h 0 w A 7 0; �� N U a O 0 u 03. Q 6� gy i °g Y W O �= z „ _ €sa gas_y�ya�e ed Sj 8y=o° ygs 'nz a _'s z $$°= E affo q 9 We sg 5 Q>Y u. aaa� W°iYl .�° .E�3 a.ou �- �°+ 8z o � F Y pa3s T B P, oil Revised Project Narrative Substantial Land Alteration Permit Willow Heights 51h 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 f39-acre parcel located on the north side of 400' 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. 11 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'h Avenue as shown on the preliminary plat documents. The project 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 feet 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 401h 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 401h 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: 1) The activity ivill 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) proximiry 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 S"' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 1 of 8 auS zoning district. The maty of the construction access will be off of 40'" Street, including all hauling. Access will be coordinated with the 40" Street improvements contractor. 2) 1'isual, noise, dust, and/or e.ccessive on- or off -site environmental impoets on public parks, roadways Mid residential ureus can be udequately mitigated by the Applicant and a f lly detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the eo.a of such mitigation, the source of fii n .s for such mitigation, and adequule legal assurance that u/l of such mitigation activities are carried out; 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) The use of trucks and heavy equipment w ll not adversely impact the safety and maintenance ofpublic roads providing access to the site, 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 orsurface water quality; With the proposed erosion control and sedimentation measures, groundwater and surface water quality will not be adversely affected. There will be no impacts to air quality. 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or ifsuch 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 or planned development, public facilities, 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 Heiqhts 5"' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 2 of 8 8) The site plan provides for adequate hu_ffers cmd screening ve« r-rnrmrl from tmsighth, features of the euznution operation: The project will be minimally visible from the west and north sides of the property due to the elevation difference of the eraded property. 40ih 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 appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut 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. 1 d) 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 stormwater management facilities. 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or sut face 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 Citypolicies. The project will result in a residential use that is consistent with existing R-I zoning district regulations and comparable to the adjacent neighborhoods. Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5'h Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 3 of 8 15) The proposed ucrh4ry complies with the requirements of the ndopled building code _ 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. Kottscbade, 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 '/2 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 RevisedMarch 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 4 of 8 M Govermnent Unit (LGU) for approval. Proposed wetland impacts will be mitigated with off site credits as approved with future permitting. Utilities: A public sanitary sewer trunk line and public waiermain are located on the site adjacent to the east boundary. within the existing Willow Court SW right of way. The project proposes to sen'e the proposed lots from connections to the sanitary sewer in Willow Court SW. The lower proposed lots will be served by the connection to the public water main in Willow Court. Public water main and sanitary sewer are located in the existing 9'h Avenue SW right of way. This sanitary sewer is too shallow to serve the development; the water main will be extended to serve the upper lots_ To serve the western portion of the lower cul de sac, a sanitary sewer trunk will be installed in the proposed 40'h Street right of way along the southern boundary, from the existing manhole at the intersection of 401h Street and Willow Court SW. Traffic: A traffic analysis was previously prepared for MnDOT for the design of the TH 63140'h 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 401h Street SW which is currently being improved under a MnDOT contract. Grading and Drainage The applicant/developer 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 40i' 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 401h 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 Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights S'h Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 5 of 8 and routed beneath 40ih Street via culverts into infiltration basins constructed on the south side of the road on property owned by the Applicant. The site ultimately dischar_es into 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 stages 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 to siomt sewer construct ion- Other erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented including ivpical 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 50' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 6 of 8 AD e 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 eanhwork activities: • .Adjust erosion control fencing and other measures after turf has been established. Lighting 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 40" Street. No electric, sanitary or communications utilities are anticipated to be required. Portable sanitary facilities will be provided. As required, generators will be used to power equipment. The nearest police station is located at 3" Avenue and 4'" Street SE. The nearest fire station is located at 61" 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 t39-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 Applicand 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 Heiqhts 5"' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 7 of 8 l P Project Team Applicant/ Developer North American Realty 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade, President Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email foknar(a-),deskmedia.com Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLK Incorporated Phone 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Fax Minnetonka, MN 55343 Michele Caron, P.E., Project Manager/Sr. Prof. EngineerEmail Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Email 952-933-0972 952-933-1153 mcaron6lUlkinccom jdietricha,rlkinc.com G^.Willow Creek Commons LM2005-666-M\_Correspondmce\Revised SLA 1-27-06\Revised Na &c-substan land A 01-27-D6_dm Project Narrative -Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5'h Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 8 of 8