Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/19/2006_Regular
CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA �( I ` COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS (Q GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 15 JUNE 19, 2006 REGULAR ADJOURNED 7:00 P.M. VLEVOE CF AMEC1ANCE P GF, 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 3-4 D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes 5-6 2) Amendment #1 to State Grant Agreement #86581 for Air Service Promotion at the Rochester International Airport 7-8 3) Approve and execute the Assignment and Assumption of concession agreement for Budget Rent a Car 9-10 4) Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc., to prepare plans/specifications and provide onsite construction inspection 11-12 5) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 13-14 6) Approval of Accounts Payable 15-16 7) Approval of Fire Pumper Truck Purchase 17-18 8) Agreement between Rochester Fire Department and RCTC 19-20 9) Memorandum of Understanding — City of Rochester and IAFF Local 3869 Dispatchers 21-22 10) Emergency Communications Coordinator Position Classification 23-24 11) MnDOT Right of Way Permit for Construction of TH52 East Frontage Road 25-26 12) Advertise for Bids: (J6538) Extend Storm Sewer 2702 Century Ln NE to back property line 27-28 13) Advertise for Bids: (J7237) Alley Reconstruction in the 500 block between 9th Ave SW & 10th Ave SW 29-30 14) First Supplemental Amendment to Development Agreement for North Orchard Park Subdivision 31-32 15) Utility Connection Agreement — Kenneth R. Ryckman and Elaine M. Ryckman (M&B#06-05) 33-34 35-36 37-38 39-40 41-42 43-44 45-46 47-48 49-50 51-54 55-56 57-58 59-60 61-62 E) 63-72 73-74 75-120 121-130 131-132 16) Surety Agreement for Public Improvements Associated with City -Owner Contract J5207 "Public Improvements to Serve Mills Addition to Rochester" 17) Owner Contract — Construction of 3rd Ave NW from West River Parkway NW to 37th St NW and on -site public improvements to serve the proposed Hy-Vee Convenience Store (SE Quad of 37" St NW & 3'd Ave NW) — J5199 18) Owner Contract — Public Storm Sewer to Serve Part of Block 3, Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision — J5238 19) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Pebble Creek Phase I, Development — J5128 20) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Forest Knoll Condominiums — J5230 21) Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with Mayo Building Ambulance Entrance on 3'd Ave SW — J5231 22) Owner Contract — Watermain Relocation to Facilitate the RCTC Health/Science Building Renovation Project — J5236 23) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Canal Place SE — J5198 24) Supplemental Agreement #1 Project M4-31 (J7227) Reconstruction of the Alley in the 10 Block of 2"d St. S.W. Between 2"d St. and the Peace Plaza 25) Consideration of Bids: Replace Existing Lift Station #4, J7739 26) Contract to Complete Mussel Translocation 27) Award of Bids/Camera Repairs and Updates in Parking Ramps 28) 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 4 29) 2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 6 30) Approval to Enter into Lease of Police Vehicles 31) Real Estate — Settlement for Right of Way Acquisition for 20`h Street SE Sewer Project (J-9869) HEARINGS 1) Receive Evidence Relating to Disorderly Use Complaints that have taken place upon the Property Located at 456 131h Avenue N.W. in Rochester Owned by Mr. Jason Novak. 2) Consider the Expansion of Residential Permit Parking Zone 6 on Fifth Avenue S.W., on the East Side from 6'h Street S.W. to'/2 Block South. 3) Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 by Franklin Kottschade for property located south of 401h Street S.W., west of TH63 and east of 111h Avenue S.W. 4) Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 by Willow Creek Commons, LLC, located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 481h Street S.W. and west of TH63 5) Zoning District Amendment #04-14 by Willow Creek Commons, LLC, to change from M-1 and R-1 to R-3 district on property located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 48'h Street S.W. and west of TH63. 133-164 6) General Development Plan #243 by Willow Creek Commons, LLC, 165-196 7) Preliminary Plat #06-05 to be known as Bonnie Vista Estates by Franklin P. Kottschade/Willow Creek Commons, LLC, located along the south side of Willow Creek, south of 40"' Street S.W., east of 111h Avenue S.W. and west of TH63. 197-204 8) Zoning District Amendment 406-03 by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC to rezone from B-4 to M-1 and R-1 to M-1 districts on property located along the east side of TH63, north of 48'h Street S.E., along the west side of Maine Avenue S.E. 205-216 9) Amendment of General Development Plan #259 known as Canal Place S.E. by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC 217-234 10) Preliminary Plat #06-10 by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC to be known as Canal Place S.E. 235-246 11) Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 (Cedarwood Plaza) by Richard Hawkins to allow for an increase in size of a freestanding business sign on property located along the east side of 181h Avenue N.W. and north of 41" Street N.W. and is known as Cedarwood Plaza. 247-258 12) Final Plat #06-15 by Arcon Development, Inc., to be known as Forest Knoll Condominiums on property located along both the east and west sides of Forest Knoll Drive S.E., north of Forest Knoll Place S.E. F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 259-260 1) Sound Amplification Requests 261-262 2) Annual MS4 Storm Water Permit Public Meeting G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 263-264 H) TABLED ITEMS 265-298 1) Decision on the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in response to the citizens' petition to the Environmental Quality Board with regard to the Willow Heights 5th Addition 299-324 2) 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 S.W. west of Willow Heights. OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 61 OPEN COMMENT PERIOD 'EM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD ORIGINATING DEPT: RI CITY ADMINISTRATOR A PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not bcussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. % J ,OUNCIL ACTION: mofion by Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/06 CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N, CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-29 ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA TTEMS PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the 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) Amendment #1 to State Grant Agreement #86581 for Air Service Promotion at the Rochester International Airport 3) Approve and execute the Assignment and Assumption of concession agreement for Budget Rent a Car 4) Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc., to prepare plans/specifications and provide onsite construction inspection 5) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous Activities 6) Approval of Accounts Payable 7) Approval of Fire Pumper Truck Purchase 8) Agreement between Rochester Fire Department and RCTC 9) Memorandum of Understanding — City of Rochester and IAFF Local 3869 Dispatchers 10) Emergency Communications Coordinator Position Classification 11) MnDOT Right of Way Permit for Construction of TH52 East Frontage Road 12) Advertise for Bids: (J6538) Extend Storm Sewer 2702 Century Ln NE to back property line 13) Advertise for Bids: (J7237) Alley Reconstruction in the 500 block between 9" Ave SW & 10"' Ave SW 14) First Supplemental Amendment to Development Agreement for North Orchard Park Subdivision 15) Utility Connection Agreement — Kenneth R. Ryckman and Elaine M. Ryckman (M&B406-05) 16) Surety Agreement for Public Improvements Associated with City -Owner Contract J5207 "Public Improvements to Serve Mills Addition to Rochester" 17) Owner Contract — Construction of 3 d Ave NW from West River Parkway NW to 37"' St NW and on -site public improvements to serve the proposed Hy-Vee Convenience Store (SE Quad of 37 St NW & 3rd Ave NW) — J5199 18) Owner Contract — Public Storm Sewer to Serve Part of Block 3, Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision — J5238 19) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Pebble Creek Phase I, Development — J5128 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: I Page 2 June 19, 2006 20) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Forest Knoll Condominiums — J5230 21) Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with Mayo Building Ambulance Entrance on 3'd Ave SW — J5231 22) Owner Contract — Watermain Relocation to Facilitate the RCTC Health/Science Building Renovation Project — J5236 23) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Canal Place SE — J5198 24) Supplemental Agreement #1 Project M4-31 (J7227) Reconstruction of the Alley in the 10 Block of 2nd St. S.W. Between 2nd St. and the Peace Plaza 25) Consideration of Bids: Replace Existing Lift Station #4, J7739 26) Contract to Complete Mussel Translocation 27) Award of Bids/Camera Repairs and Updates in Parking Ramps 28) 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 4 29) 2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 6 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06/19/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport 1.0_� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment 41 to State Grant Agreement #86581 for Air Service PREPARED BY: Promotion at the Rochester International Airport. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Execute Amendment #1 to State Grant Agreement #86581. This State Grant Agreement provides state funding for Air Service Development at the Rochester International Airport. The amendment extends the expiration date to 12/31/2007 and adds two firms: the Boyd Group and ACSG to the list of approved consultants. Funding: 70% State 30% Local 'OUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to State Grant Agreement #86581. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: Consent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport i MEETING DATE: 06/19/06 ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve and execute the Assignment and Assumption of concession PREPARED BY: agreement for Budget Rent A Car. I Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Approve and execute the Assignment and Assumption of concession agreement for Budget Rent A Car. This agreement will enable Budget Rent A Car to transfer its rights, privileges and obligations under the current airport operating agreement to Vehicle Rental Services, LLC. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk, and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the Assignment and 5,ssumption of concession agreement for Budget Rent A Car. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 06/19/06 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport ITEM. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. to prepare PREPARED BY: plans/specifications and provide onsite construction inspection. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. to prepare plans/specifications and provide onsite construction inspection for an extension to Airport View Drive. This project is needed to accommodate additional commercial development. This agreement is not to exceed $51,350.00. Funding: 100% Local (Airport Reserves) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk execute the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA I CITY CLERK ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES. BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES MEETING I DATE: 06/19/06 DONNA J SCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. OFF SALE 3.2%MALT LIQUOR Angkor Market 611 6'b Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 SIDEWALK CAFE Pannekoeken Restaurant 6 1' Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 MISCELLANEOUS Rochester Track Club C/O Jeanne Block 4516 Avon Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Women's Running Race 7/22/06 8:30 A.M. to 9:30 P.M. American Cancer Society 882 7' St NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Relay for Life Fundraiser 7/14/ - 15, 2006 AT University Center Rochester 851 30'b Ave SE John Marshall Neighborhood Association 1408 15d' Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 National Nite Out Block Party 8/l/06 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Consent Agenda I Finance Department Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of $919,110.20 Accounts payable of $4,690,456.92 Total disbursements $5,609,567.12 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to MEETING DATE: 6/19/0613 ITEM (N'OO.. (�j 1 J' Y PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' 5� DATE: 6/19/06 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Fire Pumper Truck purchase ORIGINATING DEPT: FIRE D= l PREPARED BY: Curt Pronk The City of Rochester Fire Department has located a Custom Pumper fire truck through the Florida Fire Chiefs and Sheriffs association and Florida Association of Counties bid award announcement for Fire Rescue vehicles and Fleet equipment. The Fire Department has budgeted the purchase of a Pumper truck in the 2006 Annual Budget plan for the sum of $385,000. This fire truck will cost Three hundred Eighty -Two Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty dollars, ($382,450). nJoj'- -k �C� A M COUNCIL ACTION RFOUESTED The Fire Department is looking for City Council approval to enter into a contract with American LaFrance for the purchase of this Custom Pumper truck. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/0 ORIGINATING FIRE ITEM DESCRIPTION: AGREEMENT BETWEEN RFD AND RCTC PREPARED BY: DC Slavin Rochester Fire Department would like to enter into a two year agreement with Rochester Community and Technical College for educational needs of emergency medical response personnel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Please approve and ask the Mayor to sign the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second A SECTION: Consent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: RPD and Human Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: Memorandum of Understanding - City of Rochester and IAFF Local 3869 - Dispatchers MEETING DATE: 6/19/06 ,DO Linda Rick Krueger, Captain, RPD Special Services, and members of IAFF Local 3869 - Dispatchers have prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would allow IAFF Local 3869 members to be on call when specifically assigned by the Chief or his/her designee to carry a pager or to be temporarily assigned as a back-up to the Community Warning Officer. The attached document reflects the understanding reached. The additional cost to the City is estimated at $500.00 on an annual basis. Council Action Requested: Resolution authorizing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Rochester Police Department and IAFF Local #3869 - Dispatchers. Consent Agenda ITEM DESCRIPTION: Emergency REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Police Position MEETING DATE: 6/19/06 ITEM NO. D-1 D PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The Council recently approved the position of Emergency Communications Coordinator for the EOC (Emergency Operations Center). This position, jointly funded by the City and County, is responsible for EOC operations and the training and supervision of weather spotters and dispatchers working in an EOC capacity. Because this position has supervisory responsibility, the Police Department is recommending that the position be designated a first -line supervisory position to be filled by a Sergeant. Since the individual currently assigned this position is expected to be promoted to Sergeant in the near future, no reassignment or further council action will be required as a result of this action. This does not create additional expenses for an officer to backfill this position as funding for this position was already allocated in the EOC budget. Additional funding for the net 5% increase resulting from the promotion is not required due to current staffing vacancies within the Department. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to designate the Emergency Communications Coordinator position as a first -line supervisory (Sergeant) position. COUNCIL ACTION: Moeon by: second by to: AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12-13 / DATE: 6/19/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works I p — ITEM DESCRIPTION: MnDOT Right of Way Permit for Construction of TH52 East PREPARED BY:` � Frontage Road R. FreeseP� 1 The Rochester City Council at its April 17, 2006 meeting directed the Public Works Director to co-sign, along with the Prairie Crossing representative, a MnDOT Right -of -Way Permit application for construction of the East Frontage Road. The City and MnDOT previously agreed to the need for this final roadway link connecting 65"' and 75`h Streets thereby completing a frontage road system on the east side of TH 52 extending from 85"i Street to 41" Street. The alignment of the frontage road is consistent with the approved City Official Street Map 414. Prairie Crossing has received approval from the City to construct the frontage road. The reason for the MnDOT Right -of -Way Permit application is due to a portion of the fill slope for the frontage road falling outside of the plated frontage road right-of-way onto a small portion of right-of-way MnDOT acquired from the Prairie Crossing owner for a storm water pond as part of the ROC 52 Project. The pond was not constructed and MnDOT may determine in the future that this portion of right-of-way can be sold to the City as access right-of-way. Prairie Crossing development would like to place the fill this construction season. Public Works believes the placement of fill in this area is compatible with future public infrastructure and private development plans for this area. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is reluctant to issue the Permit to Prairie Crossing. They prefer that the Permit be issued to the City. MnDOT has formally requested a City of Rochester Council Resolution whereby the City: 1. acknowledges their risk in allowing the construction of this frontage road prior to completion of the Northern Rochester Transportation Study (Spring 2007), and 2. accept full responsibility for redesigning or relocation the frontage road if the geometric review of a future 65th Street interchange recommends changes to the frontage road to obtain a preferable interchange design. The Department of Public Works has carefully weighed the action against the "conditions" imposed by MnDOT and believes the risks are minimal. The City approved Prairie Crossing GDP, Preliminary and Final Plats, and Development Agreement have made provisions for the City to secure the right-of-way needed to construct a folded diamond interchange on the Prairie Crossing property north of 65th Street. This folded diamond layout requires more right-of-way than a conventional diamond interchange. Public Works recommends the Council adopt a resolution such that MnDOT will grant the Right of Way permit to place fill in a portion of the TH 52 right-of-way for the construction of the East Frontage Road. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution accepting the conditions imposed by the MnDOT for execution of a Right of Way Permit associated with the placement of roadway fill for the construction of TH 52 East Frontage Road from 65th Street NW to 75th Street NW. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second bv: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2�r"I 06/19/06 i • nunm•nur. .omnn•b �•II.t�� �,�.,�b ':•�I �I��" �� ..fly �' ' WHWAV ••Iliq�•p• < ;1 ■ rpU inaaw axlmaa rwm ; �� • _ _r �4 4.��� •j��,�� �, ann•u ::::: :3::w n.unn0 an1-u ...••mom . � . -. -- _. �Illi�nnvq �I iu� � � �► �� �__ b , •.• HIS\�•Vii ZViu. • .� r.�: = � � �� Ic'!.•►• W t. .' brr �b�Iwn1 � b����pphur•••: t I, �r ; 2�,i �i•b��i"�.J•.••yb��•41•� Ia �. ,I NnnnU: ,t`��i �i , / f--I 1�`i;LI C nu fib• f1�� q•� 11 �� � \ !• � . y� � tt•1 tV ••C .:•�- lip• � �,;,:�r • 11• 11 • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9:007 el 06/19/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b— 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J7237) PREPARED BY: Alley Reconstruction in the 500 block between 9th Ave SW & 10th Ave SW This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Proiect: City Project No. M5-21 (J7237) Alley Reconstruction in the 500 block between 9th Ave SW & 10th Ave SW. Project Background A request was made on April 18, 2005 for reconstruction of the residential alley. The petition was signed by 7 of the 9 property owners representing 78 percent of the frontage abutting the project to be made. An informational meeting was held with the abutting property owners on November 17, 2005. 5 of the 9 property owners attended the meeting. The feasibility report was adopted on February 22, 2006 and the project and assessment hearings were adopted at the March 20, 2006 council meeting. q 6m Q Vl CD DR Z I �J Z � I > ST i �W �I 25r i 6 ST SVJ > 1` 6 L Q 9 ! I Q a Project 74I f COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on July 11, 2006 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: �j ! 61 99f06 '1GENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.� �� Consent Agenda Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: First Supplemental Amendment to Development Agreement for PARED BY: j North Orchard Park Subdivision M. Baker K & P Properties and Billman-Orr Enterprises are the Owners of real property in the City of Rochester platted as North Orchard Park Subdivision. The Owner and City entered into a Development Agreement recorded in the office of the Olmsted County Recorder as Document #A-1061779, on or about May 16, 2005. An amended Development Agreement was needed to correct Ownership names and make corrections to the Maintenance and Ownership Exhibit'B' of the original Agreement. Staff recommends the Council approve the First Supplemental Amended Development Agreement, which the Owners have already executed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the First Supplemental Amended Development Agreement with K & P Properties and Billman-Orr Enterprises, for North Orchard Park Subdivision. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: \GENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31 DATE: 6/19106 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Utility Connection Agreement— Kenneth R. M. Ryckman (M&B#06-05) ITEM NO. D-6 BARED BY: M. Baker Staff would offer the following Utility Connection Agreement for consideration by the Council: Kenneth R. Ryckman and Elaine M. Ryckman are the Owners of real property generally described as part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 24, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for Metes & Bounds Subdivision application (M&B#06-05), the Owners have requested approval of a Utility Connection Agreement to address their obligations for development related charges, and the timeframe that they must connect to municipal sanitary sewer & water. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owners, the City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owners. Ryckman Property Utility Connection Agreement for M&B#06-05 JA P R DEERHAVENLN COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Utility Connection Agreement with Kenneth R. Ryckman and Elaine M. Ryckman, for their Property lying in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 24, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second Its REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3' DATE: 0 119/06 1GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works lh� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Surety Agreement for Public Improvements Associated with City- PREPARED BY: I Owner Contract J5207 "Public Improvements to Serve Mills M. Baker Addition to Rochester„ Background: On May 15, 2006, the Council adopted 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. In correspondence between City staff and Mill's Properties surety provider it has been determined that a Surety Agreement was needed to address the mutual needs of all parties associated with this Project. A Surety Agreement for Public Improvements has been prepared and executed by Mills Properties" Said Agreement memorializes the Owner's (Mills) obligation for maintaining surety for the City -Owner Contract until after the expiration of the two (2) year maintenance and warranty period for the Project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Surety Agreement for Public Improvements with Mills Properties, Inc., for the Public Improvements in Mills Addition C-O Contract J5207, COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: _ to: 4GENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5 DATE: 06/19/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works I N— ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Construction of 3rd Ave NW from West River PREPARED BY: Parkway NW to 37th St NW, and on -site public improvements to M. Baker serve the proposed Hy-Vee Convenience Store (SE Quad of 37'" St NW &3'"Ave NW) —J5199 1�_� Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Hy-Vee Foods, Inc. (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5199 consisting of "Construction of 3rd Ave NW from West River Parkway NW to 37th St NW, and on -site public improvements to serve the proposed Hy-Vee Convenience Store (SE Quad of 37'i'St NW & 3 d Ave NW)". 37th St NW COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5199, "Construction of 3rd Ave NW from West River Parkway NW to 37th St NW, and on -site public improvements to serve the proposed Hy-Vee Convenience Store (SE Quad of 37"' St NW & 3`d Ave NW)". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 31 06/19/06 4GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 'I 2j ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract —Public Storm Sewer to Serve Part of Block 3, PREPARED BY: Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision — J5238 M. Baker IN Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: North American Realty, Inc. (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5238 consisting of "Public Storm Sewer to Serve Part of Block 3, Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision ". ®a..a COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5238, "Public Storm Sewer to Serve Part of Block 3, Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision " with the following four conditions that must be met prior to construction of the public infrastructure included in this Contract: 1. The City -Owner Contract documents prepared by the City must be executed by the Owner & Contractor and returned to City Public Works. 2. The Contractor must provide with the executed Contract document, Performance and Payment Bonds, and a Certificate of Liability Insurance for the Project that are in a form approvable by the City Attorney. 3. The Construction Plans must be approved by the City for the public improvements included in the Contract. 4. The Grading Plan for the project must be approved by the City. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by to: LGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: �6126 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Pebble Creek PREPARED BY: Phase I. Development — J5128 I . f M. Baker. Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Pebble Creek Rochester LLC (Owner) & Elcor Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City - Owner Contract J5128 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Pebble Creek Phase I. Development". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5128, "Public Improvements to Serve Pebble Creek Phase I. Development". COUNCIL ACTION: Modonby Second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �I DATE: 06/19/06 ►GENDA ECTION: TING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I ORIGINAPublic Works I ITEM ,N - '? Z) , ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Condominiums — J5230 to Serve Forest Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: 1ARED BY: M. Baker Arcon Development, Inc. (Owner) & Arcon Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5230 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Forest Knoll Condominiums". W U) .r N t� 00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5230, "Public Improvements to Serve Forest Knoll Condominiums". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 44 / 06/19/06 kGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo PREPARED BY: Building Ambulance Entrance on 3rd Ave SW — J5231 M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Mayo Clinic Rochester (Owner) & Knutson Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5231 consisting of "Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo Building Ambulance Entrance on 3rd Ave SW". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5231, "Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo Building Ambulance Entrance on Td Ave SW". COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by. Second by: to: t,GENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q / DATE: 06/19/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Watermain Relocation to Facilitate the RCTC PREPARED BY: Health / Science Building Renovation Project — J5236 M. Baker "J Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Minnesota State Colleges & Universities on behalf of Rochester Community & Technical College (Owner) & Fraser Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5236 consisting of "Watermain Relocation to Facilitate the RCTC Health ! Science Building Renovation Project'. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City ! Owner Contract for J5236, "Watermain Relocation to Facilitate the RCTC Health ( Science Building Renovation Project'. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: 4GENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 DATE: 06/19/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Canal PI< J5198 ITEM NO. SE - I PR PARED BY: 13 M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Calli R LLC, Maine Street Development Company of Rochester LLC, and Ryanna LLC (Owners) & Elcor Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City -Owner Contract J5198 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Canal Place SE". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5198, "Public Improvements to Serve Canal Place SE". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION GENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1 Project M4-31 (J7227) Reconstruction of the Alley in the 10 Block of 2"d St. S.W. Bewteen 2"d St and the Peace Plaza MEETING —11 11� DATE: 6/19/06 ITEM�� PREPARED BY: t^ M. Easley The plans provided that the Alley in the 10 Block of 2"d St S.W. beginning at 2"d St, and terminating at the Peace Plaza be reconstructed. The plans further provided for the construction of 8" concrete pavement to bear the loading of the numerous trucks and delivery vehicles that use the alley to serve the adjacent businesses. Downtown Alley reconstruction projects have always posed a challenge during construction with buildings tight to the alley edges and the numerous utilities that exist in these narrow corridors. During the construction of the Alley, pavement removal operations uncovered a substantial area where the basement of an adjacent building protruded significantly into the alley Right of Way, at a very shallow depth. It was further determined that to maintain a reasonable gradient and to maintain drainage the concrete pavement thickness would need to be significantly compromised and a thin concrete overlay bonded to the roof of the basement would become necessary. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; Project M4-31 (J7227)in the amount of $3,763.87 to cover the cost of: 1. The High Strength Concrete overlay. 2. The drilling and grouting and placement of steel reinforcement. 3. Preparation of the basement roof surface 4. Concrete bonding agents. Cost associated with this work have been reviewed and are usual to work of this nature. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1, In the amount of $3,763.87 Project M4-31 (J7227) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/06 �iENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works `�` 2 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: Replace Existing Lift Station #4, J7739 RE A Loehr .� RED Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., June 13, 2006 for the following project: Proiect No. M4-59,7739 "Construct Lift Station and Forcemain to Replace Existing Lift Station No. 4." The following bids were received: Madsen -Johnson $5,913,000.00 (Low Bid) Lametti & Sons $6,077,150.00 SJ Louis $6,361,128.00 Elcor Construction $7,632,870.00 Engineer Estimate $5,993,865.00 The project is included in the 2006 Capital Budget, Sewer and Water, project no. 6, page 60. The project is necessary to replace the existing Lift Station No. 4 that was constructed in 1978 as an Interim (temporary lift station). The lift station and force main are at or nearing sewer service capacity. The lift station and force main is unable to handle sewer flows from new developments in the northwest quadrant of the City. In addition the existing lift station mechanical and electrical components show increasing breakdown and failures. The lift station and force main have reached their useful life. The concept of installing a new temporary lift station and force main project in lieu of constructing a more costly gravity flow sanitary sewer tunnel was presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting of April 4, 2005. The new temporary lift station and force main will be utilized until such time that Sewer Availability Charges are collected and Sewer Utility funds are established to make the construction of a permanent gravity flow sanitary sewer tunnel viable. Council directed Public Works staff to proceed with a new temporary lift station and force main. The project will be funded by Sewer Revenue Bonds that will be issued later in 2006. The bonds will be repaid from sewer utility user rates. La�-�� COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to Madsen - Johnson. Attachment: Location Map Budget and Assessment Schedule COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: City of Rochester City AdMffi istratm"s Office Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Stevan E. Kvenvold/�(C Date: June 15, 2006 Subject: Sewer Utility Improvements It is currently anticipated that bonds will be issued later in 2006 to fund the lift station replacement and other proposed sewer utility improvements. Information on the additional proposed sewer utility improvements will be presented at a future C.O.W. meeting. I anticipate, at this point in time, that sewer utility user rates will need to be increased by the Mayor/Council to provide adequate reserves to repay the bonds used to finance the proposed improvements. i F_ J rile.) UMO a a la H U 3 3 3 3 E 0 E 0 c e aaaa'ttaaa to IMM y GaSAQGWW x. '. A 3 : ssx:aaasA.. 0 W k l F z a€ � i# 4 .^I ^A€M r Jb.;111 63 74N�qoj;j 1011 g E "x yq�Agggy�o Ig3pN6 pps��, p�q§p��❑�p f� g¢g�y€3y�H�y{y� Nil vM ° M 121211112 Ifillm, ilk r G i➢ 9: 59a9 as a a G 6 1c"c3"u "u a1655 a 83:GG �SaiaSfW: C a-3RF F W W xi Hp §§ III's 5555555655§§65 _ a s RuaaS9a cSGa i sGaSaaGQ66Gs���W���:44344 °_ � aiAa :5439: g 6� Project Manager: Contractor: BUDGET DATA SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT James M. Loehr Madsen -Johnson Corporation 6/14/2006 i Engineering Firm: HR Green Project Inspector: Steve Szuberski Project No. M4-59 Capital Improvement information: Date of Origination J No. J7739 Year: 2006 Page No.: 60 State Aid No. Type: SBW CIP Project No.: 6 06/19/06 Description: Construct Lift Station and Force Main to Replace Lift Station 94 Project Substantial Completion Date COUNCIL ACTION DATE 06/19/06 PROJECT BUDGET CONTRACT FINAL (FEASIBILITY REPORT) (AWARD) COST CONSTRUCTION COSTS Water(150) 20,475.00 0.00 Sanitary Sewer (250) 5,800,264.OD 0.DO Street (350) 30,247.00 0.00 Storm Sewer(450) 0.00 0.00 Pedestrian Facilities (550) 62,014.OD 0.00 Traffic Signals (650) 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Ponds(750) 0.00 0.00 SUB -TOTAL 0.00 5,913,000.00 0.00 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 0.00 1,773,900.00 INALUEI Land Acquisition 5,560.D0 0.00 TOTAL 5 $ 7,692,460.00 #VALUEI FUNDING DISTRIBUTION 2200 Street Resurfacing 2201 Street Rehabilitation 4844 MSAS Reserves 4946 Bikeways 6501 Storm Water Management 7228 Hadley Valley-TID 8201 WAC/Connection Charges 8202 SAC/Connection Charges 8204 Assessments (Total Assessment Role) B207 Substandard Street 8208 Traffic Calming 8209 Pedestrian Facility Charges 8212 SAC/Capacity Relief 8222 Sanitary Sewer Tunnel 8307 Sidewalk Construction 9757 Northwest/Kings Run-TID 9846 Willow Creek-TID Developer Funds/Contributions DNR Funds Federal Aid Funds Municipal State Aid Funds Retained Earnings (Specify Utility) Water Utility Share Sewer Revenue Bonds 7,694,460.00 OTHER OTHER TOTAL $ - $ 7,694,460.00 $ 'Verify availability of funds with Tonya Klees at feasibility. •Die Inch Am . rnnv of this fnnm with vour RCA fo'1 Feasibility and Award of Contract and provide copy to Tonya Klees. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 55 6/19/06 .GENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEFT: I ITEM NO CONSENT Public V�J ITEM DESCRIPTION: Contract to Complete Mussel Translocation I�, �I EB REDHubB y { The forthcoming construction of the Elford-Fullerton Sewer Relief Line will require four crossings of the South Fork of the Zumbro River, which is known to contain rare mussel species that are protected by law. The Elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta manginata) and the Ellipse mussel (Venustaconche ellipsiformis) are state listed as threatened species and the Flute shell mussel (Lasmigona costata) is a state listed special concern species. These mussels are freshwater bivalve mollusks, related to clams that the in rivers of the central U.S. Last summer the required mussel survey was completed to confirm the presence of these species at the river crossing locations. The City has chosen to translocate the protected species to an appropriate upstream habitat, in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources permit provisions. This work will enable the construction of the sewer line using open trench techniques instead of the alternative, more costly, underground directional boring techniques. Funding for construction of the Elford-Fullerton relief sewer line, including the mussel survey, is in the CIP Budget, Project # J2175. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the contract between Malacological Consultants and the City of Rochester for mussel translocation services at the four sewer crossings of the South Fork of the Zumbro River in the amount of $63,396.87. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by second by: to: H:\RWRP EAW\ELF Mussel Translocation RCA.dc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION GENDA SECTION' ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM No. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS t - Z7 ITEM AWARD OF BIDS / CAMERA REPAIRS AND UPDATES IN PARKING PREPARED BY: RAMPS A KNAUER6. Quotes for the purchase and installation of various camera equipment including recorders, monitors and cameras were solicited. The equipment will replace or enhance existing systems in the parking ramps. Three quotes were received as follows: All Systems $18,407.00 Jamie Peterson Communications $18,871.12 Custom Communications $18,897.00 The costs will be allocated to the restoration project accounts for each ramp. Staff recommends All Systems be awarded the contract. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution awarding a contract for "Camera Repairs and Updates at Parking Ramps" to All Systems of 929 37th Ave NW, Rochester, MN 55901 in the amount of $18,407.00 per their proposal. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5� AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO: Consent Agenda Water Reclamation Plant v ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Upgrade(J4390) PREPARED BY: Chance Order No. 4 Lyle J. Zimmerma Bor-Son Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Upgrade Project and there have been several changes required with the work. The changes are required to improve the overall quality of the project and to address items omitted in the contract documents. The following is a list of the changes included in Change Order No. 4: 1. Modify Influent Pump piping to match the specified pump requirements $ 12,025.00 2. Modify the 24 inch influent bypass piping to avoid column interference $ 13,390.00 3. Additional demolition of the abandoned Lime Slurry Piping $ 1,433.00 4. Modify Emergency Flood Pump controls as requested by WRP staff $ 5,113.00 5. Replace corroded piping and valves in the Truck Loadout area $ 11,142.00 6. Locate embedded conduit to provide access hatch to GBT wetwell $ 696.00 7. Install pads for the grit chamber drive as recommended by manufacturer $ 910.00 8. Provide under drains at Influent Pump Station under slab in backfilled area $ 6,886.00 9. Replace corroded ducts and dampers in the Equalization Basin $ 15,452.00 10. Relocate chlorine solution pipe in Tunnel V to avoid damage from traffic $ 5,835.00 11. Relocate electrical junction box in Polymer Mix Room as required $ 0•00 12. Replace existing steel duct cover plate with FRP in the EQ Basin $ 5,272.00 13. Provide additional hanger for 24 inch plant drain to avoid conduits $ 3,889.00 14. Demolish additional piping in existing digester to avoid future collapse $ 6,223.00 15. Relocate GBT filtrate drain to avoid existing pipe and valves $ 6,023.00 16. Install additional bends on influent pipes to avoid high voltage conduits $ 18,885.00 17. Revise form work in Grit Building due to conflict on drawings $ 5,805•00 18. Provide check valve and modify vent on Polymer Tank per manufacturer $ 2,588.00 Total Change Order No. 4 $121,237.00 No time extension for contract completion is included with these changes. Original Contract Amount $32,000,000.00 Change Order No. 1 $ 177,927.00 Change Order No. 2 $ 190,337.00 Change Order No. 3 $ 173,435.00 Change Order No. 4 $ 121,237.00 Total Change Orders $ 662,936.00 Revised Contract Amount $32,662,936.00 Council Action Requested: It is requested that Change Order No. 4 for the 2004 Plant Upgrade Project be approved to increase the contract amount by $121,237.00. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: U 1 / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06/19/2006 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO: �� 2 Consent Agenda Water Reclamation Plant ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) PREPARED BY: Change Order No. 6 Lyle d. Zimmerman Sheehy Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Expansion Project and several changes are required. The changes are required to improve the overall quality of the project and to address items omitted in the contract documents. The following is a list of the changes included in Change Order No. 6: 1. Remove existing chlorine rotometer in Gallery G $ 593.00 2. Change the valve tags from stainless steel to phenolic tags $ 0.00 3. Added odorus air ducts to distribution channel which were not on drawings $ 8,883.00 4. Install MH frame and cover to existing valve vault in Gallery G blocked by new pipes $ 2,183.00 5. Install insulation on Low Pressure Air Pipe in Blower Bldg for safety reasons. $ 1,519.00 6. Provide pipe supports in Gallery G for large diameter piping not detailed on drawings $ 5,166.00 7. Provide anti -cavitation valves on spray water piping which were not specified $ 16,375.00 8. Modify air purge piping to comply with supplied equipment requirements $ 9,542.00 9. Relocate air pressure monitoring stations to be near basin access hatches $ 20,194.00 10. Provide additional pipe support for 54 inch pipe that were not shown on drawings $ 17,998.00 11. Provide paint tie coat on air receiver to be compatible with specified paint $ 504.00 12. Regrade Elevator Shaft Roof to coordinate with relocated roof drains $ 1,691.00 13. Provide shut valve and piping to balancing valves on HTW and LTW piping $ 5,134.00 14. Provide 6 inch gate valve to hydrant at Blower Building $ 1,340.00 15. Modify 4 inch concrete block parapet wall at Gallery G $ 580.00 Total for Change Order No. 6 $ 91,702.00 No extension of time will be included with Change Order No. 6 Original Contract Amount $23,647,578.00 Change Order No. I $ 103,113.00 Change Order No. 2 $ 186,369,00 Change Order No. 3 $ Change Order No. 4 $ 73,000.00 103,810.00 Change Order No. 5 $ 191,702.00 Change Order No. 6 $ 91.702.00 $ 9 53,198 Total Change Orders 76.00 $24,600,776.00 Revised Contract Amount Original Substantial Completion Date October 6, 2006 Original Final Completion Date January 4, 2007 December 1, 2006 Revised Substantial Completion Date March 1, 2007 Revised Substantial completion date Council Action Reauested: It is requested that Change Order No. 6 for the 2004 Plant Expansion Project be approved to increase the contract amount by $ 91,702.00. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/1 Consent Agenda Police 'EM DESCRIPTION: Approval to Enter into Lease of Police Vehicles DEPT: Brian Winters Funds were requested and approved in the Rochester Police Department's 2006 operating budget for the lease of unmarked police vehicles to be assigned to the Rochester Police Department's Investigative Unit. Based on the unique assignment of these vehicles they need to be unmarked and unidentifiable as police vehicles. These vehicles will be used exclusively for investigative functions. An arrangement has been made to enter into a contract to lease vehicles from a local Rochester automotive dealership. . JUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into a contract to lease five (5) unmarked vehicles to be assigned to the Rochester Police Department, provided that the terms and conditions of the contract meet with the approval of the City Attorney. UNCILACTION: Motionby: second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Settlement for Right of Way Acquisition for20th Street SE PREPARED BY: Sewer Project (J-9869) M. Nigbur^/--/ The City is constructing sanitary sewer main to serve portions of southeast Rochester south of Eastwood Road SE. Based on the designs that have been developed, City staff pursued acquisition of a permanent utility easement on property owned by Dean & Teresa Waldof. Based on the continued negotiations between the City and Dean & Teresa Waldof, a preliminary settlement has been reached and a Settlement Agreement document created. The City agrees to pay to the owners $10,500.00 as total compensation for the acquisition of the permanent utility easement, temporary construction easement and appraisal reimbursement. Ll CO RD 144 SE - U ' ... it t..�..r_ t= � ✓' � r -----_ —_ Smith Property IN £4 Heppelman Property— -_ � Gunderson Property � Lul Waldof Property i 7 "CO RE) 1SE ' — I — - -- — — 0 Ti 1 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends approval of payment in the amount of $10,500.00 to Dean & Teresa Waldof for the needed permanent utility easement and temporary construction easement on their property, as well as appraisal reimbursement. The owners will execute the necessary conveyance documents. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Settlement Agreement with Dean & Teresa Waldof. The owners have already executed the Settlement Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING U3 / DATE: 6/19/06 I AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADMINISTRATOR F _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISORDERLY USE PROPERTY VIOLATIONS AT 456 13 PREPARED BY: AVENUE NW, #5 T. SPAETH 0 On May 10, 2006, the Rental Housing Complaint Board held a public hearing relating to the property located at the above mentioned address, in which there have been 3 disorderly use violations cited within the past year. After taking testimony, the Board recommended scheduling this item for a public hearing in front of the Council. The Board recommended conditions listed below. Conditions: 1. That the property owner be required to attend the next crime free multi family housing workshop (scheduled for fall 2006). 2. That the owner attend and participate in the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council conduct a public hearing and determine what remedial actions under the provisions ofRCO 38.153 be taken. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rental Housing Complaint Board minutes from 5/10/06. 2. Copy of RCO 38.150 — 38.154 NOTE TO COUNCIL: The Disorderly Use background information has been sent separately to the Council. COUNCIL ACTION: Mo5on by second by: to: CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2006 TO: Mayor and Common Council CC: Gary Dutton, Richard Wright, Darrel Hildebrandt, Jason Novak FROM: Terry A. Spaeth SUBJECT: Rental Housing Complaint Board Meeting Minutes from May 10, 2006 for the property located at 45613s' Ave NW, # 5, owned by Jason Novak. Members Present: Mayor Brede; and, 3r° Ward Councilmember Bruce Snyder Staff Present: Terry Spaeth, City Administration; Richard Wright, City Attorney's Office; Gary Dutton, Building Safety Department Others Present: Jason Novak, owner On May 10, 2006, the Rental Housing Complaint Board held a public hearing related to the disorderly use violations on the property located at 456 1e Avenue NW, # 5 in Rochester and owned by Jason Novak. The following is a synopsis of the testimony received by the Board: Jason Novak— Property Owner Jason Novak indicated there are six 1 bedroom units in the building, and that he also owns 2 other rental properties, and he has not had any problems of this nature at any of the other properties or other units in this building. Mr. Novak indicated that he and his father do daily walk throughs of the building, and he also has a friend who is a tenant in the building who also keeps an eye on things for him. Mr. Novak also indicated he worked with the HRA to utilize the City's rental rehab program to improve the property. Mr. Novak indicated that the 1a notice of disorderly use was actually caused by the tenant's cousin, who was visiting her at that time in September, 2005. At that time, the tenant (Charity Langfald) had received a written warning notice from Mr. Novak regarding the disorderly use. A second notice of disorderly use was issued in January, 2006, when the tenant (Langfald) was arrested for a probation violation and drug possession charges. Mr. Novak had prepared an eviction notice, but after the violation the tenant never returned to the property. Mr. Novak had the tenant's items removed from the property. Mr. Novak then rented the apartment out in February, 2006 to Tangiela Jones. Mr. Novak did a background check and that the tenant checked out. In April, 2006, Ms. Jones was arrested for drug possession at the property. She was immediately evicted based on the lease addendum related to disorderly uses. The apartment is presently vacant. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM E-1 DUNE 19, 2006 AGENDA Mayor & Council evan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese ROCHESTER April Z4, 2006 NOV AK JASON P 1408 13 AVE INrW ROCHESTER N N 55901 ✓(/GG/?-f7.e,�Q�� RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 456 13 AVE N W Certificate #: 579 0.p CN ESTFg .YI�h., 1 r— k'�TFD.3 tiG lic'l.�.h ROGER PETERSON Chief of Police Rochester Police Department 101 4th St. S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-3761 www.rochestermn.gov You are hereby notified that the above referenced rental property was again found to be the site of conduct defined as disorderly use by Rochester Code of Ordinances Section 38.152, Subd. 2. following ordinances and/or statutes are cited for the violations found: The Tenant Name Langfald, Charity Dawn (#5) Violation Date ICR# Badge # Violation Lanefald Charity Dawn (#5) 09 25l2005 OS-072 D rolledderly Conduct Jones, Tangiela Patrice (#5) 01/05/2006 06-01043 2321 Cont2313 Controlled Substance 04/21/2 006 D6-D27270 2321 Controlled Substance A copy of the police violation report is attached for your convenience. ' Public hearing will be scheduled before the Rental Housing Complaint Board to determine if a public hearing should be scheduled before the Common Council to consider whether the rental registration certificate for this property should be suspended or revoked, and/or a fine or other sanctions imposed. You will receive notification of the date, time and place for the public hearing. At this hearing you may present evidence of mitigating circumstances showing the absence of any need for a public bearing before the Common Council. In every instance, the Board's recommendation is submitted to the Council for consideration. You may call our office at (507) 281-6056 if you have any questions. Crime Prevention 101 4th Street SE Rochester, AI Nr 55904 �RIraw t�id�E DISORDERLY USE VIOLATION Rochester Police Department To be filled out and attached to re orts filed in coniundion with Buildin and Safe violations. ICR # 06-027210 INCIDENT DATE: various INCIDENT TYPE: Sale/Possession of controlled substances INCIDENT /APARTMENT ADDRESS: 456 13 Av NW #5 LANDLORD/PROPERTY OWNER NAME - RENTER'S NAME: Jones TangielaLAST Patrice APT #: 5 MIDDLE SUSPECPS NAME: Tan iela Jones and Ernest Pitchford DOB: 2 16-84 NARRATIVE: Within the past month the Rochester Police Narcotics Unit has conducted 3 controlled buys of crack cocaine from Jones and Pitchford. Each of the buys occurred in apartment 5 at 456 13 Av NW. On 4- 21-06 a search warrant was executed at that apartment. During the search a quantity of crack cocaine was found in apartment 5. f IIXET / REV 2103 NAME: BADGE #: Supplemental Report ICR #: 106 - 027270 Officer. T. NEPPER #321 -?— � _J _ ADDMONAL INFORMATION PRELD4WARY INFORMATION: On 04-21-06 in the early moming hours I, Officer T. Nepper #321, executed a narcotics knock and announce search warrant at 456 13`s Ave NW Apt 5 in the City of Rochester. This is the residence of Tangiela Patrice Jones DOB 02-16-84 and Ernest Pitchford DOB 12-24-79. Pitchford was not found at the residence however Pitchford's 5 year old daughter Kayla Pitchford was placed into protective custody and turned over to Social Services. Jones was located at the residence and arrested. OFFICER ACTIONS/OBSERVATIONS• • On 04-20-06 I applied for and was granted a knock and announce narcotics search warrant for the residence of 456 13"' Ave NW Apt 5 and the persons of Tangiela Jones and Ernest Pitchford. • Sgt.'s Pulford and Moilanen and Olmsted County Asst Attorney J. Spencer reviewed the warrant. • Judge D. Jacobson signed the warrant. • At approximately 0630 hours I held a briefing of the warrant at the Police Range. • Members of the South Eastern Minnesota Narcotics and Gang Task Force, Emergency Response Unit (ERU) and Rochester Police Officers were present. • The ERU was to knock and announce and make entry at 45613ei Ave NW Apt 5 and secure all persons inside. • At that point officers on the perimeter of the apartment building would start the search. • We cleared the Police Range and drove to 456 1P Ave W. • At approximately 0730 hours the ERU made entry to the apartment building and into apartment 5. • Once apartment 5 was cleared and secured I entered. • Apartment 5 was a one bedroom apartment. • In that bedroom on the floor was a female I recognized as Jones. • Jones had no clothes on and was covering herself with a sheet. • On the bed next to Jones was a young child (later identified as Kayla Pitchford). • I searched Jones person pursuant to the search warrant and found nothing. • Jones was allowed to dress and taken to the Adult Detention Center. • I had dispatch contact social services and advised them that 5 yr old Kayla Pitchford had no adult to care for her, that Jones went to jail and Ernest Pitchford was unable to be located and if located would be going to jail. • I spoke with Carrie Jones from Olmsted County Social Services and asked her to respond to my location since because I was taking Kayla Jones in to police protective custody. • At approximately 0804 hours I left the residence and left Deputy Vince Scheckel in charge. • I went to another address were a warrant was being executed and I was the affiant there as well. • I retumed to 456 13a' Ave NW Apt 13 and Jones had been transported to j ail and Kayla Pitchford had been taken by Social Services. • I was advised that approximately 9 gram of crack cocaine was found, a digital scale, packaging material and $170.00 cash. • At approximately 0924 hours the search warrant ended and we left the residence. • When the ERU knocked and announced no one answered. • The ERU rammed the door causing damage to it. • The door was unable to be secured. • Management was contacted and the door to apartment 5 was secured. • I returned to the Adult Detention Center to attempt to interview Jones. to emental Report ICR #: � 06 - 027270 Officer: T. NEPPER 4321 AMUNDA WARNING: (recorded) • At approximately 1125 hours I read Jones the Miranda Warning. • Jones stated she understood her rights. • Jones agreed to talk to me without a lawyer. • The first 23 minutes of this conversation with Jones she lied and stated she only uses crack cocaine and does not sell it. • Jones became truthful and told me following: o Pitchford has been selling drugs for at least 3 years. o The crack cocaine comes from Pitchford's cousin in the Twin Cities who name is Tyrone Miller. o Sometimes he comes to her house with the crack already packaged for sale and sometimes not o People call her (for crack) because she is young and goes to the club. o The baggies with tom comers were left over from old trash. o She has traded objects and has stolen to support her drug habit o Pitchford wastes the money he makes selling drugs. o People call her cell phone when they are looking for drugs. o She tells the callers to come over or smoke it with her. o They give her the money and she gave them the drugs. o Sometimes if she is not at her residence and someone else she knows is, she will call them and tell some to handle the drug deal that is going to stopping over at the residence. o She is not working with Pitchford but he has to her phone a couple of times. o She takes the money and Pitchford bands over the dope. • End of interview. OFFICER ACTIONS(OSSERVATIONS: • Jones arrested for Controlled Substance 2" d Degree Sales in a Park Zone — 4 counts, Child Endangerment, Conspiracy to Sell Controlled Cocaine. • Served seizure notice to Jones for $170.00 • Probable Cause arrest issued for Pitchford. All recordings downloaded. DISPOSITION: • Closedlarrest 9upplemental Report IC Officer Vince Scheckel Synopsis: On Friday 4-21-06 I (Olmsted County Deputy Vince Scheckel) assisted with a narcotics search e warrant at 456 NW 13'h Ave #5 Rochester. Tangiela Patrice Jones DOB 2-26-84 and where found in the apartment with Kayla Pitchford DOB 7-24-2000. Jones was arrested and transported to the Adult Detention Center and social services removed Kayla Pitchford from the residence. Approx. 9 grams of crack cocaine was found in the apartment packed for sales, a digital scale and baggies with comers missing. Officers Actions / Observations • At 0630 hours I attended a briefing at the Rochester Police Range in regards to the search warrant. • I was assigned to assist on the Emergency Response Unit with the execution of the warrant. • I have been on the ERU for the past ten years. • I was assigned to carry a carbine rifle that I have qualified with and I ran a digital recording of the entry (downloaded to the server). • After the briefing we went to the residence and Sgt. B. Sherden knocked on the door several times announcing "Police Search Warrant" several times. • After an extended period of time the Officer with the ram came up to the door and rammed the door in. • Entry was made into the apartment. • As we entered into the apartment we continued to announce our presence. • The only people found in side the apartment was Tangiela Jones and the child of Ernest Pitchford, Kayla Pitchford DOB 7-24-2000. • Both Jones and Pitchford were found in the bedroom lying on the bed (only one bedroom in the apartment). • After the residence was secured Officer Nepper arrived in the apartment and assisted in getting Jones out of the residence and transported to the ADC. • Social Services were called to respond to the residence to take custody of Kayla Pitchford. • I videotaped the residence prior to the search taking place. • After I was through videotaping the residence I began to search the residence finding the following items that where seized and turned over to Rochester Police Officer Strop to be logged and put into evidence. o Paperwork from Cook County Courts addressed to Ernest Pitchford at 456 NW 13`s Ave. found in the living room on a chair. o Rochester Public Utilities bill to Tangiela Jones at 456 NW 13`h Ave #5. o Green leafy vegetable material believed to be marijuana based on my training and experience found on a shelf built into the cast wall of the living room (weighing less than 1 gram). o A small zip lock baggy approx. 1" x 1" found in the heat register along the north wall in the living room, that based on my training and experience is consistent with packaging material for illegal drags. o Charter cable bill to Madison Watson at 456 NW 13a' Ave. #5 (according to Jones this is just a name that mail is sent under to this residence). o Electronic Digital scale w/ residue found in a drawer next to the refrigerator in the kitchen. o A plastic sandwich size baggy containing 15 other sandwich size baggies with the corners missing that based on my training and experience are packaging material for illegal drugs, found in the kitchen garbage can. o An off white substance packaged in the corner of a baggy tied with a knot found in a small garbage can along bed that weighed .5 grams with packaging and tested positive for cocaine using a NIK swab ( note: there was also cocaine residue observed Ioose in the can as well Item # 185-14). Supplemental Report ICR #' 06 - 027270 Officer. Vince Scheckel o An off white substance packaged in the comer of a baggy tied with a knot that I recognized being crack cocaine and weighed .4 grams with packaging found on the floor next to the bed east wall. o A third crack rock packaged the same as the other two found on the floor next to the bed (note: all of these crack rocks along with the 14 crack rocks found in the plastic tray next to the bed where right next to where Jones and Pitchford were lying). o A comer from a plastic bag and a knot from a plastic bag found on the floor at the foot of the bed. o $70 cash found in purse in closet in bedroom- * $100 cash found on floor by foot of bed in bedroom. o Photograph of two black males holding large amounts of cash found in bedroom floor. After the search was completed I videotaped the residence a second time (copied onto CD and put into evidence). • I returned to the LEC and assisted Officer Strop in putting the items into evidence. Disposition Based on the items found digital scale, baggies with comers missing and the packaged crack rocks I know from prior training and experience that crack cocaine is being sold at this residence. The total crack cocaine weighed 9 grams with packaging. This is a park zone (Kutzk park just across the street) Report added to case file Disorderly use report Page 1 of 1 Hildebrant, Darrel From: Novak, Jason P. [Novak.Jason@mayo.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2005 10:05 AM To: Hildebrant, Darrel Cc. ' nova kiason@charter.nat' Subject: Disorderly use report Attachments: Charity.doc Officer Hildebrant, My name is Jason Novak and I am the owner of the rental property at 456 13th Ave NW. Recently there was a report of disorderly use at that location. Attached is a copy of my report as requested. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Thanks. -Jason Novak 271-4054 <<Charity.doc>> 1/17/2006 RRAVOYMPROPUTIEs, fie 1408 13'�Ave NW Rochester, MN 55901 Januaury 15, 2006 To: Darrel Fildebrandt From: Jason Novak Subject: Disorderly use report Officer Hildebrandt, Jason Novak 507-271-4054 Duane Novak 507-252-4279 My name is Jason Novak and I am the owner of the rental property located at 456 13"' Ave NW. Recently there was a violation of disorderly use there by Charity Langfald. The following actions have been taken_ 1.) Charity has been evicted. She is in violation of her lease agreement, specifically the clause: 17) State laws of whatever nature. The provisions of R.C.O. section 38.152 Subd.2 are specifically incorporated herein and any violation of the following types or kinds by the resident shall constitute a breach of lease and a basis for eviction: prostitution; indecent conduct; participation in a disorderly house; obscenity; loud parties or gatherings; overcrowding; gambling; unlawful sale or possession of controlled substances; unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages; unlawful possession, transportation, sale, or use of a weapon; or disorderly conduct as defined in a court of law. I have been in contact with family members and the apartment was cleaned out yesterday. After today the apartment should be emptied and the locks will be changed. 2.) Walk through surveillance has been increased. Typically a walk through is done once a day. This will increase to 2-3 times a day. Other than Charity's apartment, the building tends to be a quiet building. I keep a close eye on activities and monitor the parking lot for suspicious activity and unfamiliar cars. Charity received a warning after the after the first violation (she was out of town at the time, her cousin was staying in the apartment for the weekend). We agreed that the person causing the problem (Josh) was not allowed on the property and that when Chanty was out of town there was not to be anyone else staying there. I have monitored the building closely and there have been no other problems up until this point. If you have any questions, please call me. Jason Novak 271-4054 ROCHESTER January 13, 2006%����ta NOTICE OF 2nd INSTANCE OF DISORDERLY USE NOVAK JASON P 1408 13 AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 45613 AVE NW Certificate #: 579 Qp GHES�tR..itl.Vy ROGER PETERSON Chief of Police Rochester Police Department 101 4th St. S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-37s1 wmv.rochastermn.gov You are hereby notified that the above referenced rental property was again found to be the site of conduct defined as disorderly use by Rochester Code of Ordinances Section 38.152, SubrL 2. The following ordinances and/or statutes are cited for the violations found: V_aolatlQn History - Tenant Name Violation Date ICR# ald, Charity Dawn Badge # Violation Langf# (� 09/25/2005 OS-072940 2313 Disorderly Conduct Langfald, Charity Dawn (#5) 0110V2006 06-01043 2321 Controlled Substance A copy of the police violation report is attached for your convenience. The ordinance requires that you submit a written report to the Rochester Police Department by 01/21/2006, detailing the actions you have taken in response to the prior Notices) of Disorderly Use of the premises, as well as those actions you intend to take to p-. event further instances of disorderly use from occurring at this property. Please be advised that if you fail to submit the report as required, or if a third instance of disorderly use occurs within twelve (12) months of the first violation, the license maybe suspended or revoked and a fine or other sanctions may be imposed by the Common Council. You may call our office at (507) 281-6056 if you have any questions. Crime Prevention 101 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 i 1\ Rochester Police Department To be filled out and attached to reports filed in conjunction with Building and Safety violations. City Ordinance 38.152 ICR # 06-01043 INCIDENT DATE: 01-05-06 INCIDENT TYPE. Sale/possession of controlled substances INCIDENT I APARTMENT ADDRESS: 456 13m Ave NW Apt 5 LANDLORD/PROPERTY OWNER NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: COMPLAINANT NAME: RPD Officer Nepper RENTER'S NAME: Langfald Charity Dawn UST APT #: 5 r DOB: 0 -7 29-78 SUSPECTS NAME: Charity Langfald other suspect with same new charges Adam Keith Still 01-18-86 NARRATIVE: On 01-05-06 Probation conducted a search on Langfald's residence and found several pipes under a couch. Deputy Scheckel tested one of the pipes using a meth NIK test which indicated positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Langfald was arrested on a probation violation and new charges for possession of drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine related crimes involving children. Landfald's 9 month old child was present in the apt when the pipes were found. TICKET/ ARREST 0 YES 0 No I OFFICER NAME: T. Nepper I BADGE n: 321 REV 2/03 P l ' Supplerent.l Report officer: Niss #127 Fm Film: Number of Rolle - Video Tapes: # of Tapes _ Digital Photos Downloaded: # of Photos Digital Recordings Downloaded: # of rec Incident Recorded on Snuad Videotape: Si IGR # 1 06 - '1043 Writer Weiss was sent to assist Probation Officer S. Sommer at 456 —13 Ave NW #5 with an apprehension order pick up. OFFICER OBSERVATIONS/ACTIONS: -Arrived on scene and was met by Sgt Beery. -Went to Apt #5 and saw Charity Dawn Langfald sitting on a living room couch in handcuffs. -Was told by PO Sommer that Langfald had drugs under the couch. -Located a baggie under the couch that had 5 glass pipes with drug residue in them, 1 metal pipe with drug residue in it, and a glass vial with orange and white pills in it. -I remained with Langfald while Sgt. Beery assisted probation in searching the apartment. -I photographed the baggie, and later photographed a BB Gun Pistol Sgt. Beery found stuck inside the couch. -I transported Langfald to the ADC, butwas unable to talk to her because she was under the influence of drugs, and was given something by the ADC nurse to attempt to counter act the illegal drugs she had used. -Spoke to Narcotics Officer Nepper about looking at the paraphernalia found to see what charges she wanted to pursue. -Gave the baggie with pipes, and pills to Deputy Scheckle at the LEC. EVIDENCE: 127-1 was given the Deputy Scheckle. DISPOSITIONS: -Open-Active. -Awaiting Narcotics Div. Investigation, and lab results. -ADC notified that Langfald was only being held on the App. Order, and any new Charges were pending. Page # 1 Revised 611105 Supplemental Report Officer: T. NEPPER #321 Film: Number of Rolls_ Video Tapes: # of Tapes Digital Photos Downloaded: # of Photos _ Digital Recordings Downloaded: # of recordings !CR # 106- 01043 PRELEYDNARY INFORMATION: On 01-06-061, Officer T. Nepper #321, was asked for assistance by Officer W. Weiss involving Charity Dawn Langfald DOB 07-29-78 and Adam Keith Still DOB 01-18-86. Deputy Claymon arrested Still on a bench warrant and Officer Weiss later arrested Langfald on an apprehension order. OFFICER ACTIONS/OBSERVATIONS: • I met with Officer Weiss who showed me a sandwich baggie of pipes found by probation officers under a couch at Langfald's residence (45613a' Ave NW Apt 5. • Officer Weiss asked advice about new charges on Langfald regarding the pipes. • Deputy Scheckel took custody of the pipes and was able to get a positive reaction for the presence of methamphetamine on one of the pipes. • This information was relayed to Officer Weiss and that I would complete the paperwork for the new charges. Officer Weiss also informed me that when Langfald was brought to the ADC on 01-05-06 she was incoherent when asked any questions. On 01-06-06 I went to the ,# DC to speak with Langfald. I met Langfald in an interview room. Langfald was very fidgety and paranoid (she kept turning around and looking out the window in the door). MIRANDA STATEMENTS: • At approximately 1300 hours I read Langfald the Miranda Warning. • Langfald understood her rights and would answer questions. Langfald stated the following. o Probation came to her house on 01-05-06, suspected her of using meth. o She admitted to using meth on 01-04-06. o She admitted pot pipes were found in her residence and there were other pipes but she did not know what other pipe there were or how many. o The pipes were not hers. o Adam Still called her from jail and told her to pick them (the pipes} up and get rid of them. o Still had hidden the pipes in the dirty laundry basket o She took the pipes from the basket and hid them under the couch because she did not have time to get them out of the house before they (probation) came. o She told probation where they (the pipes) were. o The pipes are Still's, none of them were hers because she snorts lines of meth and she doesn't smoke marijuana. o She did not see Still being the pipes over to her apartment but did see him use the pipes. o She saw him use the meth pipes. o It was just her and her nine month old daughter in the apartment when probation arrived. o She has been using meth for 6 years. o She used during her entire pregnancy. Supplemental Report lCR #: 06 - 01043 ')Moor: T. NEPPER #321 A QMCER ACTIONS/OBSERVATIONS: • Auer my conversation with Langfald I checked the phone records from the Adult Detention Center. • I learned the phone number for Langfald was 282-1936 and through the computer I saw that a phone call had been made from the jail to 282-1936 on 01-05-06 at 1102 hours and at 1425 hours. • I checked the arrest time of Still on 01-05-06 and that was at 0934 hours and the arrest time for Langfald on 01-05-06 was approximately 1145. • Using these times I checked the phone log. • I listened to both of those calls. • On 01-05-06 the call made at 1102 was from Still. • At 05:35 minutes into the conversation Still said, "Look through your laundry and you closet ok? And Under... Go through everything ok? And give all of my staff to Kenny or whatever. Just hang onto whatever you got to hang on to. Just give all my clothes, you know what I mean? Cool." • This conversation between Still and Langfald (who were advised that the phone call was recorded) was vague enough to communicate about the pipes that were in the laundry basket referring to them as laundry and clothes. • On 01-05-06 the call made at 1425 was from Still. - • At 04:30 minutes into the conversation Still said, "Have you ahh..." Langfald interrupted, "No not one of them." Still replied, "No, what do you mean `No not one of them."' Langfald replied, "My dirty laundry I can't find the black shirt. Do you understand?" Still said, "Oh it's umm under the couch." Langfald said, "Oh." Still replied, "It's ahh..." Langfald stated, "Ok I know never mind" Still then said, "It's only a BB." Still said again, "I just want my laundry cleaned" • This conversation between Still and Langfald was vague enough to communicate about a BB gun (black shirt) which was also found during the probation search stuck in the couch. • I made a CD copy of the 2 jail phone calls and placed them into Records. • I also completed charge sheet on both Still and Langfald for Methamphetamine-related crimes involving children. • Since a child under 18yrs was in the apartment with Still and Langfald and the meth pipes I completed 48 hour holds on both of them. • I contacted Olmsted County Attorney James Spencer who approved the Application for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause to Detain. • Downloaded Langfald's statements. • Completed charge sheet on both Still and Langfald for Methamphetamine-related crimes involving children and possession of drug paraphernalia 152.092. DISPOSITION: • Closed arrest. to Supp:es le.nta! Report Officer: Scheckel Film: Number of Rolls _ Cassette Tapes: # of Tapes Digital Photos Downloaded: # of Photos _ Digital Recordings Downloaded: # of recordings _ Incident Recorded on Squad Vldsotape' Squad # ICR # 1 06 - 001043 Synopsis: On Fnday 1-6-06 I met W ��, Rochester Police Officer Bill Weiss about a case involving Charity Dawn Langfald DOB 7-29-78. The incident was initiated on 1-5-06 when Deputy Claymon went to the g apartment at 456 NW 13th Ave. Rochester Apt. #5 and arrested Adam Keith Still DOB 1-18-86 on a warrant (ICR#06-000933). Officer's actions / Observations I am currently assigned to the Southeast Minnesota Narcotics Task Force. • I have investigated numerous cases involving the use, sale and manufacture of illegal drugs including methamphetamine, roached by Deputy Claymon about the arrest of Adam Still at During the morning hours of 1-5-06 I was app 456 NW 13" Ave Apartment #5. Langfald • Deputy Claymon told me there was a female in the apartment identified as Charity • Deputy Claymon told me Langfald had a baby in the apartment and Langfald appeared to under the influence of some type of drug. • I am aware of past cases involving Adam Still that he is involved in the use of methamphetamine. • with Michael Kocher and that Kocher was also a meth I was also aware that Langfald had a relationship user prior to going to prison. • Based on my past experiences I know that people involved with the use of methamphetamine often times associate with other users. • not stand still and was continually moving her hands around Deputy Claymon told me that Langfald could and rubbing her head. • I am aware that this behavior is consistent with something under the influence of methamphetamme. • ause of the fact that I felt the young child was in a dangerous I e-mailed Mary Fay with this information bee environment • 1 was later called during the day and told by Probation and Parole that suspected methamphemtine was found under the couch at the residence. • I was on another narcotics operation and was not able to respond to the residence. On Friday 1-6-06 I met with Officer Bill Weiss and showed the methamphetamine paraphernalia found under the couch. • I took custody of the items and tested some of the residue from one of the glass pipes (Item #609-1) in the zip lock bag given to me by Officer Weiss. • I used a NIK test Idt for methamphetamine and received a positive test result. • 1 packaged the items in heat seal bags and entered them into evidence. Disposition Report added to case file. Positive test for methamphetamine from Item 4609-1 #' ICR #: 106 — 0010Y3 Officer: Scheckel Synopsis: This is a clarification to the case involving Adam Keith Still DOB 1-18-86 and Charity Dawn Langfald DOB 7-29-78. Officer's actions/ Observations • Officer Tracy Nepper talked to Charity Langfald in the Adult Detention Center on Friday 1-6-06. • Langfald told Officer Nepper that Adam Still called her and told her the pipes were in the laundry. • Charity told Officer Nepper that she (Charity) removed the pipes from the laundry and was going to get rid of them but Probation and parole arrived at her residence and she hid them under the couch. • Officer Nepper confirmed the calls from the ADC between Langfald and Still and confirmed there was talk about checking the laundry (calls downloaded onto CD). • I tested some of the residue in one of the pipes and it tested positive for methamphetamine using a NIK test kit • Langfald and Still both charged with methamphetamine related crimes involving children 152.137 Subd 1(a)(4) under ICR # 06-001043. n¢Wsed 6-1`5 EVENT REPORT ® Rochester Police Department ❑ Olmsted County Sheriff; s Office Business Sarah Business Witness Frst Weiss/Beery Business or more First Charity Submvttrd to Records: ❑ F']m: Number of Rolls _ ❑ Video Tapes: ft of Tapes ❑ Digital Pbotos Downloaded: # of Pbotos 7 lx ite Recmdi w Downloaded: # of recording Dawn Last Sommer Last Langfald orange ICR #: 06-1043 Reviewed by. DOB ❑ Juvenile DOB ❑ Juvenile DOB DOB 7-29-79 Juvenile Juvenile Residence Phone 232-1936 456 -13 Ave NW #5 Phone Business Height Weight Hair Eyes Glasses Type Facial Hair Type Weapon Type se 150 blo bro na na na _ n mrnnnl R Drugs Vehicle ❑ Suspect LJ Victim LI impounu Color. License Plate: n1a State: Make: Year. Model: Initial Investi atn Officers): Weiss #127 Patrol Follow--)* ® Patrol Si n-off Inv Unit Follow-up Invest ator s : Ne er Assigned: Narco 4, 4. Arrest Report 5pbRh;Nled Re�fR rds:J_ O Number ar Rolls_ ICR#: I 06-1043 ' Vide ❑ Video Tapes:#of Tapes_ I ® Digeai pholm 13+ovded:#of Photos 1� Rochester Police Department Reviewed by: Ticket# ❑ Olmsted County Sheriffs Office 0 agital Recordings DM Loaded:#of recortlngs_ ❑ hadentRecorded on5geadCa,YdecotiSquadCar#__ c rer. Weiss#127 t• C/�dOG' . offense Apprehension Order pick up 1 — to Juvenile Involved? Photos Taken? ® Yes ❑ No ®Yes ❑ No Date and Time Date Time Date and Time Date Time Date and Time Date Tme of Offense: 1$06 1445 of Arrest same of Release: tot ADC Arrest 456 13 Ave NW #5 Where Miranda? Location: Held: ADC ❑ Yes N No Suspect First Middle Last N Adult Name Charity dawn LangWd DOB 7-29-79 ❑ Juvenile Male White ❑ Asian DL No. L521115135594 AKA N Female ❑ Black ❑ Residence 456 13 Ave NW #5 Phone 282-1936 Marital Never Been Married ❑ Other Lives N Alone Status: ❑ Married ❑ Divorced With: ❑Parents ❑ Other. Business Phone Occupation Licensed? By Whom? Address: nla ❑ Yes ❑ No Height Weight Hair Eyes Glasses Type Facial Hair Type Weapon Type Descri lion: 5-5 150 blond Bro n/a n/a Clothing ❑ Almhal N Drugs Descri lion: sweat pants and tee shirt School: Grade: Place of Birth: Albert Lea Yearsin Coun . 3yrs Probation? Probation Warrant N NCIC N Olmsted County N Yes ❑ No Officer. Sarah Check N MINCIS ❑ Other. Parents' Marital Status: ® Married ❑ Separated ❑ Divorced ❑ Other. - Fathers Name Address Home Phone Employer Work Phone Scott Iowa 7 ? Mothers Name Address Home Phone Employer Work Phone Iowa 7 ? Guardian/Stepparent's Name Address Home Phone Employer Work Phone In Company of Name: Carat Dawn Kochen DOB: Address: Phone: In Companyof Name: DOB: Address: Phone: Vehicle Impounded? License Plate: ❑ Yes ❑ No State: Make: Year. Made]: Color. Owners Name Address Home Phone Work Phone -Probation Officers Called LEC for Officer for Apprehension Order they were going to Issue on site at LANGFALD's home- -During the search of the residence Probation Officers found a baggie with 6 pipes with drug residue, and other pills in a small glass bottle. Arresting Officer.. W81SS #127 1 1 -r`.� - 7; i'y/.'°i- Page 1 of 2 1SJ J, J Ye/Iow Copy to Investigations `Pink Copy to C I T Y O F R 0 C H E S T E R HOUSING REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE INQUIRY Reg Cert *: 579 Building Address: 456 13 AVE NW Owner Name: N0,W JA ,QK,, P Phone: 507 292 0664 Street: 1408 13 AVE NW City, ST: ROCHESTER MN Zip: 55901 Manager Name: Phone: Street: City, ST: Zip: Single Family: Mobile Home: „ Two Family: „ Apartment Units: ,,,,6, Rooming Units: ,,,,, Condo Units: ,,,,, Owner Occupy Unit: 9,, Date Paid: , 5, 26, 2,004, pate, Cert,.. ,EacppiFe,s,:, , 5, 3,1, 2,0,0,6, 1�a,s,t, Cofip;�,ance pate:, 5, ,2,6, g,Q04, ApPf4ve4 Site plaA:, Pause=return to n-ain mnu F6=scan by Bldg Addr F7=scan by Owner RpiY.LgTER•M1AA� °`= ROCHESTER s°f September 28, 2005 q� { 1: ^A,�R��jV....... •''o ✓OGd�a Aren.eeecsr'' NOTICE OF DISORDERLY USE ROGER PETERSON Chief of P°0m NOVAKJASONP Rochester Police Department 101 4th St S.E. 1408 13 AVE NW Rochester, MN 55904-3761 ROCHESTER MN 55901 www.rochestermn.gov RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 45613 AVE NW Certificate #: 579 You are hereby notified that the above referenced rental property was the site of conduct defined as a disorderly use by Rochester Code of Ordinances Section 38.152, Subd. 2. The following ordinances and/or statutes are cited for the violations found: Violation History: Tenant Name Violation Date ICR# Badge # Violation Langfald, Charity Dawn (#5) 0925/2005 05-072940 2313 Disorderly Conduct A copy of the police violation report is attached for your convenience. Please be advised that if another instance of disorderly use at this property occurs within twelve (12) months of this notice, you will receive a second Notice of Disorderly Use. At that time you will be required to submit a written reportof appropriate actions you have taken and intend to take to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. If a third instance of disorderly use occurs within twelve (12) months of the first notice, the rental registration certificate may be suspended or revoked, and a fine or other sanctions may be imposed by the Common Council.. You may call our office at (507) 291-6056 if you have any questions. Crime Prevention. 101 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 DISORDERLY USE VIGL4TION IV � Rochester Police Departmn t To be filled out and attached to reports filed in conjunction with Building and Safety violations:"Clty'.Dtdii§aFlce 38.152 ICR # 05-72940 INCIDENT DATE: 9-25-05 INCIDENT TYPE: Disorderly conduct. INCIDENT / APARTMENT ADDRESS: 456 NW 13 Ave LANDLORD/PROPERTY OWNER NAME: Drew Novak Properties ADDRESS: 1408 NW 13 Ave PHONE: COMPLAINANT NAME: Roxanne Martin RENTER'S NAME: Langfald Charity Dawn LAST M r M=LE APT #: 5 DOB: 7-29-79 SUSPECT'S NAME: Joshua David Ulstad NARRATIVE: Officers dispatched to above address as starting point of a rolling domestic as the victim & suspect had left the scene in a blue Cavalier IA 7651QD. The suspect, later identified as Joshua David Ulstad 9-14-75 drove into the parking lot, alone, in IA 7651QD, while we were speaking to the complainant. The complainant stated that she heard an altercation -- crashing sounds, shouting -- in the parking lot between a male and female. When she asked the victim if she was okay the suspect told her to "fuck off' and when he asked if she was calling the police she said yes and used another obscenity. The suspect denied saying any such things and stated no assault occurred. Officers made contact with the victim who stated it was a verbal argument only. Ulstad stated he'd spent the night at friend's apartment -- he identified the renters as Charity Langfald & Erin Langfald in apt #5. Ulstad warned for disorderly conduct and advised to make no contact with the complainant. Erin Langfald exited the building and stated Josh was her former boyfriend. Erin stated she was not on the lease but her cousin, Charity Langfald was. Erin stated it was her vehicle that Josh was driving. Several others exited the building and Erin stated they'd been in her apartment also. At least one of them commented that "they" (the suspect & victim) were "at it all the time." Ulstad told Officer S. Peterson that his girlfriend (victim) was always fighting with him. Computer returns were not coming back from Iowa and I could not confine Ulstad's driving status or the owner of the vehicle involved. Erin stated she would be dropping Ulstad off at his apartment before going to work at Target. Stayed in the area until Erin and Ulstad left because the complainant was concerned for her safety. TICI(FT/ARREST ❑ YES ® No I OFFICER NAME: I S. Quirk #313 BADGE #: REV 2/03 Rochester Police Department I,.,',.9)2t/05 Incident Maintenance ORI #: MN0550100 RPD ;all Date/Time : 09/25/2005 12.24.29 Sunday Dispatch Date/Time: 09/25/2005 12:25:11 Arrive Date/Time : 09/25/2005 12:39:54 Clear Date Time . : 09/25/2005 13:31:26 Location . Cross Street Nature Of Call: Caller . . . . Complainant . Incident Type Report Reqd . Unit 1 # . . Unit 2 # . . Area: 0574 Roch 456 NW 13 AVE ROLLING DOMESTIC. ROXANE IfiARTIN, I / I DSC P Dsorderly* YES 2226 ID # 1 2221 ID # 3 0574 Section W/M BLND HAIR PL1020D2 I,nqui,ry 2005-00072940 Disposition: Clear Call Type: S Venue: CRO Rochester Phone Number: 9522391015 Priority : 2 PETERSON,STEVEN,P ID # 2: PETERSEN,BRENT,WI ID # 4: 3441 3441 Grid . 901 55901 1' ee, F �F 4 Y� ,W S�Fi� -, , , , , , I , -I , ,I, Dispatch Narrative 20050925.AH3 More: + - ,I, I, Information on the units assigned to the call follows. ,I, I, Unit#: K931 Radio#: 000 Ofcr 1: 1068 Ofcr 2: 2001 J. I, DSP: 09/25/05 12:26 ARV: CLR: 09/25/05 12:29 ,I, O ,I, Unit#: 2226 Radio#: 000 Ofcr 1: 2129 Ofcr 2: 2129 i, 5 I, DSP: 09/25/05 12:25 ARV: 09/25/05 12:41 CLR: 09/25/05 13:06 ,I, Unit#: 2221 Radio#: 000 Ofcr 1: 2338 Ofcr 2: 2338 I, I, DSP: 09/25/05 12:27 ARV: 09/25/05 12:39 CLR: 09/25/05 13:17 I, ,I, Unit#: 2233 Radio#: 000 Ofcr l: 2313 Ofcr 2: 2313 I, ,I, DSP: 09/25/05 12:31 ARV: 09/25/05 12:41 CLR: 09/25/05 13:31 I, I, BLUE JEANS/BLK TSHIRT/ALOT OF TATOOES 12:24:41 I, ,I, BLOND HAIR CUT REAL SHORT... 12:24:47 ,I, HIT THE FEMALE NUMEROUS TIMES. 12:24:56 ,I, I, W/F PALE SKIN BLK TSHIRT BAREFOOT JEANS 12:25:16 ,I, I, BROWN HAIR 12:25:21 ,I, I, TURNED R ON CIVIC CENTER DR 12:25:39 ,I, I, ---- 12:25:43 ,I, L CALLER STOPPED AND MALE SUBJECT EVEN THREATENED 12:25:52 ,I, F k 3=,Exit, , k 1,2-C,a�ce1,-,-, ,- ', ,-,.-.-.-.-.-.------------------------------------. -,-r, -- - T -F,re,e, F0.r PRG IeAt,- - r, ,- ,-,-r - ,- .-,-, 20050925.AH3 ,1,34,6,5,1,-, More: + I, I, Dispatch Narrative 125:5 I, THE CALLER 12: 25:58 ,I, 11, ----_ I, MALE SUBJECT DOES LIVE AT THIS ADDRESS IN APT 09/25/2005 12:27:01 ,I, 12:28:17 O ,I, State/NCIC Request: Number: 0580997 Type: QMR ,I, 12:28:55 5 I, LIC/DGU246. LIY/04. LIT/PC. PLC/765KZD. NAM/ONEIL,PATRICK MICHAEL.*RECORD DISSEMINATION RESTRICTED* ,I, 12:29:00 I, SNM/113 HENRIETTA AVE PO BOX. CTY/HILL CITY. STA/MN. 12:29:03 I, 12:29:05 I, ZIP/55748. I, VIN/1G1LT5117JE563097. VYR/88. VMA/CHEV. VCO/GRY/GRY. ,I, 12:29:08 I, VMO/CORSICA,4DR SEDAN ,I, 12:30:40 J. I, ----------- J. IOWA PLATE VEHILCE ABOVE IS NOT CORRECT RQ 09/25/2005 12:38:32 ,I, 12:39:11 ,I, I, State/NCIC Request: Number: 0581016 Type: RQ 09/25/2005 12:49:56 ,I, I, State/NCIC Request: Number: 0581019 Type: 12:I, I, ULSTAD,JOSHUA DAVID DOB/19750914 12:53::57 I I, CODE 4 12:53:57 I I C4 New Tlorld Systems Corporation ' 9/26/05 Work With Documents Year: 2005 Incident: 00072940 T -Tree, kph AoC,�teAtr,- -rrr,-r r -rrr rrrr, -rr ,I, Dispatch Narrative 20050925.AH3 ,I, C4 1, NARR:BPETERSEN 13:17:11 09/25/05 SPOKE WITH FEMALE HALF VI 1, A TELEPHONE, HOULTHES, MELISSA. STATED THAT NOTHING OCCURRED O I, BETWEEN HER AND ULSTAD AND THAT SHE WAS NOT ASSAULTED, NOR 5 I, HAS SHE EVER BEEN ASSAULTED. REFUSED ALL POLICE SERVICE. ULS 1, TAD STATED THAT NOTHING HAPPENED AND THAT THE WITNESS "MISIN I, TERPRETED" WHAT SHE SAW. STATED THAT HOULTHES PUSHED HIM AND 1, THEY WERE ARGUING ONLY. I, NARR:SQUIRK 13:30:09 09/25/05 JOSHUA DAVID ULSTA➢ 9-14-75 1,ALSO STATED HE NEVER SAID "FUCK OFF" OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO 1, THE COMPLAINANT WHEN SHE ASKED THE FEMALE IF SHE WAS OK. DIS I, ORDERLY USE FILED FOR APT. 5. WAITED ON SCENE UNTIL THE SUSP I,ECT LEFT W/ERIN LANGFALD, HIS FORMER GIRLFRIEND & COUSIN TO 1, RENTER OF APT. 5, CHARITY LANGFALD. ,1, NARR:SQUIRK 13:31:50 09/25/05 NOT RECEIVING COMPUTER RETUR J. NS FROM IA & UNABLE TO VERIFY ULSTAD'S DRIVING STATUS - IT N ,1, OT VALID, CITATION WILL BE MAILED TO HIM FOR NO MN DL. AU2d�DOS1 More: + 13:10:29 13:16:43 13:16:43 I, 13:16:43 ,I, 13:16:43 ,I, 13:16:43 ,I, 13:16:43 ,I. 13:16:43 I, 13:29:41 .11 13:29:41 ,I, 13:29:41 ,I, 13:29:41 ,I, 13:29:41 ,I, 13:29:41 ,I, 13:31:21 ,I, 13:31:21 ,I, 13:31:21 I, F C I T Y O F R 0 C H E S T E R HOUSING REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE INQUIRY Reg Cert #: 579 Building Address: 456 13 AVE NW Owner Name: NOVM JM0N ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Phone: 507 292 0664 Street: 1408 13 AVE NW City, ST: ROCHESTER MN Zip: 55901 Manager Name: Phone: Street: City, ST: Zip: Single Family: Mobile Home: „ Two Family: „ Apartment Units: ,,,,6, Rooming Units: ,,,,, Condo Units: ,,,,, Owner Occupy Unit: X, Date Paid: , ,5, 26, 20,0,4, pate, Ce,rt,., Expires,:, , ,5, ,3,1, ,2,0,0,6, Last ,C,ogpli,a,nce, pate,: , ,5, 2,6, 2,0,0,4, Approved Site R,laa:, , , Pause=return to main menu F6=scan by Bldg Addr F7=scan by Owner f .. Page 1 of 1 I "j Kvenvold, Steve From: Boose, Ron Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:12 PM To: Kvenvold, Steve Cc: Dutton, Gary Subject: FW: Rental Certificate Status 801 SW 1 St - Drew Novak Properties FYI. This certificate is still expired. I will let Gary respond to this message but I would expect some KPNA people there tonight urging council to take stronger action than what is currently recommended. Letters from the City Attorney's office have been sent on both of these properties under our new procedures. Ron From: Dave Edmonson[mailto:Dave.Edmonson@pemstar.com] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:52 PM To: Dutton, Gary Cc: Boose, Ron; mlmarcoux@aol.com; amasterpole@mcghiebetts.com; jennifermulvihill@yahoo.com; kellie@bellaraehomes.com; edmonson6@charter.net; Hebbring.Scott@mayo.edu; c_d_flood@yahoo.com; danellenbaum@hotmail.com; mecrowley@mayo.edu; gizmowizrd@hotmail.com; glenn.faith@charter.net; zumiezboarder@msn.com; bkandrewsya@yahoo.com Subject: Rental Certificate Status 801 SW 1 St - Drew Novak Properties Dear Gary: In case you don't remember me, I am the current president of the KPNA and was involved in the meetings we had with your department and the city regarding delinquent rental certificates in our neighborhood. I have an urgent request. Could you let me know the status of the Rental Certificate on 801 SW 1 SO The landlord, Jason Novak, faces a hearing on another property, 456 13th Ave NW, for a disorderly use tonight at the city council meeting. I think it pertinent to report on the status of this other property because when we surveyed your records this was one that had been expired since Sep-04. Have they gotten their inspection up to date? If not then I think the city council should be made aware of that fact in deciding what Mr. Novak's punishment should be. I don't want to make this a witch hunt but I do want these landlords to know that we are watching and expect them to comply with all city ordinances. David A. Edmonson President KPNA 507-529-6501 V� Mayor Brede: Mayor Brede inquired of Building Safety as to if they had any issues with property, and how the rental certificate was structured. Gary Dutton — Building Safety Mr. Dutton indicated that there were no other housing code violations on the property, and the entire building (six units) are under one rental certificate at this time. It was then pointed out by Mr. Wright from the City Attorney's office, that in the police report, it indicates a letter was found in the apartment from the Cook County Courts addressed to Mr. Ernest Pitchford at that address. Mayor Brede Mayor Brede inquired as to whether or not Mr. Pitchford was also listed as a tenant on the lease for that apartment. Mr. Novak responded that only Ms. Jones was listed. Terry Spaeth — City Administration Mr. Spaeth asked Mr. Novak if he had attended the crime free multi family housing workshop put on by the Crime Prevention Unit? Mr. Novak responded that he had not, and that he was not aware of the program. Councilmember Snyder Mr. Snyder inquired about what the various types of disorderly use violations are, and what the alternatives of the Board are. Mr. Wright from the City Attorney's office explained the nature of the various types of behaviors that constitute disorderly use violations, and then explained the responsibilities and alternatives available to the board for remedying the violations. Councilmember Snyder Mr. Snyder inquired of the owner if he had been involved with the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association (KPNA). Mr. Novak indicated he had been contacted by them, but as of yet had not attended a meeting, although it is his intent to become involved since he owns several properties in the neighborhood. Councilmember Snyder Mr. Snyder made a recommendation that the property owner be required to attend the next crime free multi family housing workshop (scheduled for fall 2006) and also attend and participate in the KPNA. Mayor Brede The Mayor concurred with Councilmember Snyder's two suggested conditions, but also recommends that this item be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing, with the rationale being to indicate to the general public that the City takes these violations very seriously. Mr. Snyder concurred. i Rental Housing Complaint Board Recommendation The Board recommendations is to schedule this matter for a public hearing before the City Council, and also require that Mr. Novak attend the next crime free multi family housing workshop, and also attend and participate in the KPNA. Terry Spaeth — City Administration Mr. Spaeth indicated that this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council at the June 19, 2006 meeting. U1 R.C.O. 38.150 — 38.154 38.150 Legislative Intent. It is declared to be the purpose and intent of Sections 38.151 through 38.153 to protect and preserve this city's neighborhoods and the public health, safety, welfare and morals of those who live there. The Rochester Common Council determined that: (1) there are persons residing in rental property in Rochester engaging in disorderly conduct which results in a hostile environment for other Rochester citizens living close to the rental property; (2) there is currently no city ordinance which provides a formal procedure by which the City can notify a rental property owner or manager of the disorderly conduct occurring on the property; (3) there is currently no procedure by which the City can require a rental property owner or manager to respond to and resolve the occurrences of disorderly conduct occurring on his or her rental property and to take administrative action against his or her rental registration certificate or right to obtain a rental registration certificate should he or she fail to do so. Accordingly, it is the intent of Sections 38.151 through 38.153 to address the serious and, at times, life threatening problems posed by the occurrence of disorderly conduct to the health and safety of all Rochester residents in all portions of this city. At the same time, the Common Council recognizes, acknowledges, and complies with all due process and property rights enjoyed by those who own or manage rental property as well as those who reside in such property. This ordinance represents the City s good faith effort to balance those competing and legitimate interests. 38.151 Definitions. For purposes of Sections 38.151 through 38.153, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them. "Appropriate action" shall mean that action which a reasonable rental property owner would take based upon the facts and circumstances of each case so as to prevent a reoccurrence of the disorderly use. "License" shall mean a registration certificate or the right to receive a registration certificate as required by this chapter. "Rental property owner" shall mean one who holds the license or who is otherwise obligated to obtain and maintain the license as required by this chapter. "Licensed Premises" or "Premises" shall mean the property owned, operated, or managed by a rental property owner and shall refer to an individual unit within a multi -unit complex when 4 applicable. "Disorderly" or "Disorderly Use" shall mean that conduct occurring on the "Licensed Premises" or "Premises" which violates a provision of Section 38.152(2). 38.152 Conduct on Licensed Premises. Subdivision 1. Any rental property owner shall be responsible to take appropriate action against persons occupying speck units in the licensed premises or premises who conduct themselves in such a manner as to cause the premises to be disorderly in violation of the statutes or ordinances listed in Subdivision 2. For purposes of this Chapter, the term "persons occupying the premises" shall include tenants as defined by Minn. Stat. § 566.18, and those persons on the licensed premises whose presence the tenant has invited or to which the tenant has acquiesced. Violations of this section apply to individual units within buildings or complexes containing multiple units when the conduct occurs within a unit. Violations of this section by persons occupying specific units that occur within a common area of the licensed premises shall apply both to the individual unit and to the common area of the licensed premises. Subd. 2. The following ordinances and statutes are applicable to this section: a) Section 85.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances prohibiting prostitution; b) Section 85.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances prohibiting indecent conduct; c) Section 85.04 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances prohibiting participation in a disorderly house; d) Minnesota Statutes Sections 617.23 through 617.299 prohibiting obscenity; e) Section 85.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances prohibiting loud parties or gatherings or other unnecessary loud noises; f} Section 34.20-34.27 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances prohibiting overcrowding; g) Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.75 through 609.76 which prohibit gambling; h) Minnesota Statutes Sections 152.01 through 152.025 and Section 152.027, Subdivisions 1 and 2, which prohibit the unlawful sale or possession of controlled substances; i) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A which prohibits the unlawful sale, use or possession of alcoholic beverages; j) Minnesota Statutes Section 9713.021, 97B.045, 609.66 through 609.67 and 624.712 through 624.716, which prohibit the unlawful possession, transportation, sale, or use of a weapon; k) Minnesota Statutes Section 609.72 which prohibits disorderly conduct; or, 1) Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.2931, and 609.224 which prohibit assaults, except that domestic assaults, as the same are defined by state law, are not included herein. Subd. 3. The police or Director shall be charged with the responsibility of enforcing Subdivision 2. Subd. 4. Upon determination by the police or housing inspector that the licensed premises were involved in a disorderly use, the police shall notify the license holder by regular mail of such violation and direct the license holder to take appropriate action to prevent further violations. Notice shall be effective if mailed to the license holder at that person's last known address. This and subsequent notices are collectively referred to as disorderly use notices. Subd. 5. If another instance of disorderly use on the premises occurs within 12 months of an incident for which a prior disorderly use notice was given, the license holder shall be noted of the instance of disorderly use and shall also be required to submit a written report of appropriate actions taken by the rental property owner to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written report shall be submitted to the police within five days of the notice of disorderly use of the premises and shall, in addition to the report of appropriate actions to be taken, detail all actions taken by the rental property owner in response to all notices of disorderly use of the premises within the preceding 12 months. Failure to submit the written report as required herein shall be a basis for the imposition of a fine and the revocation or suspension of the license or right to receive the license for the specific units or units located on the licensed premises as otherwise provided for in this chapter. Subd. 6a. If another instance of disorderly use of the premises occurs within 12 months of two or more prior disorderly use notices, the license or right to obtain such license may be revoked or suspended for a specific unit or units located on the licensed premises. If the notice of violation has been issued with respect to a common area of a building or complex of buildings then the license or right to obtain such license as to all units in such building or complex may be suspended or revoked. Subd. 6b. If another instance of disorderly use of the premises occurs within 12 months of the expiration of a prior suspension issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the license or right to obtain such license may be revoked or suspended for the specific unit or units located on the licensed premises. If the notice of violation has been issued with respect to a common area of a building or complex of buildings then the license or right to obtain such license as to all units in such building or complex may be suspended or revoked. Subd. 7. No suspension or revocation or other sanctions shall be imposed where AID one or more of the three required disorderly use notices were mailed or delivered to the landlord after the rental property owner has filed an unlawful detainer action with the district court for the particular unit or units identified in the disorderly use notice. Calls to police made by rental property owners shall not be considered incidents of disorderly use in the implementation of Section 38.152, subdivisions 4, 5, and 6. The initiation of an unlawful detainer action shall not be a bar to sanctions, however, unless the action is diligently pursued by the rental property owner. Notice of and a copy of the unlawful detainer action shall be delivered to the police department. A determination that the licensed premises have been involved in a disorderly use as described in Subdivision 2 shall be made upon a preponderance of the evidence. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought to support a determination of disorderly use, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal of such a criminal charge operate as a bar to adverse license action under this section. Subd. 8. This section applies to all leases, whether written or oral, and a landlord may consider any tenant's conduct listed in Section 38.152(2) to be both a material breach of the lease and grounds for termination in any unlawful detainer action. Additionally, all written leases executed after August 31, 1995 shall contain a clause providing that conduct that violates Subdivision 2 constitutes both a material breach of the lease and grounds for termination of such lease. Subd. 9. This ordinance is not intended to supersede criminal sanctions that may be applied to the individual who violates the statutes and ordinances listed in Subdivision 2. 38.153 License Suspension and Revocation. Subdivision 1. Upon a determination that a license or right to obtain such a license may be suspended or revoked, or that a fine or other sanctions may be imposed, a public hearing shall be held before a body to be known as the Rental Housing Complaint Board. The Rental Housing Complaint Board shall consist of the Common Council member from the ward in which the licensed premises is located, the Common Council President, and the Mayor. All parties shall be afforded an opportunity to appear at such hearing after receiving reasonable notice. The notice shall state the time, place, and issues involved. At this hearing, rental property owners may present evidence of mitigating circumstances showing the absence of any need for a public hearing before the Council to consider the revocation or suspension of the license or right to receive such a license, or the imposition of fines or other sanctions. The Board shall in good faith hear and consider this evidence in making a determination to hold a public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board shall make a recommendation to the Common Council regarding whether a need exists for a public hearing. The Board's recommendation must be submitted to the Common Council for its consideration. If the Council determines to call for a public hearing to consider the issue of suspension or revocation, or the imposition of a fine, the Council shall follow the procedures described in subdivision 2 Subd. 2. No suspension or revocation shall be effective until the rental property owner has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act. Should the Common Council hold a public hearing pursuant to the recommendation of the Rental Housing Complaint Board, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity to appear at such hearing after receiving reasonable notice. The notice shall state the time, place, and issues involved. At this hearing, license holders may present evidence of mitigating circumstances that would allow a rental property to retain his or her license or the right to obtain such a license. The Common Council shall in good faith hear and consider this evidence in making a determination to 11 revoke or suspend the license or right to receive a license, impose civil penalties, or impose other reasonable conditions based upon violations of this chapter. The Common Council may postpone or discontinue such proceedings if it appears that the licensee has taken appropriate measures that will prevent further instances of disorderly use. Subd. 3. The Common Council reserves the right to impose any of the following sanctions for violations of Section 38.152(2): a) suspend the license or right to receive a license for up to 60 days; or b) revoke the license or right to receive a license and establish the time period after which an application for a new certificate for the premises may be made; or c) impose a civil fine not to exceed an amount equal to one months' rent for each violation found as a result of the hearings; or d) impose other reasonable conditions intended to limit future incidents of disorderly use. Subd. 4. Upon expiration of the suspension or revocation period, a license holder shall pay to the City a reinstatement fee equal to $100 for the first unit re -licensed and $20 for each additional unit. 38.154 Prospective Tenant Background Investigations. Subdivision 1. The Rochester Common Council has determined that there are persons residing in rental property in Rochester engaging in disorderly conduct which results in a hostile environment for other Rochester citizens living in or close to the rental property. It is the declared purpose and intent of this section to protect and preserve this city s neighborhoods and the public health, safety, welfare and morals of its citizens by providing a system at the local level for criminal history/background investigations prospective tenants. Subd. 2. Any owner of rental properly may request that the Rochester Police Department conduct a criminal history/background investigation of a prospective tenant as provided under Section 21.05, subd. 1. Such request shall be on a form approved or provided by the Rochester Police Department. The applicant shall pay an investigation fee as established by resolution of the Common Council. (1406, 7117/67; 1476, 12116/68; 1739, 12/13/73; 1750, 2119/74; 1816, 8/18/75; 2238, 3/16/82); 2315, 7/19/83; 2318, 811/83; 2318A, 8/9/83; 2765; 9/17/91; 2809, 4/20/92; 2812, 5/4/92; 2997, 8/8/95; 3000, 8/22/95; 3079, 3/4/97; 3174, 5/19/98; 3196, 1016198; 3298, 12/6199; 3350, 8122/00; 3362, 11/7/00; 3612, 1/21/04; 3631, 3/15104; 3650, 717/04) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 6-1 36 .GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works GTE ITEM DESCRIPTION: Expand Residential Permit Parking Zone 6, P PARED BY: 5' Ave SW 600 block D. Kramer This is a public hearing to consider a petition from a property owner to establish residential permit parking on the north half of the 51h Ave SW 600 block, on the east side. The remainder of this block currently has residential permit parking. This would be an expansion of existing residential permit parking zone 6 (Edison School Area). The purpose of the zone is to control parking of vehicles by nonresidents of the area. This portion of the block currently does not have any parking restrictions. RCO 138A.03 requires the petition to be signed by owners or occupants of at least 75% of the units. The petition includes the signature of the owner of the 16 unit apartment at 428 6tn St SW. The other parcel abutting the proposed zone at 610 5th Ave SW contains a storage garage, counting as one unit for a total of 17 units. Signatures representing 16 of the 17 units (94.1 %) are included on the petition. The property abutting the proposed residential permit parking zone is zoned R-4. The petition has been reviewed to meet the requirements of RCO 138A. Notice of this hearing was mailed to owners and residents on June 5, 2006. J 507 503 4271-1 L 6 ST SW 510 60 428 PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING EXISTING 60 PERMIT PARKING 610 611 61 ? U)M429421 Q 621 511 627 7 ST SW 1 510 504 430 424 41 416 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Amend paragraph 1 of Section L, "Residential Permit Parking', Zone 6 (Edison School Area) of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution so as to read: 1 5th Ave SW, from 6'h St SW to 7th St SW, from 8 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: JUN.19.2006 2:39RM MAYO MMP M0.460 P.1 To: From: Judy Scherr Susanne Lan City Clerk 428 6'h Street SW, apt 204 201 4111 Street SE, Room 135 Rochester, MN 55902 Rochester, MN 55904-3742 (507) 319 5974 EMail: Lang.Susanne@mayo edu Rochester, June 19'h 2006 Subject: Council Hearing on residential permit parking on 5`r' Ave SW, June 191h 2006, 7:00 pm Dear City Council, To support the permit parking proposal I prepared a form which residents of the building 428 6 Street SW could sign if they wanted to support this proposal. I am sending now this form to You in form of a fax together with this letter. I will keep the original. Please let me know if you need it Thank you very much_ Best regards, 0CVJJ Dr. Susanne Lang JUN.ly.,006 2;39PM MRYO MMP NO.462 P.2 Council Hearing on residential permit parking on 5ch Ave SW, June 19th 2006, 7:00 pm I apply in favor of the proposal todaX and request the permission for tenants in 428 6 Street SW to purchase parking permits in the residential permit parking area in front of our building. Signature: Apartment: 1. �irrcrut.ae_ �� °9, 0 y 2. a o�, f e.�f✓� I I ------------------------------------------ 3. Z � \ 4. '%)-, c_. k c_ 5 m '-s 5----''i"-vjc-t-------------------------- o----- -- ------------ ----------------------------------------------`---------- ------------------------------------------------------ 8. 9. 10. l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-I9-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N(� PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 by PREPARED BY: Franklin Kottschade by Willow Creek Commons. The applicant is requesting to expand the Brent Svenby, approved excavation permit of a substantial land alteration and quarry operation on Senior Planner property located south of 40th Street SW and west of TH 63. The applicant is requesting to grade within the shoreland district as well as for the placement of fill in the floodway and flood prone district. In addition to the conditional use the applicant is requesting variances to the shoreland district provisions. The property is located south of 4e Street June 12, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On May 24, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider this amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 and also Variance#06-09. The Commission is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit that would allow for an expansion of excavation activities on the property. The Commission approved the variance requested. Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit request #04-01 by Franklin Kottschade with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. 1. Prior to excavation, the applicant shall: Provide the City with a financial security consistent with Section 62.11017, 1, h and 62.1109 1,1 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual; Receive approval of a grading, drainage and erosion control plans, meeting City standards; The applicant shall submit a Blasting Plan to the City, in compliance with Section 62.1107, 1), m), prior to any blasting occurring on the site; 2. A TIR shall be completed, if it differs from the land use and trip generation assumptions used in the TH 63 Traffic Study, to evaluate the impacts on the surrounding roadway, specifically TH 63 and 4e Street. 3. Stormwater Management must be provided on -site via City approved on -site stormwater management designed to serve the entire property. 4. The Owner shall match the abutting property line grades unless other documented arrangements are made with the abutting landowner and noted on the grading plan approved by the City. 5. Prior to Final Plat submittal, andlor development of this Property, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, floodway limitations of development, stormwater management, transportation improvements including Transportation Improvement District Charges, access control, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, access and extension of utilities for adjacent properties, and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. Grading of the areas outside of Phase I shall not occur until the applicant has received a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to amend the floodway and has a resolution of support from the City of Rochester supporting the zone change on the property. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: -114 Page 2 RCA June 12, 2006 Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Conditional Use Permit request based upon the criteria included in the staff report (61.146, 62.824, 62.834, 62.860, 62.1010 and 62.1105). Attachments: 1, Staff Report dated May 5, 2006 2. Minutes of the May 24, 2006 CPZC Meeting (attached to Zone Change #04-14 RCA) Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached (Use Legal of Zone Change #04-14) 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Governme Center, 151 4th Street SE lh q}y �.. �-••+ �• +� �r°c N01 vtl3 w ONYI -�sra. vn yy y1 ��•..•••. �� manrm�� iXwW'tl3183KJOtl d(1J N3YION3Wtl rex[mz � l� r�.�.'.+emu ..- h •AAYMICWIWR r�a5yyyyyyrvrvrvrvrvrvi110S ]T'SNOWWO:l N33tl�AWTVA A1h�dOtld y53� L/Z N33YJ MOTYA .e. - �� � 3 III111WWW 9 f?i � CI ��i,,o 3 E � S � E `> 3 3a � >`� I is"ti•=6li°°,� o s s s 1 I l till o a' � I wz lei I' \ \ !� illiFli;EkS i �11 •..... nrPa� �Yw Stlf11M 391 sm 111M da/• +m AMIM Y#1➢�Wu N� �I Y V �wi I Mti AYM11M11.VN A TnSNOIIN07 M33tl� Mo'!wA $N0111'IS•S�Y3 F.OTW. '�[ sxesHv p N yyg I -4~ n k N< E= rr •-_ - -,y `�''- z ©������ W i� l� I I � I j i{iljlll�i�F; �•it977PiyE'+}��!�±q:•i rill;I�l;MI heel il _ `°.- \ � i i � r L/ i •' �%%!.� -_ r/seen t• ,'ASVN3 , ly 0 INS, z N33tl� MOMlm TIMMS& s S 'NO." NOR"Co Agim 1os59 NNIN'H3163X]°tl TY Y M4ccros HJu�NA-0 Nag-XIm OT'SNOWWO]N33tl]M01UM sy di L� \� I •• � �• � —_.--_. ...iiiow:56 $!qW E !!3 N�OTYA i NCR 00 � E�` M'� w � a• 3 ar i �-` Wh NIDAYMMIX (tl6 `.J � y.�^„ ,.��Xy ]T'BNDMYp�M3�IMDTVA E i Gd W ev a \_� n z Rd O -_6 -ipa ~^ III / i �—� %/�-fr i ♦ �� r // � / / � •/ IJ �WA am 131HISIO ONVI�181ld SID A, C, Yd YM ON N3 EEO DNI n ncccMz M33HO M01W 'A'f S 0 A'8�,ds � "d im L/I A An X33UO M011A — NOA N 'tl3153HO0tlT : a1P Nt nwaH»I MT"NO0tl 'SHYw013tlM0 SIN OWtlWyw K1 MOTW :/t xd& f 9g ! s! d'a C : � anal ex y k • _ a \; aA - :` 1 ' r � l sit kr,; ���Y rnl�1 IrI �p yp !p J !(_pJ .. I 11 •t: J J`.i s' J :1, ��',��` y� _ to 'OCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 �.;.• ::• �■v..nl...a;a i.■■.,» n■...� TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: May 5, 2006 RE: Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 by Franklin Kottschade and Variance #06-09 by Willow Creek Commons. The applicant is requesting to expand the approved excavation permit of a substantial land alteration and quarry operation on property located south of 40'h Street SW and west of TH 63. The applicant is requesting to grade within the shoreland district as well as for the placement of fill in the floodway and flood prone district. In addition to the conditional use the applicant is requesting variances to the shoreland district provisions. The property is located south of 40'h Street SW, west of TH 63 and east of 111" Avenue SW. Planning Department Review: Applicant: Willow Creek Commons 3600 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Engineer/Consultant: RLK Incorporated Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Requested Action: Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 by Franklin Kottschade and Variance #06-09 by Willow Creek Commons. The applicant is requesting to expand the approved excavation permit of a substantial land alteration and quarry operation on property located south of 40r' Street SW and west of TH 63. The applicant is requesting to grade within the shoreland district as well as for the placement of fill in the floodway and flood prone district. In addition to the conditional use the applicant is requesting a variance to the shoreland district provisions. The property is located south of 40" Street SW, west of TH 63 and east of 11'" Avenue SW.. Location of Property: The property is located south of 40'" Street SW, west of TH 63 and east of 111h Avenue SW. Zoning: M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) and R-1 (Mixed Single Family) zoning districts. The applicant has petitioned to rezone BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 `f'l(7 AM FouAI OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER V Page 2 of 10 this property to the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. This request is being reviewed with this request. Referral Comments: No comments were received. Standards for Approval: Excavation activities in the M-1 and R-1 zoning districts require a Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit and are regulated by Section 62.1100 of seq. of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Conditional Uses for Excavation are also subject meeting the standards of 61.146 and some additional standards specific to Excavation found in Section 62.1105. Operation/performance standards for quarries are found in Section 62.1107. Grading within the shoreland district is regulated by Section 62.1006 — 62.1010 and the placement of fill within the floodway and flood prone district is regulated by Section 62.800 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Report Attachments: 1. Excerpts from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual 2. Maps 3. Narrative for the Excavation Activities 4. Narrative for Fill in the Floodway and Flood Prone 5. Narrative for Shoreland Impact 6. Letters from the Polaris Group 7. Narrative for Variance SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant received approval on June 7, 2004 for a conditional use permit that allowed a excavation permit for a substantial land alteration and quarry operation on property located south of 40'h Street SW and west of TH 63. As part of the conditional use permit grading was granted within the shoreland district as well as for placement of fill in the floodway and floodprone districts. The applicant is now requesting to amend his approval conditional use permit to include additional land within in the area. The reason for the request is to accommodate the area included in the preliminary plat (preliminary plat #06-05 Bonnie Vista Estates). The preliminary plat is being reviewed concurrently with this amendment to conditional use permit #04-01. Since the proposed preliminary plat covers a larger area than original approved for the conditional use permit the plan needs to be enlarged. According to the information submitted there are areas previously approved for filling within the floodway and floodprone areas that would no longer be filled with this amendment. There are also areas within the floodprone and floodway district which are now proposed to the filled/graded. It appears that there would actually be less area now being filled within the floodway than originally approved. The maps submitted identify the existing floodway and flood prone district boundaries on the property as well as the new boundaries based on the CLOMR that was submitted to FEMA by MnDOT because of the work being done as part of the 48th and 401h Street interchange projects. The applicant is also working a CLOMR, which is based on the CLOMR submitted by MnDOT, to i Page 3 of 10 further move the floodway boundary on the property. The applicant will need to petition to amend the flood districts on the property based on the CLOMR he is preparing. The amount of excavation proposed is primarily a cut and balance of materials on the property. Excess fill material from the site will be placed on the property to the east, which received approval for a CUP for excavation a couple of years ago. The following information was included the narrative submitted with the GDP. The grading of the site will occur over several years, however, the majority of the grading will be completed within 2 years. Over 600,000 cubic yards of material will be moved as a result of the proposed grading of the site. Excavation would result in changing grades by as much as 30 vertical feet. Cutting as much as 30 feet occurs in the southerly portion of the site while most of the filling over 10 feet occurs on the property located west of Willow Creek. Hours of operation would be limited from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM Monday -Friday and on Saturday as needed. A fence will be provided around the perimeter of the blasting/crushing area, which will need to be a 6 foot high fence. The trucking of materials from the site will not require travel outside the limits of the adjacent construction sites. The grading is shown as being done in two (2) phases. The extent of the work being done in the phases are described in detail in the narrative submitted with the application. Phase one of the grading occurs on the land located east and south of Willow Creek. No grading is proposed to take place in the existing floodway. Phase two grading would only occur if FEMA approves a map revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map moving the floodway and floociplain boundaries. Phase 2 grading does show construction of stormwater detention ponds in the existing floodway. The area proposed for the filling within the floodway and flood prone district will be removed from the floodway and flood prone district only if the applicant files a Letter of Map Revision with FEMA and it is approved. The applicant is also requesting approval for grading within the shoreland. The proposal is to place fill within the shoreland area to elevate the site from the flood prone district. Once the improvements are completed for 401" St. SW and the area is removed from the floodway and flood prone district additional grading will take place. The fill and construction will need to be accordance with the density requirements allowed within the shoreland district according to the LDM. When final site plans are developed, setbacks from the ordinary high water level and The applicant submitted a letter from the Polaris Group regarding the filling proposed within the floodway, flood prone and shoreland areas. Variances: LDM Section# • Reference: Ordinance Requirement: Applicant Re uest/Pro osal: Notes: 62.1006, 1, b) 1 Intensive vegetation Proposes to remove the in Vegaetation will be replanted as part of the clearing within the vegetation this area. reclamation plan for the shore and bluff impact occurring on the zones and on steep grading slopes is not allowed. property. Variance requests are subject to findings identified in Section 60.417. The Planning staff suggested findings to Section 60.417 are: For 62.1106, 1 b) 1 q1 4 Page 4 of 10 EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There does not appear to be extraordinary conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood. The applicant wishes to grade this portion of the site to create suitable building pads of residential dwellings. REASONABLE USE: The Variance is not needed to have reasonable use of the property. However the applicant has stated that the vegetation is comprised of scrub trees that have grown up on top of the knoll after past agricultural use on the site. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variances that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to Section 62.1106 1 b) 1 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, that the Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial. REVIEW PROCEDURES: Excavation activities in the M-1 and R-1 zoning districts require a Type III, Phase II Conditional Use Permit and are regulated by Section 62.1100 et seq. of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Since the applicant is proposing to amend the original conditional use permit the process is the Type III, Phase III which is normally just a review at the CPZC and a hearing at the City Council however a variance requested requires that the amendment is a hearing before the CPZC. Conditional Uses for Excavation are also subject meeting the standards of 61.146 and some additional standards specific to Excavation found in Section 62.1105. When deciding on a Conditional Use Permit in any flood district, the standards of Sections 61.146 and 62.824 shall be considered. These sections are attached to the staff report. In addition to Sections 61.146, 62.824 and 62.834 Section 62.860 needs to be complied with. Section 62.860 of the LDM states that "the deposition of any fill or spoil from dredging of sand and gravel operations, the construction of any structure, or the grading or paving of any areas shall require certification by a registered engineer or hydrologist that the following conditions have been met: 1. Fill deposited in the flood prone area shall be no more than the minimum amount necessary to conduct the use. 2. No net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters shall result from the activity. 3. The effect of such activities in the flood prone area shall not result in an increase in erosion potential on the site. When deciding on a conditional use permit within the shoreland district, the following factors (62.1010), in addition to the standards in Paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: a) A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and topographic, vegetation, and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: Page 5 of 10 1) The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; 2) The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; 3) The site is adequate for water supply and on -site sewage treatment; and 4) The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Substantial Land Alteration is subject to specific findings listed in 62.1105, as well as the standards that apply to every conditional use permit found in Section 61.146. Conditional use permits in the Flood Districts are subject to the same standards as every conditional use (see Section 61.146), and some specific conditions related to the Flood Districts (Sections 62.824, 62.834 and 62.860). Activities in the Shoreland Overlay District are subject to specific regulations in Section 62.1000 et. seq. The applicable criteria are attached for your consideration. 61.146: If one or more of these findings is made, there is a basis for denial of the permit. Staff suggests that if the applicant agrees with the recommended conditions, these findings will not apply, and approval may be warranted. 62.824: If the applicant agrees to comply with the recommended conditions, the considerations in this Section should be adequately addressed with this application. 62.834 : This provision is included as condition of approval to assure compliance. 62.860: The consultant provided certification that these criteria will be met. 62.1010: If the applicant agrees to comply with the recommended conditions, the considerations in this Section should be adequately addressed with this application. 62.1105: If the applicant agrees to comply with the recommended conditions, the criteria in this Section will be met. RECOMMENDATION: Since this petition is amending an approved conditional use permit the original conditions of approval would still be applicable to the proposal. if the Commission wishes to proceed with this application, the Commission and Council could make findings in support of the application consistent Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached) Sections, 61.146, 62.824, 62.834, 62.860, 62.1010, and 61.1105 N the following conditions or modifications are imposed. 1. Prior to excavation, the applicant shall. . Provide the City with a financial security consistent with Section 62.1107, 1, h and 62.1109 1,1 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual; . Receive approval of a grading, drainage and erosion control plans, meeting City standards; . The applicant shall submit a Blasting Plan to the City, in compliance with Section 62.1107, 1), m), prior to any blasting occurring on the site; i v{ Page 6of1D 2. A T1R shall be completed, if it differs from the land use and trip generation assumptions used in the TH 63 Traffic Study, to evaluate the impacts on the surrounding roadway, specifically TH 63 and 40' Street. 3. Stormwater Management must be provided on -site via City approved on -site stormwater management designed to serve the entire property. 4. The Owner shall match the abutting property line grades unless other documented arrangements are made with the abutting landowner and noted on the grading plan approved by the City. 5. Prior to Final Plat submittal, and/or development of this Property, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, floodway limitations of development, stormwater management, transportation improvements including Transportation improvement District Charges, access control, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, access and extension of utilities for adjacent properties, and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. Phase i grading shall exclude those areas that are located within the existing floodway until such time that the applicant has received a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to amend the floodway and has a resolution of support from the City of Rochester supporting the zone change on the property. 7. if the variance is not approved the grading plan shall be revised so that no intensive vegetation clearing occurs within the shore and bluff impact zones. Page 7 of 10 q EXCERPTS FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: 1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; and c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. 2) The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: a) there has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and b) the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other person or party who has had control of the property, to provide misleading or incorrect information, or to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate request. 3) The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a use otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of the elevation or levels for flood protection. 4) In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. 61.145 Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure that it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area surrounding its location; and that it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Page 8 of 10 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 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. 62.824 Conditional Use Permits - Standards for Approval: When deciding on Conditional Use Permits in any of the flood districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of Paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: 1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2) The danger that materials maybe swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. 3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary condition. 4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 6) The need for a waterfront location for the facility. 7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. / Page 9 of 10 9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. 10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Paragraph 62.800. 62.834 Conditional Uses, Flood Prone Districts: In the Flood Prone Districts, uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are allowed subject to the issuance of a Type III Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Section 62.820 and, in addition, are subject to the following provisions: 1) All developments are subject to the applicable provisions of Section 62.840, except those uses established subject to the alternate construction standards of Paragraph 62.844 and shall also meet the further regulations of Section 62.860 before a permit may be issued. 62.860 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN THE FLOOD PRONE DISTRICT The requirements applicable in the Flood Fringe District, as defined in Section 62.840 shall apply in the Flood Prone District and, in addition, the deposition of any fill or spoil from dredging of sand and gravel operations, the construction of any structure, or the grading or paving of any areas shall require certification by a registered professional engineer or hydrologist that the following conditions have been met: 1) Fill deposited in the flood prone area shall be no more than the minimum amount necessary to conduct the use. 2) No net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters shall result from the activity. 3) The effect of such activities in the flood prone area shall not result in an increase in erosion potential on the site. 62.1010 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL 1) When deciding on a conditional use permit within the shoreland district, the following factors, in addition to the standards in Paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: a) A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and topographic, vegetation, and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: 1) The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; 2) The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; 3) The site is adequate for water supply and on -site sewage treatment; and 4) The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. 61.1105 FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (for Excavation Activities): The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 0 Page 10 of 10 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, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7)The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 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. qc Project Narrative Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Substantial Land Alteration and Quarry Activities #04-01 Willow Creek Commons — West Property Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated !:{:s f'• 4 April 11, 2006 I A;'' For " I Type III Phase III _-< Application for Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Sub 'al - - and Quarry Activities Purpose This application for an Amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 404-01 for substantial land alteration and quarry activities has been prepared for the west extension of the Willow Creek Commons project located southwest of the Trunk Highway 63 (TH 63) and 40" Street Southwest, in accordance with Section 62.1100 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. The project site is located just west of the approved Willow Creek Commons General Development Plan (GDP #214) that included approved CUP #03-46 for substantial land alteration, fill in the floodway/ flood prone districts and construction in the shoreland district. The Amendment is required because the area included in the revised project is expanded from the original, approved CUP limits on the west and north sides of the project. The project does not propose to impact the 75-foot wide riparian areas adjacent to the stream banks or to the Willow Creek stream bed. The additional CUP area included in this request results from further design of the residential subdivision plans. The revised project will increase the impacts of the grading within the Shoreland District and Floodway/ Flood Fringe Districts associated with Willow Creek. The Amendment includes a proposed revision to the approved CUP for Impacts in the Shoreland District and Fill in the Floodway/ Flood Fringe Districts; separate narratives are being submitted for consideration. It is anticipated that the Application for an Amendment to the CUP will be heard before the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006 and City Council on June 5, 2006. The revised project limits and revised grading plan for the Amendment to the CUP are shown on the attached plans. The project continues to propose cut and fill activities that constitute a substantial land alteration as defined by the Zoning Ordinance due to the amount of earthwork required to lower the highest elevations on the site and place the material on the lower portions of the site in general accordance with the proposed rough grading plan. Due to material that is needed for the adjacent 40" Street Improvements project, additional earthwork and grading is required to provide an earthwork balance for the site. Additionally, the site is designed to coordinate with the proposed MnDOT dike elevation along the northeast property line, and floodway/floodplain modifications identified in the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prepared by Polaris Group for MnDOT for the TH 63 and 40" Street improvement projects. Additional floodway impacts are being proposed and will be addressed in an upcoming application for a FEMA letter of map revision. Grade changes of 10 feet or more will be Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons, West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 1 of 6 required for approximately 25 percent of the CUP area as with the original CUP, to provide a developable site and an earthwork balance. The following variances were approved with the original CUP 404-01 and are still applicable as approved: 1. Removal of a 50-foot wide bufferyard as required by Section 62.1106, Item 4b1. 2. Reduction of minimum distance requirements as specified in Section 62.1107, Item 1 j Standards for Quarries, Operations/Performance Standards for an excavation area with an elevation change of greater than 10-feet. 3. Reduction of minimum distance requirements as specified in Section 62.1 107, Item 1 j Standards for Quarries, Operations/Performance Standards to any blasting from a developed property. 4. Reduction of minimum distance requirements as specified in Section 62.1 107, Item 1j Standards for Quarries, Operations/Performance Standards to any crushing or processing. Crushing activity may take place within 500 feet of a commercial/industrial property and within 1,000 feet of an undeveloped R-I zoned property. Crushing will be terminated at the time the proposed rezoning to residential becomes effective. However, in the event that crushing is still required after the Zoning District Amendment becomes effective, the crushing will be completed on the adjacent M-1 zoned commercial site. A variance request will be submitted for CUP #03-46. Proposed Excavation Activities As with the original, approved CUP 904-01, the following excavation activities are proposed on the project site: Movement of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards and involving a change in pre-existi rng g_acl 10 or more vertical feet (substantial land alteration). • An excavation activity utilizing a crusher(quarry operations). I 3ZCS' Disturbed Area R The revised project will disturb the majority of the t 55-acre CUP Amendment applicatio entire property is owned by Franklin P. Kottschade. Amount of Material to be Moved As part of the revised grading plan submitted with the Amendment to the CUP #04-01, approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of material in total will be moved. Much of the excavation anticipated for this site was included with the quantity of earthwork fill proposed for the previously approved CUP #0346 for substantial land alteration and quarry operations on the adjacent commercial site to the east. Assessment of Existing/Pre-Alteration Conditions Information required by Section 62.1106, Paragraph 2, is included on the plans and supplemented with the following. Information revised for the Amendment to the CUP #04-01 is italicized. Existing Zoning: M-1 Mixed Commercial -Industrial (Parcel east of Willow Creek) R- I Residential (Parcel west of and including Willow Creek) Previous Zoning: R-1 Residential Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons, West RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M April 11, 2006 Page 2 of 6 G Proposed Zoning: R-3 Residential Existing Site Use: Agricultural/cropland and pasture; permitted minim operations.' ° J Soil Types: See attached geotechnical report. Water Wells: There are no known water wells on the site. An abamlane�mr 3 is _ identified on the West 80 Development site to the south. An existing _J' well has been identified by the Department of Health on the property between 40" Street and Willow Creek in the vicinity of the former farmstead site; the Developer is in the process of determining whether the well has been abandoned and sealed. Wetlands: Any existing wetlands on the site will be delineated as soon as possible in the spring of 2004 as required by the City of Rochester. No wetland impacts are anticipated with the project. Utilities: There are no existing utilities within the project boundaries. Traffic: A traffic analysis was previously prepared for MnDOT for the design of the TH 63/40" Street improvements. The traffic analysis addressed transportation needs of the developed project site. Adjacent Land Use: The land to the north of 40" Street is zoned R-1 /R-2 residential. The parcel to the east of the property (GDP #214 and CUP #03-46) is zoned M-1 commercial/industrial. The property to the south of the project site is the proposed West 80 Development project, which has been rezoned to M-1 commercial/industrial zoning. The property directly to the north is undeveloped and within the Willow Creek open area, which is zoned R-I residential. A strip of R-2 residential zoning is located between the R-1 district and 401" Street. Grading and Drainage The applicant/developer proposes to rough grade the site for ultimate development in phases. The site has been expanded to include additional grading on the west and north sides of the original CUP area. The Grading Plan identifies the limits of Phase I as defined by the area outside the existing floodway. The plan also includes estimated earthwork quantities. Additional areas of fill in the floodway and flood fringe are proposed concurrently, through an application for an Amendment to the CUP for Fill in a Floodway/ Flood Fringe Districts. The additional areas of proposed floodway fill are included in the Phase 2 area, and will not be filled until the FEMA letter of map revision has been approved. A revised summary of the stream analysis and floodway impacts resulting from the proposed floodway fills prepared by the Polaris Group and dated April 7, 2006 is attached. The revised analysis confirms that the project will not negatively impact the downstream properties or hydraulic operation of the stream. The attached narrative for an Amendment to the CUP for Fill in a Floodway/ Flood Fringe District details the revised floodway changes and concurrent FEMA process to obtain a map revision for the project. Excess material will be used as fill on the east parcel, which was approved for substantial land alteration and quarry activities, fill in the floodway/ flood fringe districts, and construction in the shoreland district under CUP# 03-46. Material is also proposed to be used for the 401" Street Improvements. Trucking of the material will not require travel outside the limits of the adjacent construction sites; therefore haul routes on the public roadway system are not required. Grading ofthe site will occur over several years, and will be coordinated with the approval of the FEMA letter of map revision and grading and development on the east, as material is needed for fill on that property. The majority of the project will be graded within 24 months of the approval of the Amendment to the CUP. Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons, West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 3 of 6 Drainage for the site will be accommodated in a number of proposed stormwater ponds as shown on the CUP Amendment grading plan. Detailed design as part of a revised grading permit application will provide for ponds that meet the City of Rochester treatment standards. Ponds for the site area east and south of Willow Creek will be located along the south side of Willow Creek; these proposed ponds will also provide treatment and detention for the majority of the commercial site east of this CUP area approved under CUP #03-46. Stormwater runoff treatment for the west residential development will be accommodated either within the proposed reclamation pond resulting from the mining operations previously approved under CUP #97-29, or within a proposed treatment pond within the west residential site area. Detention and treatment requirements and pond design will be coordinated with City staff at the time of site plan development. Temporary sedimentation treatment for the graded site will be provided in the proposed ponds that will be excavated with the revised grading permit, prior to discharging site runoff into Willow Creek and the MnDOT drainage pond at the southwest quadrant of TH 63 and 401" Street SW. A letter from the Polaris Group dated April 11, 2004 is attached that confirms the existing pond is outside the 2-year storm event flow in the creek. A swale will be graded along the south property line to keep off -site runoff from the West 80 Development from flowing onto this project; the Swale will direct the off -site runoff to the east into the storm pond proposed with the West 80 Development. Other erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented including typical measures as illustrated on the grading plan. As future final site plan improvements are planned, associated erosion and sediment control measureg'W-11l-5e proposed and implemented as required. Operations Plan per Section 61.140 _ The site Ian illustrates the proposed project area, stockpile locations mining areas and r revto'usC;,` P P P P j P g � P Y- approved CUP's and erosion control. Earthwork operations will occur within 50 feet of existing pu tc right-of-way including grading near the proposed MnDOT dike on the northeast. A variance has been approved to grade within the 50-foot buffer yards along the West 80 Development project on the south. 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 quantities of material that will be moved within the site and onto the adjacent site and 40ih Street as part of this Amendment to the CUP. Grading operations have moved over 500,000 cubic yards of material to date on this site, as part of the approved CUP 903-46 and CUP #04-01 and approved grading permit. A revised grading plan will be submitted for a grading permit upon approval of this Amendment to the CUP. Permit applications for grading will be coordinated with the FEMA letter of map revision approval. The contractor shall stabilize each phase of grading through respreading topsoil and seeding. The existing man-made pond adjacent to Willow Creek on the property to the east currently provides sediment removal as required for this project. The revised grading plan will require the permanent ponds to be excavated to provide temporary sediment removal as part of the revised grading plats. Design calculations will be provided with the grading permit application as required. 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 Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons, West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 4 of 6 q1 equipment to meet state and local noise ordinance requirements. The project site is naturally buffered by I I" Avenue on the west, the original Willow Creek Commons GDP area on the east and the West 80 Development site to the south. In addition, the Willow Creek open area and floodway lies to the north. The West 80 Development is currently under construction and will most likely continue to be under construction during the completion of this project. The 401" Street improvements proposed by MnDOT northeast of the site are also under construction. Blasting has been initiated on the site, and is anticipated to continue the year as part of the proposed grading plan. A variance has been approved due to the distance of the possible activities to the undeveloped residential and commercial properties adjacent to the project on the south as noted above. 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 Amendment to the CUP Grading Plan. Final drainage and erosion control improvements have been designed as part of the concurrent land subdivision permit and. final plat application. Fencing will be provided on the site to meet the requirements of the operations/performance reclamation standards in Section 62.1107, Item 11 for blasting/ crushing activities. Existing conditions on adjacent properties will be utilized as part of the fencing requirements, including the fence along TH 63 and controls for the blasting / crushing operations on the West 80 property to the south, that isolate the site from access on the south and east. Anticipated construction equipment includes backhoes, dozers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, scrapers, rubber tired rollers, a rock crusher for limestone, and other construction equipment as required for completion of the project. A variance has been approved due to the distance of the possible crushing activities to the undeveloped residential and commercial/industrial properties adjacent to the project on the south. The following sequence of progression has been initiated as part of the approved CUP: Install erosion control measures; Clear site within current excavation phase limits; Strip topsoil and stockpile; Excavate muck (as required); Cut material and process/screen (as required): i AP1 Truck and scraper material to fill area; Grade and compact engineered fill; r Respread topsoil and seed area within 7 days of completion of fill; L Adjust erosion control fencing and other measures after turf has been established. Lighting is not anticipated to be required. As with the approved CUP, there is no daily quantity of material to be removed or planned haul routes. If during future site planning, excess material is proposed to be hauled off -site, appropriate haul routes to the ultimate destination(s) will be identified and proposed with the associated permit applications. Currently permitted mining operations on the site will continue to haul material as permitted. With the proposed erosion control and sedimentation measures, there are no off -site impacts anticipated due to the construction. Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons, West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 5 of 6 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. 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 3rd Avenue and 4tb Street SE. The nearest fire station is located at 61° Street and South Broadway. Site access will be available via an existing access road from 40th Street until the proposed frontage road connection is graded or MnDOT removes this access with their proposed storm pond construction at the southwest quadrant of TH 63 and 40d' Street. Reclamation Plan and Report Requirements for reclamation are identified on the Amendment to the CUP Land Alteration and Reclamation Plan and have not changed from the original approved CUP. As approved, landscape requirements of the reclamation plan include eight deciduous and eight coniferous trees per acre of area anticipated to require blasting/ crushing for cutting activities which equates to 6.2 acres times 8 = 50 deciduous trees and 50 coniferous trees. The landscaping requirements will be confirmed when actual blasting/ crushing limits are known, and will be planted in conjunction with future final site development and platting. All erosion control, turf establishment and drainage facilities as required by the phased development, revised grading plan and all applicable City requirements will be provided. Attachments Letters from Polaris Group Project Team Developer Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka MN 55343 Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email fT)knar(@deskmedia.com Phone 952-933-0972 Fax 952-933-1153 Michele Caron, P.E., Project Manager/Sr. Prof. EngineerEmail mcaronrDrlkinc.com Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Email eiohnsonOrlkinc.com x��ci�ir Fig ^l EA P? 1 3 4u�5 0:\Willow Creek Commons 1-1-02006-040-vi\_CorrespondencelCiry Sub Amdmt to CUP SLA. Shore, Flood 4-I1-06Wanative Amdmt Res CUP -sub land all 04-I I-06.doc Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons, West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 6 of 6 J-DI Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons — West Property Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated April 11,2006 For Type III Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application #04-01 (Fill in a Floodway District; Fill in a Flood Fringe District) Purpose: This application for an Amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #04-01 for fill in floodway and flood fringe districts has been prepared to address the additional grading proposed with the Amendment to the CUP for the expanded project area for the Bonnie Vista Estates preliminary plat #06- 05 residential development on the west half of the Willow Creek Commons property. The application is being submitted in conjunction with an application for an Amendment to the CUP for substantial land alteration and impacts to the shoreland district related to the expanded site area. As with the original, approved CUP #04-01 for fill in the floodway and flood fringe districts, a phased grading plan is proposed to grade within the floodway only after a FEMA map revision is completed and approved by FEMA. Project Team: Developer: Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone:507-287-0909 Fax: 507-288-0658 Contact: Frank Kottschade Civil Engineer/ Landscape Architect: RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 952-933-0972 Fax: 952-933-1153 Michele Jackson Caron, PE, Project Manager/ Engineer Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect RECEIVED AP" 13 2666 ROCNEa =R - C,_s,+STED Narrative Willow Creek Commons- West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 1 of 2 Proposed Impacts to Floodway District and Flood Fringe District: As with the original, approved CUP 004-01, fill is proposed to provide a suitable development area as detailed below for the property south and east of Willow Creek (referred to as the "east residential area"), and for the property along 1 Ith Avenue west of Willow Creek (referred to as the "west residential area"). Floodway Fills Portions of the floodway are proposed to be filled along I Ph Avenue for the West Residential area as approved in the original CUP. The proposed floodway fills along the south side of Willow Creek across the northern boundary of the CUP area have been expanded to accommodate the Bonnie Vista Estates preliminary plat #06-05 grading, which is being submitted separately for concurrent approve]. As with the original CUP, stormwater ponds will be located outside the limits of the floodway as required by the City. A revised drainage analysis has been completed by the Polaris Group, Inc. based on the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the MnDOT TH63 improvements. Two letters are attached from Polaris Group dated April 7, 2006, and April 11, 2006, that include a technical summary of the hydraulic analysis. The letters detail impacts to the existing floodway and confirm the floodplain elevation does not increase more than 0.5 feet outside the limits of the project, within allowable limits as defined by floodplain standards. The Polaris Group is in the process of preparing an application to FEMA to complete a Letter of Map Revision for the preliminary plat grading plan to take the proposed fill areas out of the official floodway on the FEMA mapping. As conditioned with the approved CUP #04-01, the Letter of Map Revision will be obtained prior to fills within the floodway delineated on the grading plans as the ultimate grading limits. Grading operations prior to the approval of the LOMR application will be limited to the Phase I grading limits identified on the grading plans. The proposed floodway fill at the northeast comer of the CUP area abuts the ongoing floodway fill construction for the 401h Street improvements and dike. Flood Fringe Fills The approved floodplain fill included in CUP #03-46 abutting the northeast comer of this parcel is shown on the enclosed CUP grading plan for information. The fill limits proposed in the flood fringe district along portions of the south and east sides of Willow Creek have been modified with this CUP Amendment request to incorporate the revised grading plan for the expanded Bonnie Vista Estates preliminary plat area. Proposed floodplain fill along the west side of Willow Creek adjacent to I I1h Avenue for the West Residential area has not changed from the original, approved CUP #04-01. Fill areas are shown on the enclosed grading plan. As required by Section 62.860 of the Code, a letter from Polaris Group is enclosed that certifies that the project fill, as proposed in the flood prone area, meets the conditions listed in the ordinance. In summary, the proposed floodway and flood fringe district fills meet the floodplain standards and do not impact the existing floodway upstream of the site, or reduce the current overall flood storage volume provided. r_�i__ Attachments: Amendment to the CUP - Grading Plan Polaris Group Letter - Technical Summary Polaris Group Letter - Certification RECEIN H 3 200-0 ROCHESTER- CLMSTED � 'NN'.'4G r,PPcarvcnl Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons- West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 2 of 2 P O L A R 8009 3." VENUE SOUTH SUITE 125 .April 7, 2006 Michele Jackson Caron, PE Senior Professionul ]Engineer RLK-Kuusisio. Ltd. 6110 Blue Circle Drive. Suite 100 Minnetonka. MN 55343 to 3 S* G R O U P BLOOMINGTON. MN 55425 952.881.U879 _ Fnr 952.881.0023 RE: Conditional Use Permit for Residential Development, Willow Creek Commons Dear Ms. Caron: As you requested, we have reviewed local Iloodplain permitting issues associated with the residential development as part of the Conditional Use Plan (CUP) for the proposed Willow Creek Commons in Rochester, MN. This review was based on your recent grading plan and site plans. We have reviewed the proposed development relative to Section 62.860 (Construction Standards in the Flood Prone District) of the City Zoning Ordinance. The development will encroach on the floodplain of Willow Creek between the development and Willow Creek. Fill of the ffoodplain is proposed at the proposed stormwater ponds. Therefore, the proposed fill is no more than the minimum necessary to conduct the use and meets provision I of Section 62.860. The proposed residential development and pond result in a net increase in the amount of flood storage provided below the 100-year flood elevation. We estimate that the embankment fill to construct the pond reduces the flood storage by approximately 1 acre-foot whereas the proposed ponds will provide approximately 5.5 acre-feet of flood storage between the normal elevation of the ponds and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the Creek. Therefore, the proposed development results in no net loss of surface storage of flood waters and meets provision 2 of Section 62.860. The hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) used to prepare the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the U.S. Highway 63 improvements was used to evaluate whether the proposed pond would increase the erosion potential on the site. Under existing conditions, the velocities within the Willow Creek channel adjacent to this development may be considered erosive. The proposed development does not significantly increase the velocities in the channel. The [low velocities in the overbank next to the pond are less than 2 f /s for both existing and proposed conditions and could be adequately protected with grass. Therefore, the proposed development results does not increase the potential for erosion and meets provision 3 of Section 62.S% I1 you have any questions regarding this review, give me a call at (952) 881-0619. Sincerely, _- 2 Apr'L5 Art Kalmes. P.E. t__ l �.� P O L 8009 34TH AVENUE SOUTH April 11, 2006 A R I S* G SUITE i2S 91-OOMINGTON, MN 55425 Michele Caron RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 RE: Technical Evaluation of the Willow Creek Commons Floodplain Dear Ms. Caron: R O U P 952.981.0878 . F. :952.881.0023 The purpose of this letter is to act as a technical attachment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Willow Creek Commons. This letter describes the floodway modification that is proposed to accommodate the development's stormwater ponds. Figure I shows the proposed floodway modification and the floodway modification resulting from MnDOT's re -construction of U.S. Highway 63. The floodway resulting from MnDOT's project was conditionally approved by FEMA in July of 2003 (CLOMR #03-05-204R). An application is being submitted to the Minnesota DNR and FEMA to modify the floodway to reflect the construction of the stormwater ponds. The impact of the floodway modification to accommdate the stormwater ponds is summarized in the attached table. The flood elevations in the table were based on the hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) used to prepare the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the U.S. Highway 63 improvements . The CLOMR application that is being sent to FEMA provides additional information to support this floodway modification. The proposed floodway modification does not result in a floodway surcharge (difference between the natural and floodway flood elevations) of more than 0.5 feet and therefore meets State floodplain regulations. Increases in the flood elevation occur for a distance of approximately 800 feet upstream of the east pond. The flood elevation increase will be limited to the Willow Creek Commons property and the embankment of 40' Street. There are no structures affected by this increase in floodway surcharge. If you have any questions regarding this review, give me a call at (952) 881-6853. Sincerely, RECEIN FD Art Kalmes, P.E., CFM C: Frank Kottshade Summary of Results Willow Creek HEC-RAS Models (411 2JO6) 1 <el l� 100 year floodwater surface elevations with new HW 63 features in place 100-year flood water surface elevation with Foodway modification Crass section Natural Floodway Surcharge Natural Floodway Surcharge 130 1052.84 1053.29 0.45 1052.84 1053.29 0.45 130A 1053.16 1053.53 0.37 1053.16 1053.53 0.37 130.2 1054.15 1054.32 0.17 1054.15 1054.32 0.17 130.4 1054.53 1054.66 0.13 1054.53 1054.65 0.13 130.45 1054.93 1055.02 0.09 1054.93 1055.02 0.09 130.5 1055.46 1055.58 0.12 1055.46 1055.58 0.12 130.75 1056.39 1066.72 0.33 1056.39 1056.76 0.37 1311 E I AJ 1057-52 1057.77 0.25 1057.52 1057.94 0.42 131.2 1 D58.4 1055.81 0.41 1058.4 1058.85 0.45 131.5 1059.49 1059.91 0.42 1 D59.49 1059-93 0.44 132 1062.26 1062.45 0.19 1062.26 1062.45 0.19 132.1 1063.7 1063.7 0.00 1063.7 1063.7 O.DO 132.4 1065.72 1065.72 0.00 1055.72 1D65.72 0.00 1331 F (AK 106B.19 1068.41 0.22 1058.19 1068.41 0.22 Notes: new W 63 features were included in CLOMR 9 03-050-004R RECc.lV.l_D -. Qg7 13 'T j i a 8 � @ < Z g ul J C' RECEVvED APR 13 2006 z i LU LLl U) cn W 2 U lY 101 Variance Request Removal of Vegetation within Shoreland District and Bluff Impact Zones Willow Creek Commons — West Property Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated FIRIE�E1-�April 11, 2006For Type III Phase IMyr ,��OLU57ED Variance Application Section 62.1006, Item 1b1 (Shoreland Alterations, Vegetative Alterations) Variance Request: Variance to Section 62.1006, Item Ibl (Shoreland Alterations, Vegetative Alterations) to allowing removal of the vegetation within the Shoreland District and bluff impact zones for the grading plan. This request is required to accommodate the clearing and grading proposed with the Bonnie Vista Estates preliminary plat #06-05. Variance Standard: This variance request has been drafted to meet the requirements of City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance Section 60.410 (Variance), specifically addressing Section 60.417 (Findings for Variance). Background The project proposes clearing of the site area within the Shoreland district and placement of fill to remove the site area from the flood fringe. The vegetation proposed to be removed is comprised of scrub trees that have grown up on top of the knoll after past agricultural use on the site. This variance request is in conjunction with an application for Amendment to the approved CUP #04-01 for Substantial Land Alteration, Fill and Impacts to the Shoreland District, and Fill in the Floodway/ Flood Fringe Districts, for the property proposed to be graded. Hardship Justification The physical conditions on the site include extensive underlying bedrock and steep slopes that will result in significant excavation requirements to provide a developable site. A sufficient number of buildable pad elevations and the associated roadway system are required to make the development economically viable due to the extensive site development costs. The following comments have been prepared to address the guidelines contained in Section 60.417 (Findings for Variance) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. For reference, Zoning Ordinance text has been included in italicized text. The approval authority nray grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: Variance Request — Removal of Vegetation within the Shoreland District willow Creek Commons — West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 1 of 3 el I 1. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical orphysical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and The physical conditions on the site include extensive underlying bedrock and steep slopes that will result in significant excavation requirements to provide a developable site for the proposed Bonnie Vista Estates preliminary plat #06-05 and allowable zoning density. The vegetation proposed to be removed is comprised of scrub trees that have grown up on top of the knoll after past agricultural use on the site. 2. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; and A reasonable use of the property includes adequate grading a sufficient number of buildable pad elevations and the associated roadway system to make the development economically viable due to the extensive site development costs noted in No. I above. 3, the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and The variance will not be detrimental to the public nor be injurious to other property in the area. It does not impact other properties and is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the some ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. A sufficient number of buildable pad elevations and the associated roadway system are required to make the development economically viable due to the extensive site development costs noted in No. 1 above. The variance, as requested, is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the property. The extraordinary conditions on the site are natural and not the result of the Developer. Project Team Developer Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email foknar@deskmedia.com Variance Request— Removal of Vegetation within the Shoreland District Willow Creek Commons — West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 2 of 3 Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLK Incorporated Phone 952-933-0972 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Fax 952-933-1153 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Michele Caron, P.E., Project Manager/Sr. Prof. EngineerEmail mcaron@rlkinc.com Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Email eiohnson@rlkinc.com G)Willow Creek Commons LLC\2006-040-M4_Correspondence\City Sub Amdmt to CUP SLA, Shore, Flood 4-11-06\V ar Req remov veg in shoreland 04-I1-06.doc Variance Request — Removal of Vegetation within the Shoreland District Willow Creek Commons — West Property April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 3 of 3 i (� Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 2.= The patio shall not encroach into :the adjace required 25' wide parking lot drive aisle; 3. Submit a zoning application for and c str ct a screen around the trash torage area on.the north side of the 30 dao ys of decision f the building that CPZC; 'and e ` the requirements` of Section 63.242 within 4. Submit s schedule to the zoOng admini ator within 21 days for complying with the approved 2004 site plan that includes t inimum,�r`equir_e landscape areaof 2,948 square feet and required parking o 4 pac and construct the "improvements within 90 days- of the decision of the CPZ . CONTINUED ITEMS: Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 by Franklin Kottschade and Variance #06-09 by Willow Creek Commons The applicant is requesting to expand the approved excavation permit of a substantial land alteration and quarry operation on Property located south of 40th Street SW and west of TH 63 The applicant is requesting to grade within the shoreland district as well as for the placement of fill in the floodway and flood prone district. In addition to the conditional use the applicant is requesting variances to the shoreland district provisions The property is located south of 40th Street SW, west of TH 63 and east of 11th Avenue SW. S\D AND Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated May 5, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby stated that the staff -recommended findings (listed in the staff report) do not support approval of the variance request. If the variance is denied, the lots located within the Shoreland would need to be revised so that they meet the Shoreland provisions. Discussion ensued regarding Park and Recreations dedication requirements. Ms. Rivas commented that there needs to be more creativity shown in the site plan to meet green space for parkland. i Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Comm ssion Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Mr. Burke asked what criteria Park and Recreation uses to decide whether there is land dedication or cash in lieu of land. Mr. Nigbur explained that it is based on approximation to other parks and/or lack of ability to get to parks and roadway separations. The applicant, (Frank Kottschade residing at 4719 Warwick Lane NW, Rochester MN 55901), addressed the Commission. He stated that he is not generally opposed to parks. He explained that the proposed development is meant to attract "empty nesters". Therefore, there is not a need for soccer and baseball fields as suggested by Park and Recreation. Mr. Kottschade explained that he purchased Willow Heights Fifth as it was adjacent to the proposed development and hoped to use it for his parkland dedication. However, it was not approved by Denny Stotz. If a park is required in the development, it would change the entire scope of his planned development. Mr. Kottschade explained what amenities (ex. horseshoe pits, playground equipment spread throughout, etc.) would be within the gated community. He stated that the gated community would create security for those living there. He explained it is his opinion that living next to a park is not always the safest location. Mr. Kottschade stated that a representative of the Minnesota Legislature stated that this is the first time they have ever heard where there is an Ordinance that leaves it exclusively to the governmental, or LGLI body, to decide if there is land dedication or cash in lieu of land. The developer is typically given the option. Mr. Kottschade explained that the units would be designed with no steps, with the exception of a few units due to grade. Mr. Wallace questioned how a park could be accessed if located in a gated community. Mr. Kottschade stated that Park and Recreation is requiring 10 acres. However, he didn't agree that it should be used for baseball and or soccer fields. Ms. Rivas asked if a gated community requires the buyer to fill out an application to purchase a unit. Mr. Kottschade responded no; anyone meeting purchasing requirements could buy the property. Ms. Rivas asked if the trails and amenities described would be located within the gated community. Mr. Kottschade responded yes. Ms. Rivas questioned why this wasn't shown on the GDP. Mr. Kottschade responded that Ms. Caron would explain in her presentation. . The applicant's representative, Michele Caron of Westwood Professional Services (7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344), addressed the Commission. She stated that the Page 5 City Planning and Zoning COtnn11ssion Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 applicant is in agreement with the staff -recommended conditions on the general development plan, land use plan amendment, and zone change, with the exception of parkland dedication as summarized by Mr. Kottschade. Ms. Caron stated that the preliminary drainage plan shows a private trail running adjacent to the Willow Creek Corridor and dashed lines on the back of the lots showing a drainage easement. She stated that benches and horseshoe pits would be located in this area as well. She showed two proposed outlots for the community to use. The ponds in the outer areas are vegetated and can be used for common areas. She reiterated that it is the applicant's hope to have a private gated community. Mr. Only questioned what approvals would be needed to have a private gated community. Ms. Caron responded that she is unaware of any special permits that would need to be applied for. They need to make sure that emergency vehicles can maneuver within the development. The Fire Department may need a code to get in through the gates. The park areas within the development would be private. Ms. Rivas stated that there is a bufferyard requirement between two uses listed in the staff report. She stated that this is not shown on the proposed plans. Ms. Caron responded that she was unaware of this condition on the staff report. Mr. Svenby explained that the findings for the zone change mentioned this bufferyard suggestion. He stated that it is in the developer's best interest to put a buffer between the uses. It is not a requirement since it is adjacent to the roadway. Ms. Caron stated that they would increase the number of tree plantings between the commercial and residential area. Discussion ensued regarding stacking in the entrance of a gated community and how it affects vehicles coming off the roadway. Ms. Wiesner stated that, if the property is not being used as a gated community, the applicant should be required to have a public park. Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Kottschade if he was willing to lose some units to have a gated community. Mr. Kottschade responded that, if he is unable to dedicate cash in lieu of land, the proposed project would not go forward as presented. He believed the market is out there for this type of use. Ms. Wiesner reiterated her question if he was willing to lose units to create the gated community. Mr. Kottschade explained that he is committed to a gated community. If he has to lose some units he will. Ms. Wiesner suggested that a condition be placed that, if the proposed development does not turn out to be a gated community, the applicant would have to provide parkland. Page 6 113 City Planning and Zoning Comnussion Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Mr. Kottschade responded that he cannot confirm a gated community until he figures out the issues with emergency services. It could end up that he runs into some unknown issues. Ms. Wiesner stated that the Commission has seen proposed developments that have looked unique, but have come back as not being feasible. Mr. Burke asked why the path around the perimeter couldn't be dedicated as parkland. If it is within the gated community, it is private. If it is not a gated community, the path would be public and used as a non-traditional park. Mr. Kottschade responded that he has requested a copy of the parkland dedication criteria. He described his various options discussed with the Park and Recreation Department. Discussion ensued regarding phasing. Ms. Rivas expressed concern with having an untested market and proposing this development without parkland dedication and green space. She stated that it could change to a different form of residential development in future phases. Mr. Kottschade responded that he could develop single family lots. If there is a problem marketing the proposed development, he can easily make adjustments to meet the market. Ms. Rivas explained that was why it is important to have the green space component. She explained that there could be different types of parks. Discussion ensued regarding a non-traditional park. Ms. Caron stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staffs recommendations with regard to the plat and variance, with the exception of the amount of parkland dedication and the developer requests that the variance for the lot width within the Shoreland District be approved. She reiterated that they propose that there are exceptional circumstances and hardship due to the terrain. There is underlying rock and extensive change in elevation. Grading, blasting, and retaining wall requirements are resulting in significant costs. Due to the elevation difference, it is difficult to provide enough roadway so that there is enough frontage to meet the minimum width for the single family attached dwelling units. Ms. Caron stated that a CLOMR was submitted to FEMA in April 2006. The analysis by Polaris Group showed that there are no additional impacts and meets the requirements. Ms. Caron stated that the applicant agrees with all the recommendations in the staff report for the CUP and Variance, except that they request approval of the variance for vegetation removal within the Shoreland District. Grading is required to get the lot layout as well as meeting the maximum density requirements. She stated that they meet the lot area requirements in the Shoreland District and setbacks. Ms. Caron stated that the applicant plans to plant vegetation to provide for high quality development along the creek greenbelt and path. Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Mr, Luke Lunde, of McGhie and Betts (1648 Third Ave SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He discussed the existing vegetation on site. There are the following tree types: Box Elder, Gooseberry, Buckthorn, Dead Elms, Prickly Ash, and Blackberry. Mr. Lunde stated that lowering the elevation would help with erosion. Ms. Susan Volvoda-Swanson (residing at 3715 Willow Heights Drive SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She asked that staff repeat the three reasons staff recommended denial. Mr. Haeussinger responded parkland dedication and shoreland vegetation Ms. Volvoda-Swanson stated that, as a citizen, she is appalled that cash could be given instead of land dedication. They should be required to meet all requirements. There is no real hardship. Ms. Volvoda-Swanson stated that she is opposed to grading activity occurring Monday through Friday till 10 p.m. Mr. Burke responded that a substantial land alteration was previously approved. The applicant is only altering the original request to expand it slightly. Ms. Volvoda-Swanson stated that the proposed holding pond would be in the 10 year pollution area for Well 31. She explained that Well 31 serves more than the neighboring area. She expressed concern that the well be polluted by the development. She indicated that the DNR told her that the applicant is not allowed to do anything within 100 feet from the creek. At this time, he has already put a bridge over the creek. She referred to a letter from Justin Blum, with Minnesota Department of Health, to check into the current and post condition of Well 31. Ms. Sandra Miller (residing at 3960 Willow Creek Drive SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She stated that she is considered an "empty nester" and that she would be concerned with living in a fenced community. She explained that "empty nesters" love parks and gardening. The proposed development does not grant much space to gardening. She stated that the development would be open to everyone, not just "empty nesters'. She expressed concern with children climbing on the gates. She stated that trees have already been taken down for the bridge that goes over the creek. Mr. Svenby explained that a few other developers had discussed making a gated community in past years. However, it never developed into an application. He explained that the applicant was granted a number of mining permits in the 1990's. One of these permits allowed the construction of the bridge crossing over the creek. Ms. Gene Schmiedeberg (residing at 3937 Willow Court SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She stated that the property was flooded in the late 70's. She questioned how they could fill in the floodway. She asked if the development would affect Rochester's flood control project. Mr. Burke explained that the applicant has to get approval from FEMA to do anything in the floodway. He is in the process of getting those approvals. Page g City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Heating Date: May 24, 2006 Ms. Susan Volvoda-Swanson asked Mr. Svenby what the three reasons staff recommended denial. Mr. Svenby responded 1) not providing public parkland, including Willow Creek as an outlot, 2) access to outlot G, and 3) variance to the Shoreland Ordinance Ms. Susan Volvoda-Swanson asked if there was decorah edge on the property. Mr. Harford explained that there may have been some on the south part of property. However, it is mostly eroded away. Ms. Susan Volvoda-Swanson asked if the ponds in the northeast corner (where exit onto Hwy 63) were permissible. She questioned if there was a time limit to clean them up and whether there should be fences. Mr. Svenby responded that those ponds were approved in previous conditional use permits. He explained the CLOMR process and affected area. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. / Page 9 '`O City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Mr. Haeussinger stated that the question of parkland dedication is a policy question that the City Council needs to make. He stated that he felt there could be a compromise between Park and Recreation and the developer. He suggested that the Commission make the comment to the City Council that Park and Recreation and the developer come to a consensus. Mr. Ohly explained that Mr. Kottschade has indicated that he will not dedicate parkland whether there is a gated community or not. Mr. Burke stated that the City will not take in parkland that is located in the floodplain. He suggested that the Park Department discuss the possibilities of a "park" being something other than a baseball or soccer field. Ws Rtvas rttovedxg recorramenw'er is ro nerat- Wt�rer t P1aec E 4 Irfow771 r Page 10 j City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1 Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 ti IR t`i,FEP (@f .'OI'T '6%tQ�T zg tYt 7 s 45e�ec Ad glum.-A'flOn.', Ms. Wiesner stated that the property is separated by a road and creek. It is an area that is unique and a good spot for a gated community. Mr. Ohly agreed, however, the Commission is not determining whether the development should be a gated community. Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 mates The Commission took a 5 minute break. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AND nendment of Anal Development Plan #259 know alli R LLC and Rvank. LLC. The applicant's are JP bV adding approxhately 12.88 acres of land d ivate roadway to a pubrk roadway. The prope is', north of 48th Street SE. onq the west side Man AN elimina Plat #06-10 b MSD LC Calli R LC and ace SE. The piat proposes to s divide ak9Droximati the as Canal Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff r ports, d d May 17, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Roche r-Olmsted nning Department. The applicant's representative, W de Neubauer (of Ya y Colby Associated, 717 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), add ssed the Commission. stated that the applicant agreed with staffs recommendations. With no one else wishing jb be heard, Mr. Burke closed theXblic hearing. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �^ / DATE: 6-19-06 G AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. .TEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 by Willow Creek Commons LLC. PREPARED BY: The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to Brent Svenby, designate approximately 60.85 acres of land for "medium density residential" land uses; Senior Planner the property is currently designated for "Industrial" types of uses. The property is located south and east of Willow Creek,, north of 48 h Street SW and west of TH 63. June 15, 20D6 /✓O7� ° ,dP.[� CPC il'YLt'a Gv'so"� Cep r's�""" ® (/ City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2006 to consider this zone change. They also reviewed an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, zone change, GDP and preliminary plat for the property. The Commission reviewed the land use plan amendment request based on the criteria as included in the staff report dated May 5, 2006 and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 by Willow Creek Commons based on staffs findings. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 5, 2006 Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by Findings based on the criteria included in the staff report. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 5, 2006( ' r 2. Minutes of the May 24, 2006 CPZC MeetingZV Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: �F�' /% s�w 1 Z-v Im I ) --d . � - � r� t W IOY�I +asr L'-12 I,K I I ---far- mM $iaalla'Lia lull t uma xnyexsmnor 119MX3 ONINOZ all YONE AVOM.iIN QK y�IY1 SjMM XOr� q[K3SSLVi a r'Ii yglga)y �I aIVDYYRO'Jk33CMD11M tl15N 31NNO9 :. a .11 t;Ed°pS: Fs pe ltE1 ei=! SISSi nil ia 5Fid� sii 11io a R... y..{.gp77-aS.a.i t apS_ S lit! P v4'te'.5lii i ii=:tt,d z ie=,{! "RiE�-5 paR S;F 4x p5i�,gd{ af" e: _{•y� tlati,if! °•S°idP t t R S--ai p t:e- { =_f::i{zi;i,5• 7i=l,: ft{ a E;'d'a_ • :dt:...i t "' a'S'fi ! ia'i.+ C '',Ri: f: i' f � aad ,1d f!d °d:S�'a{`dSi� afp5`d f.• s {{,,¢i m I 'jd 6` ! Sili i tt EB 56iF � a=la 5:e: i d Fai]di t7: °P;la#aat rr C a ��-" 11i °a1 t�i. a�[p • i •d fa a�iidpea;id , :'p i�° ;;fepay{5:} 3S,4€f{ j`• p.[td.{�a,d•jadp3 s4dt.-�if1lt1 "t# !se ai#aiP- ia1` il 1(t i E's ,;'i.s ES�ii'iidf`` 1 .11 E t = a ' ;psi-=. :°na! j^1e laio�lPii �• ` ayyj-djl� a al�1 : a• j _ {•-Rft , i a=a is is .s5iER1 � ti � ,, qe5 t$h i piia a aR Ei te•:�{l� � , j: i q I pai {:j • p i_i:.i �! {laftaa laifipietifdaip° F Saiaj Fi [fi di$ jd a a:-td a• i;p55t d€•;E i; fat"g i{{a11Pd5 i f151=ad3dt t 3{d�5:¢al�i i 8 a him! p f:j=4 i^ 411 5 !I a!€:i4S5:g d1 z 'd {fii Eaad5d5i 2 I vi -71 I I 'JOY Is Is .R' r/WVP N 11, ,(ap r/1}y P�.,WYVM ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANMNG DEP.0 JMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C 0 V N T Y OF www,olmstedcounty.com/planning �Il��IrlP�t�n1�+ �7o.c2Aa->c�lfi TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: May 5, 2006 RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 and Zoning District Amendment #04- 14, by Willow Creek Commons LLC. The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 60.85 acres of land for "medium density residential' land uses, the property is currently designated for "Industrial' types of uses. The applicant is also proposing to re -zone the 60.85 acres of land from the M-1 (mixed commercial —industrial) and R-1 (mixed single family) districts to the R-3 (medium density residential) district. The property is located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 48`h Street SW and west of TH 63. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Willow Creek Commons LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: RLK-Incorporated Ltd. Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Location of Property: The property is located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 48`h Street SW and west of TH 63. Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from 'Industrial" to "Medium Density Residential" on 60.85 acres of land and a Zoning District Amendment from M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) and R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) district. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped however; grading activities have taken place on the property. In the past, the applicant received conditional use permits for mining and excavation activities on the property. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 5071285-8345 EAX 5071287-2275 RlJ A1, =! PJAI / 00( MT I, NI ITV/ A FCIRAAATI\IP AI TI(IN FAAPI nYPR Page 2 May 5, 2006 Proposed Land Use: The General Development Plan for this property identifies a proposal for multi -family dwellings. The preliminary plat identifies that the property will be developed with single family attached dwellings with Outlot A being developed with a multi family dwelling. Adjacent Land Use and Surrounding properties to the north and west are Zoning: zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Property to the south and east is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial — Industrial) zoning district. Transportation Access: Access to this site would need to be provided from the adjacent property to the east, which is also owned by the applicant. There is an approved preliminary plat on that property which would provide access via a public roadway which is identified as public road A on the GDP. With the number of units proposed a secondary access would be required once 1200 adt is reached. A private roadway connection is shown on the southern portion of the adjacent property which would connect with the future frontage roadway which will run north/south through the adjacent property. Wetlands: A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on July 15, 2004. See attached e-mail for a summary of the meeting. Referral Comments: 1. See comments attached to GDP #243 Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Zoning Map In 1998 the applicant applied for and received approval of a Land Use Plan Amendment (#98-4) and Zone Change (998-4) for this property, changing the land use designation from "low density residential to "industrial" and the zoning from R-1 "mixed single family" to M-1 "mixed commercial —industrial". The applicant now wishes to change the property back to a land use designation and zoning which would permit residential development. Land Use Plan Amendment Analysis and Staff Suggested Findings: The applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use Plan to designate this property for "Medium density residential" land uses. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan includes locational criteria for residential uses. Specifically the locational criteria for "Medium Density Residential' are as follows: Please see the attached excerpts from the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan for the site location criteria for "Medium Density Residential'. The following are staff suggested findings to these criteria: Page 3 May 5, 2006 A) Having level to fairly rolling terrain, outside flood prone or poorly drained areas, or areas with steep slopes. Most of the site has slopes great than 6 percent; however, past approvals have permitted that the site will be regarded, removing the steep slopes and grading the site to have fairly level terrain. A site capacity calculation will need to be completed to determine the net buildable area of the site. The calculation will need to be based on topography of the site in 1991. Other features which will limit the net buildable area include, floodway, floodprone, moderate and steep slopes. Also, a portion of the property is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland regulations. The westerly and northerly portion of the property is located within the floodprone area as well as the shoreland for Willow Creek. As part the MnDOT 40th Street SW/TH 63 project the floodway and flood prone for Willow Creek is proposed to be amended. At this time, FEMA has not approved the proposed amendments to the floodplain. B) Inclose proximately to commercial area, employment centers, recreation areas, or other facilities that serve smaller households. The proposed development will be in close proximately to commercial areas and employment centers. With the recently completed interchanges at 40th Street and 4ath Street and near completion of the associated roadways, the areas between these interchanges have great potential for commercial development. In fact recent rezonings and GDP approvals in the area have planned to have commercial development along the east and west side of TH 63 between 40th and 48th Street. There already exist commercial areas located north of 40th Street along Highway 63. The development is also in close proximately to recreation areas. Willow Creek Golf Course, Southern Woods Park and Willow Creek Reservoir Park are in close proximately to the property. C) Having good access by means of collector, arterial, and expressway street and transit systems to employment centers, commercial areas, and community facilities. With the recently completed interchanges at 40th Street and 48th Street and near completion of the associated roadways the property will have good access to commercial and employment centers. Until these improvements are completed, there is limited capacity on the existing roadways to accommodate the development. The applicant is proposing a large commercial development immediately to the east. D) Buffered from the adverse influences of commercial, industrial, and other incompatible activities. There is currently no natural buffer separating the proposed residential development from the planned commercial development to the east. The developments are planned by the same developer so it will be in the developer's best interest to buffer the uses. Depending on the nature of development bufferyards will be required; however, it would be in the developer's best interest to provide a lot of buffering between the different land uses. 1zl Page 4 May 5, 2006 Recommendation on the Requested Land Use Plan Amendment: In summary, this property appears to meet site location criteria for a "Medium Density Residential" land use designation based on planned improvements to the adjacent roadways. Analysis of the R-i to R-3 Zoning District Amendment: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "industrial' types of uses. A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this application. If the Land Use Plan amendment from "industrial" to "medium density residential' is approved, rezoning 60.85 acres of land to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) would be consistent with the "medium density residential' land use designation. If the Land Use Plan amendment is not approved, the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, and Uses within the R-3 district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual include requirements for buffering between uses. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). FA Page 5 May 5, 2006 The amendment to R-3 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, if the Land Use Plan Amendment being considered concurrently is approved, and would not be considered spot zoning. Recommendation on the R-f and 114-1 to R-3 Zone Change Request: Staff suggests that the findings support approval of the rezoning of the requested 60.85 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and I (industrial) to the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Findings can be made to support approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment to designate 60.85 acres of land for "medium density residential" uses and to rezone the same to the R-3 (medium density residential) zoning district. There are portions of the property that are within the floodway and flood prone zoning designation which will need to be rezoned once the CLOMR is approved. 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-19-06 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS ING DEPT: PLANNING A NO. E- ,rEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #04-14 by Willow Creek Commons LLC. PREPARED BY: The applicant is proposing to re -zone the 60.85 acres of land from the M-1 (mixed Brent Svenby, commercial —industrial) and R-1 (mixed single family) districts to the R-3 (medium density Senior Planner residential) district. The property is located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 48th Street SW and west of TH 63. r/orE: June 15, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2006 to consider this zone change. They also reviewed an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, land use plan amemdent, GDP and preliminary plat for the property. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report dated May 5, 2006 and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. Hasussinger moved to recommend approval of Zoning District #04.14 by Willow Creek Commons based on staffs findings. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 5, 2006 Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria included in the staff report. 2. if the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 5, 2006 2. Minutes of the May 24, 2006 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-19-06 Il AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S- TEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #243 by Willow Creek PREPARED BY: Commons LLC. The GDP indicates that the property (60.85 acres) will be Brent Svenby, developed with approximately 175 multi -family units and a future Senior Planner condominium building. The property is located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 48th Street SW and west of TH 63. June 14, 2006 cola hea'-fI) r City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On May 24, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this General Development Plan. The Commission also reviewed a zone district amendment, land use plan amendment, conditional use permit for grading activities on the property, 2 variances and a preliminary plat. The issue facing the GDP is that there is no public parkland shown on the GDP. The Park and Recreation Department is recommending that the applicant provide approximately 6 acres for a public park on the property as required by Section 64.440 of the LDM. The applicant does not wish to dedicate land for a public park. Instead he is requesting that the Council accepts cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. At one point earlier this year the applicant did have conversations with the Park Department but there was never an agreement reached. The applicant is saying that the development will be a gated community thus the reason for a not providing the public parkland along with the fact that he would provide private recreation facilities. The applicant, Mr. Kottschade, addressed the Commission. He reviewed his reasons for not wanted to provide public parkland. The applicants representative, Ms. Michele Caron from RLK Incorporated, addressed the Commission. She stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions with the exception of parkland dedication requirement. Neighboring property owners spoke in opposition of the proposal. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The Commission recommends denial based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence presented that would ensure that the public health and safety related to the environment would be ensured. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend denial of the GDP, seconded by Mr. Ohly. The motion failed 2-5. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #243 by Willow Creek Commons LLC with the staff -recommended findings and conditions, adding a recommendation that the Park and Recreation Department works with the developerlowner on re -looking at the park requirement. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Rivas voting nay. The applicant has not contacted the Park and Recreation regarding parkland dedicated since March of this year. If it determined that dedication requirements shall be met via land dedication then the GDP should be denied as the criteria in the Section 61.215 of LDM will not be met. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, you should instruct the City COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second to: Page 2 RCA June 15, 2006 1�4 Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 5, 2006 Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 5, 2006 2. Minutes of the May 24, 2006 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. J 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2006 in the Council/Board .7f'..—a.r NYld lN3ndOl •w't/ j-H—y ltltltlp�3wENV3n`JNdl1�3:55m nvoeceee "+ �+ xri ^"'^'" ^'T�'H-ai�]�N Kt KU sios�x5l ]T 'a...tnnCDYM33tA MC�TIM SNOflllnO� M33YJ 071W. •kw{ � � Y c _ q.. _.- •./ 2 SdE "3 Bi 'f6 a E' e 8 wd: T 1/1 -Y^r3flTF3�hVf-if�i � ' •�rR'�v:.'. �\ L ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAKTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 L O II N T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: May 5, 2006 • Ham.+ �,• As�►s�M.n>�+ � �w f �inw...w,r� i •ay��I.���yl RE: General Development Plan #243 to be known as Willow Creek Commons West Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Willow Creek Commons LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: RLK Incorporated Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Location of The property is located south and east of Willow Creek, north of 481h Property: Street SW and west of TH 63. Proposed Use: The General Development Plan for this property identifies a proposal for multi -family dwellings. The GDP for the property identifies an overall density of approximately 3.5 units/acre. Features which will limit the net buildable area include, floodway, floodfringe, moderate and steep slopes. Also, a portion of the property is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland regulations. Land Use Plan The applicant is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from And Zoning `Industrial' to "Medium Density Residential" on 60.85 acres of land and a Designations: Zoning District Amendment from R-1 and M-1 to the R-3 on the land. Streets: Access to this site would be from the proposed frontage road (included in the proposed Willow Creek Commons GDP # 214), which connects 401h Street to 48'h Street SW. Access to this development will not be available until the frontage road is constructed. The applicant is proposing private roadways throughout the development; however, there is a need to have public parkland within the development. The proposed private access to the Commercial Drive SW will need to be designed so that intersects perpendicular to Commercial Drive SW. Development of this property is dependent on roadway improvements to 40" St SW and the construction of a frontage roadway from 401h Street SW to 48th Street SW, to provide adequate public infrastructure (streets) BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-6232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-B345 FAX 507/2B7-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACT1ON EMPLOYER Page 2 (,31 General Development Plan #243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2006 to serve the proposed use of the property. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways. Drainage: The property drains towards the north. The Plan proposes stormwater management facilities throughout the property. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted or developed. The large storm water In the northeast corner of the property is located within the floodway which isn't permitted. The applicant has been working on submitting a CLOMR (conditional letter of map revision) which would move the floodway further to the north so the pond wouldn't be located in it. Wetlands: A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. Public Utilities: The northerly portion of the property (below 1080 elevation) is within the Main Level Water System Area, which will be available with the development of the commercial property to the east. The southern portion of the property (above 1080 elevation) is within the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which will be available with the development of the West 80 development. The static water pressures within the Main Level area will range from 37 to 48 PSI depending on final grades. Static water pressures within the Intermediate Level area will range from 73 to 87 PSI depending on final grades. The water mains in both pressure zones will need to be networked properly to provide adequate water quality and flows for fire protection. In addition, the water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU Water. Development of the property is dependent on the extension of sanitary sewer and public water main through and from the abutting property to the east. Parkland This proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement Dedication: of approximately ± 5.90 acres which is based on the 174 twin homes and a 68 unit condo building being constructed. Depending on the number of units within the condo building parkland dedication requirements will change. The park department recommends that the dedication requirement be in the form of land. The proposed GDP does not identify any public parkland on the property. The applicant is requesting that the Council accept cash in lieu of land. Referral 1. Rochester Public Works Comments: 2. Wetland LGU, John Harford 3. Rochester Park & Recreation 4, RPU Water Division 5. RPU Core Services Division 6. Rochester Fire Department 7. MnDOT 8. Planning Department - GIS Division i Page 3 General Development Plan #243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2006 Report 1. Proposed General Development Plan Attachments: 2. General Development Plan Narrative 3. Referral Comments Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached). Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. A Zoning District amendment and Land Use Plan amend is being considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the property. At the time of development, site capacity calculations will need to be completed. Based on the calculations, the development density shown on the GDP may actually be less. The site capacity calculations will determine what the developable acreage is after subtracting certain environmental features. Also, a portion of the property is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland regulations. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. Access to this site would need to be provided from the adjacent property to the east, which is also owned by the applicant. There is an approved preliminary plat on the property to the east which would provide access via a public roadway which is identified as public road A on the GDP. With the number of units proposed a secondary access would be required. A private roadway connection is shown on the southern portion of the adjacent property which connects with the future frontage roadway which will run north/south through the adjacent property. The proposed private access to the Commercial Drive SW will need to be designed so that intersects perpendicular to Commercial Drive SW. At the time of development, site capacity calculations will need to be completed. Based on the calculations, the development density shown on the GDP may actually be less. The site capacity calculations will determine what the developable acreage is after subtracting certain environmental features. Also, a portion of the property is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland regulations Page 4 General Development Plan #243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2006 Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. A Zoning District amendment and Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP. if the amendments are approved, the land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the property. At the time of development, site capacity calculations will need to be completed. Based on the calculations, the development density shown on the GDP may actually be less. The site capacity calculations will determine what the developable acreage is after subtracting certain environmental features. Also, a portion of the property is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland regulations The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. The Housing Plan includes, as a standard for physical and social environments of residential neighborhoods "adequate open space and recreational facilities conveniently located to serve residents". Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facility from TH 52 south past 4e St. SW has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 4o ' and 4e Streets in order to provide adequate capacity for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commerciaUndustrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the south of the site. In 1998 MnDOT, the City of Rochester and Olmsted County agreed to begin the next phase of project development activities that would lead to the eventual construction of the planned interchanges by undertaking the TH 63 Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project. With the recently completed interchanges at 4e Street and 48m Street and near completion of the associated roadways the property will have good access. Until these improvements are completed, there is limited capacity on the existing roadways to accommodate the development. Development of this property is dependent on roadway improvements to 4e St SW and the construction of a frontage roadway from 40'h Street SW to 4e Street SW, to provide adequate public infrastructure to serve the proposed use of the property. a I \� Page 5 General Development Plan #243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2005 Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Currently the street system isn't adequate to accommodate the planned land uses; however, with the recently completed interchanges at 40`h Street and 48`h Street and near completion of the associated roadways the property will have good access. Until these improvements are completed, there is limited capacity on the existing roadways to accommodate the development. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the Citys current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. The northerly portion of the property (below 1080 elevation) is within the Main Level Water System Area, which will be available with the development of the commercial property to the east. The southern portion of the property (above 1080 elevation) is within the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which will be available with the development of the West 80 development. The static water pressures within the Main Level area will range from 37 to 48 PSI depending on final grades. Static water pressures within the Intermediate Level area will range from 73 to 87 PSI depending on final grades. The water mains in both pressure zones will need to be networked properly to provide adequate water quality and flows for fire protection. In addition, the water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU Water. Development of the property is dependent on the extension of sanitary sewer and public water main through and from the abutting property to the east. Page 6 General Development Plan 4243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2006 The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. This proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement of approximately ± 5.90 acres which is based on the 174 twin homes and a 68 unit condo being constructed. Depending on the number of units within the condo building parkland dedication requirements will change. The park department recommends that the dedication requirement be in the form of land. The proposed GDP does not identify any public parkland on the property. The applicant is requesting that the Council accept cash in lieu of land. Based on the Park Department this development would not meet the parkland dedication requirements. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. The property drains towards the north. The Plan proposes storm water management facilities throughout the property. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted or developed. The large storm water in the northeast corner of the property is located within the floodway which isn't permitted. The applicant has been working a submitting a CLOMR (conditional letter of map revision) which would move the floodway further to the north so the pond wouldn't be located in the floodway. Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking place. According to the Bedrock Geology Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County the Decorah Shale is the first encountered bedrock on the portion of the property as well as the St. Peter Sandstone and Cummingsville Formation. In areas where the Decorah Shale is present the developer and consultants should consider incorporating subdrain and tiling in the engineering design for the Site. Development of this property may have an impact on groundwater supplies and re -charge for the City's drinking water supply. Development of this site should include re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows. Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. \v Page 7 \ General Development Plan k243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2006 A Zoning District amendment and Land Use Plan amendment are being considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the property. With the recently completed interchanges at 40u' Street and 48 ' Street and near completion of the associated roadways the property will have good access to commercial and employment centers. Until these improvements are completed, there is limited capacity on the existing roadways to accommodate the development. Recommendation: The proposed development does have a requirement to provide public parkland. Based on the projected density (243 units), the development will have a dedication requirement of approximately 5.90 acres. The exact amount of land won't be known until a detailed site plan is reviewed for a proposed condo and the total number of units is known. The applicant is requesting that the Council accept cash in lieu of land. According to information submittal along with the preliminary plat, the applicant has a number of reasons why he wishes to dedicate cash lieu of land. The applicant states that there will be over 4,000 feet of private walking and biking trails connecting a systems of benches, picnic tables, horseshoe pits and play ground equipment within dedicated easements and common areas that are maintained by the homeowner's association and be private. The applicant also intends on making this a gated community and target the "baby boomer" housing market. Even though the applicant indicates that he will be providing these recreation facilities it still does not relax the requirements of the public parkland dedication. First of all, there is no guarantee that the private park facilities will be built. Secondly, the park facilities should be available to entire those that live in the area. A recent example where a developer wanted to provide private park facilities and not public ones occurred when the Garden's Manufactured dome Park was proposed. The council at that time decided that public parkland was necessary, even thought the developer didn't want to provide public parkland, for the development. Staff recommends that the proposed GDP be denied since it does not meet the requirement of section 64.440 of the Land Development Manual in that the need for parkland dedication is land not cash in lieu of land. If it is determined that the parkland dedication requirement shall be met the via land dedication then the GDP should be either by denied or tabled. If the GDP is tabled then the applicant should be agreeable to waiving the 60-day law so that the applicant can revised the GDP to provide the necessary land for a public park. If the City Council agrees that parkland dedication requirements can be met via cash in lieu of land then staff would recommend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Page B General Development Plan #243 Willow Creek Commons West May 5, 2006 Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, storm water management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off - site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The proposed pond locations indicated on the GDP are considered conceptual until formal drainage reports and grading plans have been reviewed and approved by Public Works. 3. Full development of the Property would exceed the 1200 adt allowed on a single access. Development will be limited to 1200 adt until a secondary access is available to serve the Property. 4. The water main in both pressure zones shall be networked property to provide adequate water quality and flows for fire protection and water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU. 5. Development of this property is contingent upon the extension of sanitary sewer, public waterman and infrastructure through/from the abutting Willow Creek Commons GDP. )43 ROCHESTER M401t� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 4/28/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507.287-7800 FAX — 507-2B1-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the AMENDED application for GDP#243 for the proposed Willow Creek Commons West Property (reference Bonnie Vista Estates PP#06-05) development. The following are Public Works comments: There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development_agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off - site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The proposed pond locations indicated on the GDP should be considered conceptual until formal drainage reports and grading plans have been reviewed and approved by Public Works. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 4. Construction of a temporary turn -around and dedication of the applicable easement is required at the southerly extent of Public Road A. C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files*LK1 C\GDP243 AMENDMENT Willow Creek Commons West (aka Bonnie Vista Estates).doc ROCHESTER P� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC p WORKS Rochester, MN 55904 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Mark E. Baker 5. It appears that full development of the Property would exceed the 1200 adt allowed on a single access. Development will be limited to 1200 adt until a secondary access is available to serve the Property. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will include but are not limited: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD, for that portion of the Property that has not previously paid a SAC charge for the 7201 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer Project. ❖ Water Availability Charge (WAC) �e Transportation Improvement District Contributions Storm Water Management 4• Pedestrian Ramps Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer First Seal Coat CADocuments and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK1C\GDP243 AMENDMENT Willow Creek Commons West (aka Bonnie Vista Estates).doc i we pledge, We delver February 28, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: RESUBMITTAL: General Development Plan #243, Land Use Plan Amendment 904-05 and Zoning District Amendment 404-14 by Willow Creek Commons LLC to amend the Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 45.9 acres of land for "medium density residential" that is currently "industrial" and to re -zone the land from M-1 to R-3 with approximately 410 multi -family units to be known as Willow Creek Commons West Property. Dear Ms. Garness: Our re -review of the referenced general development plan is complete and the following comment has been revised: 1. The northern portion of this property (below approximate elevation 1080) is within the Main Level Water System Area, which will be made available with the development of the east commercial property. The southern portion of the property (above approximate elevation 1080) is within the Intermediate level Water System Area, which will is now available with the development of the West 80 development. A 12" stub -out to this property is currently being constructed on the common lot line of Lots 5 & 6, Block 2, West Eighty Development (378' west of the center of section 2 ,evelepmei4 and the eamp! 4iaR of the St Bridget Please note that the rest of the original comments remain the same. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �I 06-m. 1`«�"� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety Michele Jackson Caron, RLK, Inc Franklin P. Kouschade, Willow Creek Commons LLC Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 . it The hand to reach for.. DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Protection Specialist SUBJ: Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05, Zoning Amendment #04-14, and General Development Plan # 243 by Willow Creek Commons L-C. 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 multi- family residential development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The fire flow requirement may be reduced if the buildings are protected throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. c) Minimum cul-de-sac diameter shall not be less than 70 feet in diameter d) Cul-de-sacs less than 96 feet in diameter shall be posted "No Parking". 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only) Mark Baker — Rochester Public Works (e-mail only) Willow Creek Commons LLC RLK KUUSISTO LTD we pCedge, we delver July 19, 2004 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan #243, Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 and Zoning District Amendment #04-14 by Willow Creek Commons LLC to amend the Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 45.9 acres of land for "medium density residential" that is currently "industrial" and to re -zone the land from M-1 to R-3 with approximately 410 multi -family units to be known as Willow Creek Commons West Property. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. The northern portion of this property (below approximate elevation 1090) is within the Main Level Water System Area, which will be made available with the development of the east commercial property. The southern portion of the property (above approximate elevation 1080) is within the Intermediate level Water System Area, which will be made available with the development of the West 80 development, the Southern Woods commercial development and the completion of the St Bridget Booster Station (currently under construction). 2. Static water pressures within the Main Level area will range from 37 to 48 PSI depending on final grades. Static water pressures within the Intermediate Level area will range from 73 to 87 PSI depending on final grades. 3. The water main in both pressure zones must be networked properly to provide adequate water quality and flows for fire protection and water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per our requirements. 4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, (-oaI "'JA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Gale Mount, Building & Safety RLK Kuusisto, LTD Willow Creek Commons LLC Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 The hoed re reach tor... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: July 26, 2005 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: GDP #243 by Willow Creek Commons LLC. The applicant is proposing to develop the approximately 175 multi -family units and a future condominium building. 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. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 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) Willow Creek Commons (e-mail only) RLK Incorporated gNEBp3 Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of 2900 48m Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901-5948 April 24, 2006 In - District 6 Office Tel: 507-290-3188 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.um.us Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Southeast -Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05, Zoning District Amendment #04-14, General Development Plan #243 by Willow Creek Commons LLC. Type III, Phase III Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-01 by Franklin Kottschade and Variance Request # 06-09 by Willow Creek Commons LLC. Preliminary Plat #06-05 to be known as Bonnie Vista Estates and Variance #06-10 by Franklin Kottschade(Willow Creek Commons LLC US 63, CS 5509 Dear Ms. Garness: The Minnesota Department of Transportation Planning Office (Mn/DOT) have reviewed the proposals described above. Providing the developers continue to work with FEMA and all regulations and requirements are approved, Mn/DOT finds these proposals acceptable. Please contact Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist, at (507) 281-7777 with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Chris Moates District 6 Planning Director cc: Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Hwy 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Mimtetonka, MN 55343 Debbie Persoon-Bement File AM 2 DOCS-#482989 NATTLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: GDP #243 LUPA #04-05, & ZC #04-14 11 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. ElNo 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. ZOther or Explanation: No wetlands were found on this portion of the property. File #03-32 contains a No -Loss approval. From John Hayford Wetlands LGU Representative on & Tecre$� Rochester, IKN DATE: TO: U5 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT March 10, 2006 Jennifer Garness Planning General Development Plan #243 By Willow Creek Commons LLC The proposed development is estimated to contain 242 dwelling units and have a parkland dedication requirement of 5.90 acres. The Park Department recommends that the dedication be met via land dedication. The GDP as proposed fails to satisfy the parkland requirements required by LDM Section 64.440. C1Documents and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK611GDP 243 WILLOW COMMONS.DOC rpu wr'V rdje. wr Qrlivrr DATE: April 28, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Cook Environmental & Regulatory Affairs SUBJECT: General Development Plan #243 — Bonnie Vista Estates. RPU's Field Services Division has completed a review of the above -referenced General Development Plan. Several areas of concern are as follows: • The proposed development is located on the in the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) for RPU Well 31 (Figure 1). • The soils in the vicinity of Well 31 have a moderate to high permeability level (Figure 2). • Proposed development will be on or near the Decorah edge. The following recommendations are made to help protect groundwater quality and reduce the risk of contamination of public water supply wells: 1. Storm water basins should be designed to prevent infiltration into the DWSMA for Municipal Well 31. 2. Best practices should be used to prevent contaminant release within the DWSMA during construction. 3. Minimize alteration of springs, seeps, wetlands or areas with hydric soils. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 N m � { Q p + n m 4 A m a§ m m an W W V E 6� N • 8 d C � a t� i rpu we eWje. wr Grlirrr Glossary of Terms WF? Program — Wellhead Protection Program - designed to help preserve and protect the quality of our local drinking water supply. TOT — Time of Travel - a distance and time measurement used to determine how long it would take for a contaminant reach drinking water supply. ERZ — Emergency Response Zone - based on a one (1) year TOT. Any contaminants spilled within the ERZ could start showing up at the well in less than one (1) year. W-HPA — Wellhead Protection Area — based on a 50 year TOT. Any contaminants spilled within the ERZ could start showing up in the well in less than 50 years. SWCA — Surface Water Contribution Area — Some wells do not have a confining geological layer about them so it is easier for surface water to reach the well. The SWCA extends the WHPA to include surface water runoff if necessary. DWSMA — Drinking Water Supply Management Area — The DWSMA is the complete protection area combining the ERZ, WHPA, and SWCA, tying them to the nearest property!roadway boundaries. Aquitard — A layer of low permeability soil or bedrock that provides protection to the underlying aquifer. PCS — Potential Contaminant Source — Any business or individual that generates, stores, recycles or transports materials or substances that could contaminate ground water. Examples — gas stations, automotive quick lube facilities, dry cleaners, printing companies, chemical companies, paint manufacturers, photo processing labs, landfills, recycling centers, sewage treatment plants, sewage lines, septic tanks, feedlots, manure storage, fertilizer/pesticide storage/mixing, grain storage, road salt storage, auto body shop, machine/metal shop, plating facilities, scrap yard, asphalt plants, electronics manufacturing, furniture manufacturing/refinishing, paper mill, pipeline, plastics manufacturer, fire training facility, golf course, hospital, laboratory, incinerator, storm water retention ponds. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 �501 Revised Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons - Rochester, MN Residential Site Prepared By: RLK Incorporated April 11, 2006 For Type III Phase II Revised General Development Plan #243 Application Revised Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 Application Revised Zoning District Amendment #04-14 Application Purpose: This revised application for a General Development Plan (GDP) for the west extension of the Willow Creek Commons project has been prepared in accordance with Section 61.210 for the property west of commercial GDP 903-14 at the southwest quadrant of TH 63 and 40`1' Street SW. The revised application is being submitted in conjunction with revised applications for a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment as described in this narrative. The applications have been revised to include a modified project area that is consistent with the revised residential preliminary plat #06-05 Bonnie Vista Estates (submitted separately). A letter request to the City Council for approval of a cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication due to site conditions and the nature of the proposed development is attached as part of this revised GDP submittal. Also being submitted in conjunction with these revised applications is an application for an Amendment to the approved CUP #04-01 for Substantial Land Alteration with Quarry Activities, Shoreland Impacts and Fill in the Floodway/ Floodfringe that has been modified to reflect the current preliminary plat/ preliminary grading limits and impacts. Project Area: ± 60.85 acres Project Team: Developer: Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone:507-287-0909 Fax: 507-288-0658 Contact: Frank Kottschade Civil Engineer/ Landscape Architect: RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 RECEI E� OC tifa'TED Revised Project Narrative Project No. 2006-040-M Willow Creek Commons Residential General Development Plan aril 11, 2006 Page 1 of 4 N�7 Phone: 952-933-0972 Fax: 952-933-1153 Michele Jackson Caron, PE, Project Manager/ Engineer Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Existing Zoning: M-1 Mixed Commercial -Industrial Proposed Zoning: R-3 Medium Density Residential Existing Site Use: Formerly agricultural / cropland and pasture; the site has been under on -going grading and excavation operations in accordance with approved CUP #04-01 for substantial land alteration and approved mass grading plans since 2004. Summary of Proposed Development: The proposed development includes residential use west of the Willow Creek Commons commercial site (GDP 403-14 and PP #04-25). The residential development will consist of twin homes and a possible condominum building that will provide a buffer between the proposed commercial uses on the east and existing R-I and R-2 zoning to the west and north. Current plans for the GDP and preliminary plat area include 87 twin home units (174 total) and a condominium building, which is consistent with the proposed R-3 zoning district standards, as well as the proposed 410 multi -family residential units identified in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet that was approved for the overall Willow Creek Commons project. The site is proposed to be accessed by a public street connection from the proposed public frontage road (Commercial Drive SW) from the north, along the west side of the commercial site, as well as a private drive connection from the public frontage road along the south side of the commercial site that will be constructed with the residential development. Commercial Drive SW is proposed to connect 400j' Street SW and 48'h Street SW. A Conditional Use Permit #04-01 has been approved for the project area for Substantial Land Alteration with Quarry Activities, fill in the flood fringe, and for shoreland impacts along the south and east side of Willow Creek. An application for an Amendment to the CUP #04-01 is being submitted in conjunction with this revised application. RECE11 ED Past Site Use and History: LAII i The 60.85 f acre site is owned by three individual owners consisting of:3 2... 1. Willow Creek Commons, LLC .. .2. B & F Properties, LLC G DEFgRTAA� 3. Franklin P. Kottschade The site was originally a part of the "Cote Farm" property that encompassed approximately 218 acres. Currently the land is being used for agricultural purposes. In 1983 the City of Rochester initiated annexation of the portion of the Cote property lying within Willow Creek Sanitary Sewer District as well as other lands within the sewer district. The property came into the City zoned R-1, which was consistent with the Adopted Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area of low density residential. Revised Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons April 11, 2006 Project No. 2006-040-M Residential General Development Plan Page 2 of 4 In 1994, Franklin P. Kottschade applied for a Land Use Plan amendment to change the designation to "commercial" for the said tract. In 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Common Council took action to deny this request and thus limiting the use of the site for low density residential purposes. Subsequently, a request to change the Land Use and Zoning on 81.75 acres (including this tract) to "industrial" with an M-I Zone was approved by the Common Council on November 4, 1996. RECEIVED Assessment of Site Conditions and Project Impacts: The following summary is provided in accordance with Appendix B, Paragraph E of th Ci ofpPR 13 2006 Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: Topographic or Soil Conditions: The site has a change in topography of over 100 feet, from the knoll in the southeast comer of the site to the low area within the Willow Creek floodway on the west and north. The project proposes to grade the site as part of a mass grading plan that will excavate material from the higher portion of the site and fill the lower portions of the site as well as the commercial site to the west (GDP #03-14). Excavated material will also be used on the 40te Street Improvements project to the north. Construction of roadways, utilities or buildings will be avoided on the areas of existing steep slopes that are proposed to remain along the south property line. According to geotechnical investigation, the underlying site soils are capable of supporting foundation loads and are well suited for roadway subgrade. Storm Drainage: On -site storm drainage ponding facilities are proposed in the north portion of the site, and will accommodate runoff from this site as well as the commercial site to the east that currently flows to the northeast comer of the Willow Creek Commons property at the southwest quadrant of TH 63 and 40`h Street. The drainage concept for the project includes routing the surface runoff into a number of infiltration swales and storm ponds designed to meet code requirements and encompass typical drainage measures. The ponds will provide infiltration and recharge into the groundwater, and discharge a portion of the larger storm event runoff at a controlled rate into the low area adjacent to Willow Creek, which will ultimately flow into the creek_ The site drainage will be designed to be compatible with the proposed drainage improvements and floodplain modifications included with the 40th Street improvements under construction and TH 63 overpass recently completed. Off -site runoff from the undeveloped West 80 Development from the south currently flowing across the site in a northerly direction into the northeast comer of the site will be routed via a Swale around the development along the south property line. The Swale will carry the runoff to the east, into the proposed commercial drive storm drainage system along the future Commercial Drive SW right of way and north into the proposed MnDOT pond at the southwest quadrant of TH 63 and 40'b Street. As partof site development, it is anticipated that the West 80 Development will route runoff into a proposed pond at the northeast comer of the West 80 Development property, which will then discharge into the proposed storm sewer along the future commercial Drive SW. Public Utilities: Public water and sanitary sewer utilities are located along the east Willow Creek Commons project boundary adjacent to the TH 63 right of way that have capacity for the proposed development. Erosion Control: Erosion and sediment control measures have been implemented with the mass grading project on the site, and will be maintained and adjusted as required for the grading and construction of the project. There are no erosion problems anticipated with the project. Revised Project Narrative Willow Creek Commons April 11, 2006 Project No. 2006-040-M Residential General Development Plan Page 3 of 4 \12 Phased Development: The project may be phased, depending upon market conditions and on -going negotiations with prospective tenants. Attachments: General Development Plan Letter Request for Cash Payment in Lieu of Land Dedication REC1£D Revised Project Narrative Project No. 2006-040-M Willow Creek Commons Residential General Development Plan April 11, 2006 Page 4 of 4 �LpI Request to City Council For Cash Payment in Lieu of Parkland Dedication For Residential GDP#243 Willow Creek Commons — Bonnie Vista Estates Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated April 11, 2006 RECEIVED APR 13 ZOOo Request: The Applicant requests the City Council waive the parkland dedication requirement of 5.90 acres (or as calculated with the final plat) in lieu of a cash payment for the Willow Creek Commons Residential General Development Plan #243. This request is due to conditions of the site and proposed preliminary plat Bonnie Vista Estates #06-05. The Applicant proposes this request per Section 64.460 of the Rochester Land Development Manual. Background: The proposed Bonnie Vista Estates residential development will consist of quality, owner -occupied living units, barrier free, and targets the "baby boomer" market as they become empty nesters. The development envisions over 4,000 feet of private walking and biking trails connecting a system of benches, picnic tables, horse shoe pits and play ground equipment within dedicated easements and common areas that are maintained by the homeowner's association. In addition, the trail will be surrounded by 25 acres of open space centered on the meandering Willow Creek greenbelt. Finally, the Developer plans to provide security with a gated community. A revised land subdivision permit (preliminary plat) application #06-05 has been prepared and submitted concurrently for this GDP area. The proposed plat includes 174 single-family twin homes on R-3 residential lots. Lots are anticipated to range in size from approximately 6,600 SF to 16,000 SF; the minimum lot size in the R-3 district is 3,000 SF for interior lots and 3,500 for corner lots or 6,000 SF for duplexes. A condominium building is proposed at the southeast comer of the plat area, adjacent to the east commercial site and West 80 industrial/ commercial site to the south. Several outlots are proposed for open space uses including ponds and private recreational facilities to the residents of the development. In response to the original GDP #243 application submitted in July 2004, the staff report recommended that a public park be dedicated within the plat area and a public roadway be designed to serve it. Justification: Section 64.460 of the Land Development Manual states that: "If in the judgment of the Common Council the quantity of land to be subdivided is of a size or configuration that dedication of a portion thereof: l) is not feasible or practical; or 2) will not create a Request for Cash Payment in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M ril 11, 2006 Page 1 of 4 i parcel suitable for neighborhood park development or for usable open space or trail thoroughfares; or 3) the land is adjacent or readily accessible to already existing public park or recreation facilities, or publicly maintained open space: the requirement of dedication imposed by Section 64.460 of this ordinance may be satisfied by a payment of cash by the subdivider to the City or suitable provision in a development agreement entered into under Section 61.250, which may include fees for land acquisition, preparation and all other purposes and uses defined in Section 64.430." This request addresses each of the three conditions as follows: 1) It is not feasible or practical to dedicate land for a public park within the proposed Bonnie Vista Estates gated community. a. Due to the change in elevation of over 100 feet across the site and extensive subsurface rock conditions, the costs for grading and rock excavation to develop this property and to provide buildable lots are higher than for a typical subdivision. Code requires that half of the parkland to be dedicated must have a maximum 4 percent slope. With the preconstruction conditions on the site, this requirement would have a prohibitive impact on the ability of the Developer to provide enough units to offset the development costs and make the development economically feasible. b. The maximum allowable lot density is further limited due to the amount of plat area within the Shoreland District that allows only 4 units per acre. c. The development is proposed to be a gated community to provide security adjacent to the proposed commercial/ retail use to the east. This property is ideally situated for a gated community with natural separation from the surrounding area in the form of Willow Creek along the west and north boundaries and the rock knoll on the south, that will be supplemented by a retaining wall to further screen it and reduce accessability from the adjacent West 80 industrial/ commercial development. With the only vehicular access to the community coming from a public road off of Commercial Drive SW, security gates will be installed at the entrances to ensure privacy and security for the residents. A public park access road would be incompatible with the type of secure; gated community proposed with the current preliminary plat application. d. The anticipated market for this development includes "empty nesters" who are not expected to require significant park facilities for children. The Developer is proposing to provide private common areas with playground facilities and private trail systems for the residents' use. Public park facilities are not needed. 2) The existing site conditions and development constraints prohibit the creation of a parcel suitable for neighborhood park development or for usable open space or trail thoroughfares; a. A very high retaining wall is proposed along the south boundary and extensive rock excavation is required to reduce the impact of the steep preconstruction slopes on the site. The proposed residential development is composed of many walk -out homes to accommodate the sloped site; the number of proposed twin home product units and walk- outs has been maximized on the site to offset the substantial costs of retaining wall construction, excavation and rock removals required to provide buildable pads on this site due to the difficult topography and terrain. The remaining site area will be slopes greater than four percent, which will not meet the minimum standards of park land dedication in Section 64.441. b. The west edge of the development will be composed of steep slopes within the Shoreland District that will tie into the natural creek buffers and established tree canopy within the 75' conservation area controlled by the Department of Natural Resources. The area Request for Cash Payment in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 2 of 4 p 3' below the slopes is within the floodway and does not meet the minimum standards of land dedication in Section 64.441. c. The conservation area adjacent to the Willow Creek streambed including 75 feet to each side of the creek channel is heavily wooded; the DNR will require that this area be preserved to protect wildlife habitat and cleanse the air; the area cannot be cleared of trees and therefore does not meet the minimum standards of land dedication in Section 64.441 that require half the dedicated property to be largely clear of forest vegetation. The conservation area is best suited to provide private, passive recreational activities for the residents. d. Due to the Decorah Shale conditions on the site, additional property is required to provide drainage swales and infiltration areas to route drainage from the upper rock elevations to lower floodway elevations that infiltrate the runoff back into the ground. This additional site design requirement further constrains the use of the property and number of buildable lots possible. 3) The land is adjacent or readily accessible to already existing public park or recreation facilities, or publicly maintained open space: a. The Developer has purchased 38 acres to the north of 40'h Street SW adjacent to the Willow Heights subdivisions with the intent of meeting park dedication requirements within that parcel which would be readily accessible to residents of the Bonnie Vista Estates development. A preliminary plat application #06-02, known as Willow Heights 5'" Addition,has been submitted for a proposed residential development on that property. The Parks Department has denied the Developer's request to utilize acreage on the Willow Heights plat for this project. b. PubIic park facilities that would be located in the proposed subdivision Willow Heights 5th Addition would be readily accessible to the families that live in the existing Willow Heights developments on the north side of 40" Street. c. As noted above, the target market for the Bonnie Vista Estates development is anticipated to be primarily "empty nesters" who for the most part will not have children residing in the homes and will not need large park facilities tailored for young people. Provisions will be made for a small number of potential resident children and visiting children in the form of common areas with play equipment placed at strategic locations throughout the Bonnie Vista Estates, as well as a private trail system for the residents within the development. With the proposed private recreational improvements, the residents of the Willow Creek Commons residential development will be able to utilize high quality facilities that are maintained by the Homeowner's Association. d. The proposed park on the north side of 40'h Street would be a more appropriate location for a public park, as it would be nearer to the numerous families with children living in the existing residential areas north of 40'h Street who would be using the park. A park north of 400' Street would avoid the need for the families and young children to cross 40" Street to get to the park, and would minimize the need to drive to the park by locating it within walking distance of the many of the homes. Inappropriateness of Parkland Area on the North or West Side of Willow Creek: The area between Willow Creek and 11'h Avenue and 40 Street SW is not suitable for park facilities as it does not meet the minimum standards of land dedication in Section 64.441 for public parkland. Based on the approved MnDOT CLOMR and existing contour elevations, the majority of the area adjacent to 11 `h Avenue is currently either in the floodway or consisting of a ±25% slope. A significant portion of this area would have to be taken out of the floodway. This process would entail a CLOMR analysis and Request for Cash Payment in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons ril 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 3 of 4 M application to FEMA, as well as the placement of fill to raise the site above the floodway identified in the CLOMR update. The resulting fill would most likely raise the flood elevation on the property upstream of the Willow Creek Commons project more than allowable by FEMA. Additionally, the cost of placing four to six feet of fill in order to raise the site above the floodway and make the area useable for public parkland is prohibitive to an economically viable development. Also, a portion of the area between 40"i Street and Willow Creek has been rroposed to accommodate infiltration basins to recapture runoff from the development areas north of 40' Street (Willow Heights 5`" Addition), as part of Decorah Shale drainage mitigation strategies, and is not available for public parkland. Summary In summary, a parkland dedication is not feasible or practical within the limits of the Willow Creek Commons residential project site due to the significant topography on the site and limited area that can be designated at 4% or less slope, even with significant excavation, grading and rock removals. Additionally, public access within the development will conflict with the goals of a secure, gated community. The Bonnie Vista Estates development proposed for the GDP #243 and Willow Heights 5'' Addition north of 40a' Street provide a program of combined improvements that meet the intent of the parkland dedication requirements in the Section 64.400 of the City of Rochester Land Development Manual. The combined conservation easement and private recreational facilities proposed for the area south and east of the creek will provide high quality, well maintained facilities and nearby open space for the residents south of the creek while providing the security of a gated community. The parkland proposed to be dedicated to the public as part of the Willow Heights 5 s Addition project will provide public park facilities for the new residents as well as the current homeowners in the Willow Heights residential area north of 40`h Street. Therefore, the Developer respectfully requests that the City Council approve a cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication for GDP #243 and the Bonnie Vista Estates Preliminary Plat 906-05. Project Team Developer Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect RLKlncorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Michele Caron, PE, Project Manager/Senior Prof. Engineer Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Phone 507-287-0909 Fax 507-288-0658 Email foknar deskmediaxom Phone 952-933-0972 Fax 952-933-1153 Email mcaron@ilkinc.com Email eiohnson(a)rlkinc.com G:1W illow Creek Commons LLC\2006-040-1v_Comespondence\City Sub Rev GDP, Rez, LUPA 4-11-06Nlarr Req for cash in lieu of land 04- 11-06.doc Request for Cash Payment in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M ril 11, 2006 Page 4 of 4 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-19-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM ' A . PUBLIC HEARLNGS PLANNTING -, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #06-05 to be known as Bonnie Vista Estates and PREPARED BY: Variance #06-10 by Franklin P. KottschadelWillow Creek Commons, LLC. The Plat Brent Svenby, proposes to subdivide approximately 55.20 acres into 175 lots for a residential Senior Planner development and 7 outlots. The development is proposed to be served by private roadways. The applicant is requesting a variance to the shoreland district provisions. The property is located along the south side of Willow Creek, south of 40t" Street SW, east of 11 th Avenue SW and west of TH 63. June 14, 2006 ivb-m Sec cPZK. /!Tw"' +i CUP City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On May 24, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this preliminary plat. The Commission also reviewed a zone district amendment, land use plan amendment, conditional use permit for grading activities on the property, 2 variances and a GDP. The issue facing the preliminary plat is that there is no public parkland dedication on the plat. The Park and Recreation Department is recommending that the applicant provide approximately 6 acres for a public park on the property as required by Section 64.440 of the LDM. The applicant does not wish to dedicate land for a public park. Instead he is requesting that the Council accepts cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. At one point earlier this year the applicant did have conversations with the Park Department but there was never an agreement reached. The applicant is saying that the development will be a gated community thus the reason for a not providing the public parkland along with the fact that he would provide private recreation facilities. The applicant, Mr. Kottschade, addressed the Commission. He reviewed his reasons for not wanted to provide public parkland. The applicant's representative, Ms. Michele Caron from RLK Incorporated, addressed the Commission. She stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions with the exception of parkland dedication requirement. Neighboring property owners spoke in opposition of the proposal. The conditions of approval included in the staff report were included if the applicant was agreeable to submitting a revised preliminary plat. The applicant did submit a revised plat; however, the revised plat did not include public parkland. Also one roadway name still needs to be changed and additional review is needed of the access to Outlot G, platting of Willow Creek as an outlot and the other revisions are necessary. Based on the revised preliminary plat submitted, staff recommends that the preliminary plat be denied since the findings included in Section 61.225 of the LDM can not made for the proposal. Additional Willow The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual (if the revised .plat provided public parkland and the other revisions requested were accommodated) and recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: Second by: to: i Page 2 \ky RCA June 14, 2005 There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Storm Water Management Facilities, Public Parkland and public infrastructure, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and the City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, storm water management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, parkland, contribution for existing and future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to final plat submittal. 3. Development of the property in floodway and flood prone districts is subjected to the regulations of Section 62.800 (Flood District and Intent) of the Land Development Manual. The property is also subject to the shoreland regulations of Section 62.1000. 4. Development of this property is subject to the development of the abutting property to the east of this plat which will include platting of Bonnieview Drive SW. 5. Ownership and maintenance of the Outlots needs to be addressed prior to the Final Plat submittal and shall be outlined in the development agreement. 6. A secondary access shall be provided prior to or at such a time that the development generates 1200 on a single access. 7. The developer shall post one side of the private roadway "No parking". Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #06-05 to be known as Bonnie Vista Estates by Franklin P. Kottschade/Willow Creek Commons, LLC with the staff -recommended findings and conditions, adding a recommendation that the Park and Recreation Department works with the developer/owner on re -looking at the park requirement. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Rivas voting nay. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the sixteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachment. 1.Staff 1. Staff Report dated May 5, 2006 t 2. Minutes of the May 242006 CPZC Meeting (attached to GDP RCA) / 1 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, June 19, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. i 92 '.°5 s/tMN .V1 W GE +•s jliirl .w le ..Y n...n nn s,n..m .su-sw.wso .ssNso axrAuols=eoioil:o 011 MINES SN051n3tl N E loess rovva>.ralooY LYid AtlVNMES1Md HiYON25 A\'SF191N WY[ � 'SNOWYVD0�33�DMD111M Y, Ya q I � U z .rQ. —J/ a✓ E cY I N Vol £e Sua J A `tsC. EelCO RED 1 1� @ 'LIT.I : ' : I axgYz"DT`s 5a :83! d _ g Vol £e Sua J A `tsC. EelCO RED 1 1� @ 'LIT.I : ' : I axgYz"DT`s 5a :83! d _ g �•+ AINtlNIWf1lp3tl'Jtld 00 nMs0�y �LL�S11'T11f 4CC: 'LraITIDimsG '' V1lV0Y51l3sd atl a::. c�crta: dAomo N SN INNOBW„emqi1. �IO A 4 �RfiFa?,R@£.E?�:5'SRi9A;F;E,Bie%5ailQq;i@Rsa?HygR._`rSy9iae�€�?FQ�9lE�6°ac}SE.E:.cy3! "s�? E �5gazeE5ee55555555Ea5&'a6"n_F 45 S555'e$53®8@&E$ii5=&$S3$SS$$SSbGFb 5F5F�W 5iR FSE[S$$$$S$$n"R r.2iaS 55i5 —mer*. —.�A ��•... w—..-„® T •v yv '_._ '. 1e015 NN'�v"�� Nnd unun rnea 0 OxY 31b ttlaMNS13Ld nI:m ..�.^..�.`ur..... w... !WSPw4P n"71.1 '6l s . z 0 F- L) �� Y'J - EU r CLLL r f ROCtIESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPA, fMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 �\pogJrotl� COUNTY OF w'ww.olmstedcDunty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner DATE: May 5, 2006 RE: Preliminary Plat #06-05 to be known as Bonnie Vista Estates and Variance #06-10 by Franklin P. Kottschade/Willow Creek Commons, LLC. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 55.20 acres into 175 lots for a residential development and 7 outlots. The development is proposed to be served by private roadways. The applicant is requesting a variance to the shoreland district provisions. The property is located along the south side of Willow Creek, south of 40`h Street SW, east of 111h Avenue SW and west of TH 63. Planning Department Review. ApplicanVOwner: Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: RLK Incorporated Attn: Michele Caron 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Department of Public Works 2. RPU Water Division 3. RPU Operations Division 4. Planning Dept. Addressing Staff 5. Planning Dept. Wetlands 6, Fire Department 7. MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review. Location of Property: The property is located aloing the west side of TH 63, along the south side of 40 Street SW, north of the West 80 Development and east of Willow Creek. Zoning: The majority of the property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial — Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. A small portion is zoned R-1 (Mixed BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 �47 FAX 507/287-2275 CJ� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2006 L/13 Single Family Extra). The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment to change the zoning to the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. Proposed Development: The Plat proposes to subdivide 55.20 acres of land into 175 lots for residential development and 7 outlots. Streets: The plat does not dedicate any public right-of-way. All of the roadways within plat proposed to be private. The private roadways are shown at 28 feet in width. All of the roadways within the development will need to be posted no parking on one side of the roadway. Access to this development is dependant on the roadways within the Willow Creek Commons development being constructed. Once these roadways are constructed access to the property would be available. Full development of the property will exceed the 1200 adt allowed on a single access. This development will be limited to 1200 adt until a secondary access is available to serve the property. Utilities: The northerly portion of the property (below 1080 elevation) is within the Main Level Water System Area, which will be available with the development of the commercial property to the east. The southern portion of the property (above 1080 elevation) is within the Intermediate Level Water System Area, which will be available with the development of the West 80 development. The static water pressures within the Main Level area will range from 37 to 48 PSI depending on final grades. Static water pressures within the Intermediate Level area will range from 73 to 87 PSI depending on final grades. The water mains in both pressure zones will need to be networked properly to provide adequate water quality and flows for fire protection. In addition, the water mains must be extended to adjacent properties per the requirements of RPU Water. A 20' minimum public utility easement is needed for the water main through Outlot A. Plus an additional 12" gate valve and box is needed between this area and commercial area to the east. A common trench water/sanitary sewer along with a horizontal separation exception from the Minnesota Department of Health may be needed because of the narrow street shown to meet the City of Rochester Page 3 Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2006 Design Requirements for water main placement. Development of the property is dependent on the extension of sanitary sewer and public water main through and from the abutting property to the east. Final utility design and grades must be coordinated with the City. Approved construction plans are required prior to submitting a Final Plat application. Sidewalks: The plat proposes all private roadways no sidewalks are not required along the roadways. Drainage: Grading and drainage plan approval Is required prior to the submittal of the final plat. The proposed pond locations indicated on the plat are considered conceptual until formal drainage reports and grading plans have been approved and approved by the Public Works Department. The storm water pond located within the floodway will not be permitted unless the applicant received approval of the CLOMR which removed the area from the floodway. Access to Outlot G needs to be provided. Specific obligations of the owner will be addressed in the Development Agreement and through the Grading and Drainage review/approval process. Wetlands: A wetland related application has been approved by the City for this property. No wetlands exist within the area identified for residential development. 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 140 spillover -parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and driveways. One side of the roadway will need to be posted "No Parking" Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Combination of land and cash in lieu of land. The plat submitted does not satisfy the parkland dedication requirements of Section 64.400. The applicant has requested, to the City Council, to allow cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. According to the information submitted along with the GDP private trails and other private amenities will be provided by the developer throughout the development. Page 4 Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2006 General Development Plan: This preliminary plat would be consistent with the proposed GDP. Variance: The applicant is seeking a Variance to Section 62.1004, 1) b of the LDM, to waive the Shoreiand District provision regarding lot width standards for a sewered urban/tributary river/stream. The applicant is proposing to construct single family attached dwellings with each dwelling unit on a separate lot. The shoreland provisions require that a lot for a single dwelling be a lot with a width of 75 feet. The development proposed is similar to a duplex which requires a lot width of 115 feet. Considering the lot configuration this way (combining 2 lots together), lot widths would range from approximately 75 to 120 feet in width. The Planning staff suggested findings to Section 60.417 are (see attached excerpt from the LDM): EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are not extraordinary conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the property. The applicant is proposing to develop within the shoreland which requires additional standards to comply with. The proposed plat drawing could be revised to meet the standards established in the Ordinance pertaining to lot width within the shoreland district. REASONABLE USE: The Variances are not needed to have reasonable use of the property. The width of the proposed lots could be revised so that they meet the standards established in the Ordinance. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of the variances could compromise the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 62.1004, 1, b), such that the Shoreland District lot width standards do not apply to the proposed subdivision. The findings do not support approval of the Variances requested Staff Review and Recommendation: The proposed development does have a requirement to provide public parkland. Based on the projected density (243 units), the development will have a dedication requirement of approximately 5.90 acres. The exact amount of land won't be known until a detailed site plan is reviewed for a proposed condo and the total number of units is known. The applicant is requesting that the Council accept cash in lieu of land. According to information submittal along with the preliminary plat, the applicant has a number of reasons why he wishes to dedicate cash lieu of land. The applicant states that there will be over 4,000 feet of private walking and biking trails connecting a systems of benches, picnic tables, horseshoe pits and play ground equipment within dedicated easements and common areas that are maintained by the homeowner's association and be private. The applicant also intends on making this a gated community and target the "baby boomer" housing market. Even though the applicant indicates that he will be providing these recreation facilities it still does not relax the requirements of the public parkland dedication. First of all, there is no guarantee that the private park facilities will be built. Secondly, the park facilities should be available to entire community just those that live in the area. A recent example where a developer wanted to provide private park facilities and not public ones occurred when the Garden's Manufactured Home Park was proposed. The council at that time decided that ff AA Page 5 Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2006 public parkland was necessary, even thought the developer didn't want to provide public land, for the development. This plat includes platting a portion of Willow Creek and having it being included as part of the individual lots proposed within the subdivision. Willow Creek needs to be platted within a public Outiot or Outlots that include adequate access to a public roadway of maintenance within the Outlot areas. Also access will need to be provide to Outlot G. Numerous revisions are necessary to the plat. These revisions include: providing public parkland • include Willow Creek as a Outlot • access to Outlot G • identifying the floodway and 100 year flood boundaries on the face of the plat • drainage easement on Lot 31, block t • public utility easement over the water main running through Outlot A • roadway names revised according to the GISlAddressing referral • if the variance is denied, the proposed plat should be revised so that the lots within the shoreland meet the lot width standards established in the LDM. If the above mention revisions are made and a revised plat is submitted at least two weeks prior to the Council meeting staff would recommend approved subject to the following conditions to ensure that the plat complies with Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual: 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Storm Water Management Facilities, Public Parkland and public infrastructure, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and the City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, storm water management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, parktand, contribution for existing and future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to final plat submittal. 3. Development of the property in floodway and flood prone districts is subjected to the regulations of Section 62.800 (Flood District and Intent) of the Land Development Manual. The property is also subject to the shoreland regulations of Section 62.1000. 4. Development of this property is subject to the development of the abutting property to the east of this plat which will include platting of Bonnieview Drive SW. 5. Ownership and maintenance of the Outlots needs to be addressed prior to the Final Plat submittal and shall be outlined in the development agreement. 6. A secondary access shall be provided prior to or at such a time that the development generates 1200 adt on a single access. Page 6 Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2006 7. The developer shall post one side of the private roadway "No parking". REMINDER TO APPLICANT: • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract that requires the developer to construct the public roadways and utilities. • This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations, which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application. Page 7 Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2D06 CITY OF ROCHESTER . ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. / Page B Bonnie Vista Estates May 5, 2006 N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. P. That the proposed land subdivision, if approved, would not result in a violation of federal or state law, or the city or county ordinance. 61.226 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. Revised Project Narrative Bonne Vista Estates - Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated April 11, 2006 For Type III Phase II Revised Land Subdivision Permit/ Preliminary Plat Application #06-05 Purpose: This revised application is for the land subdivision (preliminary plat) for the Bonnie Vista Estates project (previously referred to as the Bonne Vista Estates). The preliminary plan has been revised to increase the lot sizes within the Shoreland District area to meet the maximum density requirement of 4 units per acre. A variance request for lot width less than the minimum 75 feet for single-family homes required in the Shoreland District is attached to this submittal. The revised application is being submitted in conjunction with revised applications for a General Development Plan #243, Land Use Plan Amendment #04-05 and Zoning District Amendment 904-14 that have been submitted separately to include a modified project area that encompasses the revised residential preliminary plat area. The Applicant is requesting that these applications be reviewed concurrently with the revised preliminary plat application. Also being submitted for approval in conjunction with these revised applications is an application for an Amendment to the approved CUP #04-01 for Substantial Land Alteration with Quarry Activities, Shoreland Impacts and Fill in the Floodway/ Floodfringe. The proposed CUP amendment has been modified to reflect the current preliminary platt preliminary grading limits and impacts. The land subdivision application area totals approximately 55 acres. Project Team: Applicant/ Developer: Willow Creek Commons, L.L.C. 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone:507-287-0909 Fax: 507-288-0658 Frank Kottschade, President Civil Engineer/ Landscape Architect: RLK Incorporated 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Mirmetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 952-933-0972 Fax: 952-933-1153 A??' t 310 Revised Project Narrative Project No. 2006-040-M Bonnie Vista Estates Preliminary Plat April 11, 2006 Page 1 of 5 Michele Jackson Caron, PE, Project Manager Eric Johnson, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Background: The proposed preliminary plat area encompasses the property west of approved preliminary plat #04-25 for the Willow Creek Commons commercial development. Assessment of Existing / Pre -Alteration Conditions: Information required by Sections 61.222, 61.223 and 61.224 criteria to be submitted with a Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision is included on the plans and supplemented with the folio wi RECEIVED Existing Zoning: M-1 Mixed Commercial/ Industrial Proposed Zoning: R-3, Medium Density Residential APR 13 2006 Existing Site Use: Formerly agricultural, currently undeveloped; undergoing excab3Titsnfradmg r accordance with approved CUP for Substantial Land Alteration with Quarry Activities 904-01. An application for an Amendment to the CUP to revise the CUP area is being submitted concurrently with this revised preliminary plat application. Existing Conditions: The property is in the M-I zoning district and is undeveloped. The project includes property within the Shoreland District along Willow Creek, designated as property within 300 feet of the creek bank. The project proposes 90 lots within the Shoreland District that will meet the maximum allowable density of 4 units per acre as shown on the revised plat. A variance request is included in this application to allow lot widths that are less than 75 feet for single-family units/ 115 feet for duplex units as required in Section 62.1004 1 b. Please note that the plat proposed attached single- family units with a minimum of 48 feet width. Attached units are not addressed as part of this section. It should be noted that the zoning code allows a 190-foot lot width for quad buildings. This project proposes a comparable 192 foot width across four single-family units, but provides more green space than a quad building would provide. Wetlands: The existing wetlands on the site have been delineated and mitigated as part of a previous approved permit. No additional impacts are anticipated with the project A "No Loss" certification has been approved by the City of Rochester and was previously submitted for information. Utilities: Public water is proposed to be located to the east of this site as part of the approved Willow Creek Commons preliminary plat #04-25 for the Main Level Zone water system connection that will serve units with a finish ground elevation at or below elevation 1080. For the units above proposed finish ground elevation 1080, a public water main will be brought across the adjacent West 80 property to the south by others as part of the Intermediate Level Water Zone 1080 to 1190 system and looped within the upper elevations of the site. The final design of the water main will be coordinated with Rochester Public Utilities. Revised Project Narrative Project No. 2006-040-M Bonnie Vista Estates Preliminary Plat ril 11, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Sanitary sewer utilities are located on the north side of 40`s Street in Willow Court. A sanitary sewer trunk is also to be installed along the TH 63 right of way within the proposed Commercial Drive SW right of way in conjunction with the approved commercial preliminary plat #04-25. The Developer's consultant has proposed optional sanitary routing layouts utilizing both sanitary sewer trunks and is working with the City of Rochester Public Works Department to further define the options by minimizing rock excavation, pipe depth and pipe length, prior to identifying the preferred option for service to this preliminary plat site. This preliminary plat design includes a proposed connection to the Willow Court sanitary sewer with a connection along 406' Street SW; the plans will be modified during the final plat and plan preparation to incorporate the preferred connection option as determined by the City. A public sanitary sewer trunk will be installed through the development. The proposed public water and sanitary sewer mains will be located within public drain e a E I` ED casements within the plat area. APR 13 2006 Traffic and Access: A traffic study was completed for the project area as part of the MnDOT TH 63 project. PI NNING DErARTMFN"T Primary access will be provided from the east, along a proposed public road connection from the proposed Commercial Drive SW alignment south of 40'h Street SW as shown on the preliminary plat documents. The public road (shown as Bonnieview Drive) was included on the adjacent approved commercial preliminary plat #04-25; this plat proposes to extend the roadway to the south to connect with the second access road into the residential development (named Bonnie Vista Road). The public roadway will continue to the south, and will turn easterly and connect to the proposed Commercial Drive SW via a private drive through the commercial preliminary plat area to the east of the site as noted on the approved commercial GDP #214. This second access was a requirement of the commercial preliminary plat in order to provide two access points to the residential area. Final design of the private drive connection to Commercial Drive SW will be completed as part of the fmal plat and grading plans for the Bonnie Vista Estates project. The design and construction of Bonnie Vista Road will be completed prior to certificate of occupancy for a residential unit. The Applicant proposes to construct the second, southerly private access drive in lieu of a temporary turn around and easement at the south end of Bonnieview Drive. The public road connection from Commercial Drive SW will be located partially on the MnDOT levee currently under construction, as approved on the commercial preliminary plat plan. The specific alignment and design of the proposed roadway will be coordinated between the residential and commercial sites during final plat development. The on -site roadway system is proposed to be private, and will be located within an outlot dedicated for access and public utilities. Over 4000 feet of private pedestrian trail is being proposed along the Willow Creek greenbelt. Parking: Spillover parking will be accommodated within the on -site public roadways. Adjacent Land Use: The property is bound to the north and west by residential zoning, separated from the project area by Willow Creek and associated green belt, and on the south by the West 80 Development. The approved Willow Creek Commons commercial preliminary plat #04-25 abuts the project on the east. Revised Project Narrative Project No. 2006-040-M Bonnie Vista Estates Preliminary Plat April 11, 2006 Page 3of5 *3 Grading and Drainage: The site is currently undergoing grading operations in accordance with the approved CUP for substantial land alteration with quarry activities #04-01. An Amendment to the CUP has been submitted for concurrent review to include the expanded preliminary plat area in the CUP. The proposed grading and drainage plan submitted with this preliminary plat application further defines the grading proposed with the Substantial Land Alteration permit, and meets the drainage requirements of the MPCA and City codes (see attached plat plans). The site will be rough graded to residential lot pads as part of the preliminary plat process as shown on the plans. A portion of the proposed pond will be located within the existing floodway; requirements for a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) are being coordinated with FEMA and will be coordinated with MnDOT as required, based on the approved CLOMR for the 401h Street SW/ T 163 improvements. On -site storm drainage design for the project is anticipated to be typical of residential sites. The preliminary drainage concept for the project includes routing the surface runoff through swales and piping into several storm ponds designed to meet code requirements and encompass typical drainage measures. The ponds will be constructed with the mass grading operations at the start of project construction to provide temporary sedimentation. The site generally drains to the north. An infiltration ditch is designed to run south to north along the east side of the creek behind portions of Block 1 & 2. The ditch is covered by a drainage and utility easement and terminates in a water quality pond. Several other drainage swales are proposed throughout the development that will provide a level of infiltration, recharge and treatment prior to discharging into the ponds. Slopes of 2 horizontal to I vertical are proposed along the south project boundary due to the change in elevation from the adjacent property and character of the on -site rock. A waiver will be requested from the City Engineer for the slopes as they are steeper than the allowable 3:1 per code, based on the geotechnical recommendations by Braun Intertec that have identified the existing subsurface rock as having adequate stability for a 1:1 slope (previously submitted). Erosion and sediment control measures have been proposed that will follow and supplement the measures implemented during the on -going grading and construction operations. There are no erosion problems anticipated with the project. Steep slopes will be stabilized as the excavation progresses. RECEIVED Preliminary Plat: A revised legal description is attached. APR I iMS Description of Preliminary Plat: _rEyTER rr;„ The revised Preliminary Plat Application is being submitted as a Type III, Phase 11 A pli¢3ggly;n;� The Preliminary Plat proposes 174 single-family attached R-3 residential lots. Lots are anticipated to range in size from approximately 6,600 SF to 15,956 SF. The minimum lot size in the R-3 district is 3,000 SF for interior lots and 3,500 for corner lots. In addition, seven outlots are proposed. Outlot A is located on the south portion of the development and is designated for a future condominium, Outlet B is designated for a community open space area and drainage swale, Outlot C is designated for a pond and community open space, Outlot D is designated for a community open space, Outlot E is designated for a trail connection to the proposed private trail associated with the Willow Creek greenbelt on the west side Revised Project Narrative Bonnie Vista Estates April 11, 2006 Project No, 2006-040-M Preliminary Plat Page 4 of 5 of the development, Outlot F encompasses the private roadway system and utilities, and Outlot G is designated for a pond and community open space. The final development of the project may be phased, depending upon market conditions and negotiations with prospective builders. The proposed preliminary plat does not include public parkland area. A request to the City Council to provide a cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication is included with the revised GDP #243 application. Attachments: Revised Legal Description of Property Revised Preliminary Plat/ Plan Package No -Loss Determination for Wetlands (previously submitted) MPCA Correspondence for Infiltration (previously submitted) Geotechnical Analysis of 1:1 Slopes (previously submitted) Variance Request for Reduced Lot Width in the Shoreland District G \Willow Creek Commons LM2006-040-lk Correspondence\City sub residential PP 02-22-06W arrative Prel Plat 04-I1-06.DOC RECEIVED APR 1 3 2006 Revised Project Narrative Bonnie Vista Estates April 11, 2006 Project No. 2006-040-M Preliminary Plat Page 5 of 5 Variance Reauest Reduction in Lot Width within Shoreland District Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons Rochester, MN Prepared By: RLK Incorporated April 11, 2006 For Type III Phase I Variance Application Section 62.1004, Item lb (Shoreland District, Physical Limitations, Lot Area (apR 13 2956 and Width Regulations) Variance Request: Variance to Section 62.1004, Item I (Shoreland District, Physical Limitations, Lot Area and Width Regulations) to allow a reduction in the lot width for twin homes (duplexes) for 90 lots within the shoreland distict along Willow Creek, from the required 75 feet for single lots/ 115 feet width for a duplex in sewered areas, to lot widths a minimum of 96 feet for the duplex lot. Please note that some of these lots are tapered and are measured at the midpoint of the lot.. The lots will meet the underlying zoning district lot area requirement. Variance Standard: The following is excerpted from the aforementioned Zoning Ordinance section: b. River/Stream segments must meet the underling zoning district lot area requirements. In addition, the following lot width standards must be met: DwellingTvpe Agricultural Urban/ Tributary (sewere Urban/ Tributary (unsewered) Single 150' 75' 100, Duplex 225' 115' 150' Triplex 300' 150' 200' Quad 375' 190, 250' Background Due to the proximity of Willow Creek to the adjacent proposed residential development, a substantial portion of the development is within the Shoreland District. The existing Willow Creek greenbelt is composed of a canopied natural area that will not be impacted within the 75-foot conservation area along both sides of the creek. The Shoreland District extends 300 feet on each side of the creek. The project proposes to meet the underlying zoning district (R-3) minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square feet for duplexes. Variance Request — Reduction in Lot Width in the Shoreland District Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons ril 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 1 of 3 \� It should be noted that the zoning code allows a 190-foot lot width for quad buildings. This project proposes a comparable 192 foot width across four single-family units, but provides more green space than a quad building would provide. Hardship Justification The reduction in lot width for the 90 proposed lots will not be detrimental to the Shoreland District; the project will avoid impact to the natural water course and vegetated green belt. The project proposes to meet the maximum lot density of 4 units per acre. Due to the extensive underlying rock on the site, excavation and rock removal costs are significant; to make the development economically feasible, the maximum number of lots is being proposed. Refer to the Preliminary Plat which identifies the lots that are less than the code requirement of 115 feet and require a variance. Granting of this variance request, is the minimum request necessary to provide a reasonable and economic use of the site. The following comments have been prepared to address the guidelines contained in Section 60.417 (Findings for Variance) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. For reference, Zoning Ordinance text has been included in italicized text. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: L there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the some class ofzoning district; and The physical conditions on the site include extensive underlying bedrock and steep slo es that will result in significant excavation requirements to provide a developable site r the proposed Bonnie Vista Estates preliminary plat #06-05 and allowable zoning densi L to 2, the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved, A reasonable use of the property includes adequate grading a sufficient number buildable pad elevations and the associated roadway system to make the developeeconomically viable due to the extensive site development costs noted in No. 3 3, the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or material injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose nt— of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and The variance will not be detrimental to the public nor be injurious to other property in the area. It does not impact other properties and is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in Variance Request - Reduction in Lot Width in the Shoreland District Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons April 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 2 of 3 such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. A sufficient number of buildable pad elevations and the associated roadway system are required to make the development economically viable due to the extensive site development costs noted in No. 1 above. The variance, as requested, is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the property. The extraordinary conditions on the site are natural and not the result of the Developer. Project Team Developer Willow Creek Commons, LLC 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Frank Kottschade 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 mcaronSylkinc.com j dietrich(a)rlkinc.c om GAWillow Creek Commons LLC12006-O40-NR_ComspondencelCiry Sub Rev Prel Plat Subm WCC Res 4-11-06\Vw Req lot width in shorelmd 04-11-06. doc Variance Request — Reduction in Lot Width in the Shoreland District Bonnie Vista Estates - Willow Creek Commons SF.c:-t✓EI ED APR 13 29 8 �rlf 11, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-040-M Page 3 of 3 ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 3/10106 REVISED APPLICATION CONE\IENTS 4/28/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 a 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- 05, for the proposed Bonnie Vista Estates development. The following are Public Works comments from 3/10/06, New comments based on the plan revisions are indicated in BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed and are no longer applicable are indicated with - 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developers and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off - site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The proposed pond locations indicated on the Preliminary Plat should be considered conceptual until formal drainage reports and grading plans have been reviewed and approved by Public Works. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 4 Beane Vie`.', Dfive. NOTE: Ped Facilities will be required along both sides of Bonnie View Dr SW, however, this roadway is no longer included in the Preliminary Plat of Bonnie Vista Estates. C.\Documents and Settings\plaslost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLMC\PP06-05 Bonne Vista Estates REVISED APPLICATION 4-06.doc ROCHESTER K4-� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker Y� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 5. Controlled access vibe is required along the entire future frontage of Bonnieview Drive SW, with the exception of any approved private street access locations, as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. r y appliaabl-- eas&liaen- is required t4o titheri extent of BqFifieview Dr NA roadway removed from plat. 8. The proposed removal of Bonnieview Dr SW from the Preliminary Plat leaves no access for this development to a public roadway. Development of this Property would be subject to development of the abutting property east of this plat which will include platting of Bonnieview Dr SW. 9. Ownership and maintenance of the Outlots needs to be addressed prior to Final Plat submittal and should be outlined in the Development Agreement for the Property. Access to Outlot `G' will also need to be addressed. 10. There appears to be a drainage easement missing over proposed Lot 31, Block 1. 11. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer. 12. The proposed Drainage & Utility Easement along the rear yards of lots abutting Willow Creek should include the 100 year flood plain. 13. Willow Creek will need to be platted within a public Outlot or Outlots, and include adequate access to a public roadway for maintenance within the Outlot area(s). C-1Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 C\PP06-05 Bonne Vista Estates REVISED APPLICATION 4-06.doc r ROCHESTER Mzlto� TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507.2B7-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 14. It appears that full development of the Property would exceed the 1200 adt allowed on a single access. Development will be limited to 1200 adt until a secondary access is available to serve the Property. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will include but are not limited: ❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD, for that portion of the Property that has not previously paid a SAC charge for the 7201 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer Project. ❖ Water Availability Charge (WAC) — TBD �o Transportation Improvements - TBD :• Storm Water Management — TBD through the Grading Plan review process Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer First Seal Coat CADocuments and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\PP06-05 Bonne Vista Estates REVISED APPLICATION 4-06.doc r �dal Q,<w & R"`�<`d� ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, MIY DEPARTMENT DATE: April 26, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Preliminary Plat #06-05 Bonne Vista Estates Acreage of plat... ......................................... ........... 55.20 acres Number of dwelling units .................................... I........ ± 584 units Densityfactor............................................................ .0178 Dedication............................................................... 10.5 a Fair market value of land ............................................. $23,000 / a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Combination of land and cash in lieu of land. Neither this plat as submitted or GDP 243 as submitted satisfies the parkland dedication requirements. FA 0:TARKDEDICATI0M20D6\SW 289T\BONNE VISTA EST.DOC el r, Rochester -Olmsted Planningg i Phone: (507) 285-8232 partment Fax: (507) 287-2275 GISlAddressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904.47" PRELIMINARY PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GISlAddressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Andy Berenberg RLK Inc. RE: BONNE VISTA ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT #06-05 A reN2ew of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. None of the roadways in this plat have a directional indicated in the name. RECOMMENDATION: Add the directional of SW to the end of all roadway designations. 2. The roadway illustrated as BONNEVIEW DRIVE needs the directional added. RECOMMENDATION: Illustrate roadway as BONNIE VIEW DR SW. 3. The roadway illustrated as BONNIE VISTA DR. is using an incorrect roadway type. RECOMIt7ENDATION: Change BONNIE VISTA DR. to either BONNIE VISTA FL SW or BONNIE VISTA AVE SW. 4. The roadway illustrated as BONNIE VISTA AVE. is using an incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change BONNIE VISTA AVE. to BONNIE VISTA RD SW. 5. The roadway illustrated as BONNIE VISTA RD is using an incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change BONNIE VISTA RD. to BONNIE VISTA ST SW. i Rochester -Olmsted Plannin( apartment GISlAddressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507) 285-8232 Fax: (507) 287.2275 6. The roadway illustrated as BONNIE VISTA ST is using an incorrect roadway type. RECOMN[ENDATION: Change BONNIE VISTA ST. to BONNIE VISTA LN SW. The roadway illustrated as BONNIE VISTA LN will need to be renamed otherwise duplication of roadways would occur. RECOMMENDATION: Change the name of BONNIE VISTA LN, but keep the roadway type and directional of LANE SW. 8. The roadway illustrated as BONNIE VISTA WAY will need to be renamed and the roadway type changed. RECOMMENDATION: Change the name of BONNIE VISTA WAY, but keep the roadway type and directional of LANE SW. ��3 0 The hand to reach for.. DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: April 19, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Preliminary Plat #06-05 to be known as Bonnie Vista Estates and Variance #06-10 by Franklin P. KottschadeNVillcw Creek Commons LLC. 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 Multi -Family development area shall be no less than 1,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the buildings being proposed. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. c) Minimum cul-de-sac diameter shall not be less than 70 feet in diameter d) Cul-de-sacs less than 96 feet in diameter shall be posted "No Parking". 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only) Mark Baker— Rochester Public Works (e-mail only) Willow Creek Commons, LLC (e-mail only) RLK Incorproated i roPu �.- we pleda e, we delave� April 24, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: Preliminary Plat #06-05 by Franklin P. Kottschade/Willow Creek Commons, LLC to be known as Bonne Vista Estates and Variance #06-10 to the shoreland district. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. A 20' minimum public utility easement is required for the water main through Outlot A. 2. Common trench water main/sanitary sewer along with a horizontal separation exception from the Minnesota Department of Health may be needed with the narrow streets shown to meet the City of Rochester Design Requirements for water main placement. 3. An additional 12" gate valve and box is needed between this area and the commercial area to the east. 4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm during the final construction plan process on these issues. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06--,A "I&I Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Gary Schick, Building & Safety Franklin P. Kottschade, Willow Creek Commons, LLC Michele Jackson Caron, RLK, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: LUP Amend #04-05, ZC #04-15, GDP #243 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: Wetlands have been identified on the southwest side of the property between Willow Creek and 11th Ave., SW. This proposal shows the area being filled. A wetland replacement plan will be required prior to any grading on this portion of the property. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative .11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-19-06 "( AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM 0. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #06-03 by MSD, LLC, Call! R, PREPARED BY: LLC and Ryanna, LLC to rezone approximately 8.56 acres. Approximately 6.57 Mitzi A. Baker, acres would be rezoned from the B-4 (General Commercial) district to the M-1 Senior Planner (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district and 1.99 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. The property is located along the east side of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. June 13, 2006 City Planninq and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2006, to consider this petition. Mr. Pestka moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #06-03 by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC with the staff -recommended findings. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Council Action Needed: The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning for the property. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 19, 2006 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. ei COUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: I __ : ETI.w B I c Z I - 9dR Cf $ 11 FOREST KNOLL SUB IVISION 111111161 C'. CANAL PLACE S.E. g 1 'ela3F9 {{q ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA B E E F: 11 ' 'I [qT ROCRESTER-OLMSTED PL.kNNING DEPA rM ,N-r O�,gOCHESTER.M/4N�s 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904.4744 �F'!:' " 0 '. r i= COUNTY OF www.olmstLdcounty.com/planning 7(.H•L�i(rN 0 TE.-D. GUST•5• TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: May 17, 2006 RE: Zoning District Amendment #06-03 by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC to rezone approximately 8.56 acres. Approximately 6.57 acres would be rezoned from the B-4_(General Commercial) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district and 1.99 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. The property is located along the east side of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. Planning Department Review: Petitioners: Tom Hexum/MSD, LLC 1000 Rocky Creek Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906 Ron SchultzJCalli R. LLC 6608 Zumbro Hyland Ln. NW Rochester, MN 55901 Rob Gregory/Ryanna, LLC 1083 Weatherhill Ln SW Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of TH 63, north of 48'h Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. Requested Action: The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.57 acres from the B-4 (General Commercial) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) zoning district and 1.99 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 w. PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 T�C� 0 Page 2 May 17, 2006 Existing Land Use: As identified on the attached Exhibit, parcel "A" has historically been a single family home lot, parcel "B" was occupied with a home and is relatively undeveloped, parcel "C" is partially developed with a business. Proposed Land Use: The applicant has not specified uses for the property. In general, the GDP will be integrated into a large commercial/retail development. Adjacent Land Use The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates parcel and Zoning: "A" for "industrial' uses, and parcels'B" and "C" for "commercial" uses. Abutting properties in this area are all zoned M-1 (Mixed Comm ercial-Industrial). Transportation Access to this GDP will be from Maine Avenue SE. A new public Access: local road is proposed through the GDP. Wetlands: A Wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. Neighborhood A neighborhood meeting was held on May 17, 2006. Please see the Meeting: attached minutes. Report Attachments: 1. Area Map with Proposed Zone Changes Analysis for Zoning District Amendment. Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. i Page 3 May 17, 2006 Proposed M-1: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates parcel "A" for "industrial" uses, and parcels 'B" and "C" for "commercial" uses. Since the M-1 district is a mixed commercial -industrial district, re -zoning would be consistent with the Land Use Plan designation for each of these properties. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Proposed M-1: Uses allowed in the M-1 district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties in the area. b) the proposed amendment does not involve sporzoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Proposed M-1: If approved, this amendment would not constitute spot zoning. Staff Recommendation: Based upon the findings, staff would recommend approval of this zone change as petitioned. V( (�� Page 12 r City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 The Commission took a 5 minute break. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated May 17, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. The applicant's representative, Wade Neubauer (of Yaggy Colby Associated, 717 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant agreed with staffs recommendations. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. r Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Page 14 ` City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLAN-NING Amendment of General Development Plan 9259 known as Canal Place SE by MSD, LLC, Call! R LLC and Ryanna, LLC. The applicant's are proposing to amend the approved GDP by adding approximately 12.88 acres of land and changing the original proposed private roadway to a public roadway. The property is located along the east side of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE LE ,aces C PAC June 13, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: MEETING /(7� DATE: 6-19-06L PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner The Planning commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2006 to consider this item. Mr. Wallace moved to recommend approval of Amendment of General Development Plan #259 known as Canal Place SE by MSD, LLC, Calli R LLC and Ryanna, LLC with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. CONDITIONS: 1. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 2. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of T.H. 63. 3. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. 4. A portion of the Property lies within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the rernainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. If development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. If proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 5. A portion of this property is included in the approved Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11). The approved Plat identifies the roadway as "private" and plats the road as outlots. The applicant agrees that the Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11) will be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the Canal Place SE Subdivision (#06-10). COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second to: I - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........... NF70 KNOLL SUBPIVISION R-2 'I CANAL PLACE S.E. i ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Rin all GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ,=g V. m 5 4n N a I m z n > A -/.�/ lx i Y N I u (] I A 4- ____ _ la� ;a FOREST KNOLL SUBq SION '• R-1 I e 2E CANAL PLACE S.E. pp e • g { ROCi .i. MINNESOTA 6d8�3efsi �. . e rENERAL DtvELOPMENT PLAN 0� RoctiESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEP.A-RTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 .r COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: May 17, 2006 �iarhM��im'•� Ilsnol���an?•!�� - Na�r� I�av�j J RE: Amendment of General Development Plan #259 known as Canal Place SE by MSD, LLC, Calli R LLC and Ryanna, LLC. The applicant's are proposing to amend the approved GDP by adding approximately 12.88 acres of land and changing the original proposed private roadway to a public roadway. The property is located along the east side of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. Planninq Department Review. Applicant/Owner: Tom Hexum/MSD, LLC 1000 Rocky Creek Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906 Ron Schultz/Calli R. LLC 6608 Zumbro Hyland Ln. NW Rochester, MN 55901 Rob Gregory/Ryanna, LLC 1083 Weatherhill Ln SW Rochester, MN 55902 Consultants: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Existing Land Use: This property is mostly undeveloped or underdeveloped. Proposed Use: The Plan proposes lots for development of commercial uses and a new public roadway. Land Use Plan: This property is located within the boundaries of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The land use designation for this area is "Commercial' use. The property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Zoning: Industrial Lon the Rochester Zonin Men. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPIN 507/285-B232 • HOUSING/H 507 285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIPMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER a�.d. Page 2 Z101 General Development Plan 05-259 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 There are no new public roadways planned within this Roadways: development. The development is proposing to be served by a private roadway. Canal Place SE as labeled on this GDP is using an incorrect roadway type. Addressing staff is suggesting a change this private roadway to Canal Court SE as agreed when working on the preliminary plat for Maine Street Development in April of 2003. Dedication of controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of T.H. 63. Pedestrian Facilities: The need for pedestrian facilities will be addressed in the required Development Agreement. Drainage: 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, will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments Wetlands: be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. This area is within the Main Level Water System Area Public Utilities: which will be made available with the development of the Maine Street property. Static water pressures within in this area will range from 43 to 54 PSI, depending on final grades. Parkland Dedication: The property will not be used for residential development; therefore there are no parkland dedication requirements. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works 2. RPU Water Division 3. Planning Department — Addressing staff 4. Planning Department — Wetland LGU Staff 5. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs Division Report Attachments: 1. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments (5 letters) Summary: Page 3 General Development Plan 05 259 Canal Place SE Y May 17, 2006 A General Development Plan was approved for this property in August 2005, The applicant is now proposing to amend the GDP to expand the boundaries (incorporating a portion of GDP #165 Maine Street Development), change the alignment of the roadway serving the GDP, and change the roadway from a private road to a public road. Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. This GDP proposes `commercial" uses. This is consistent with the "Commercial" land use designation for the property. The property is currently zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. The density and lot sizes for the development appear consistent with the commercial designation on the Land Use Plan. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. Not applicable. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan the subject and adjacent properties. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of T.H. 63. Site access will be reviewed at the time Site Development Plans are proposed for specific development of the property. Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. T. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, it required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in r Page 4 General Development Plan 05-259 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of T.N. 63. Site access will be reviewed at the time Site Development Plans are proposed for specific development of the property. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the Citys current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. This property is within the Main Level Water System Area, which will be made available with the development of the Maine Street property. A portion of the Property ties within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the remainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. if development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. If proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. a Page 5 V� General Development Plan 05-259 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 Execution of a City -Owner Contract and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Detailed construction plans will need to be approved for all infrastructure improvements. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. 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 will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such away as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower acquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking place. The proposed development is located on the east side of T.H. 63, adjacent to and upgradlent from the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) for RPU Well 31. The soils in the vicinity of Well 31 have a moderate to high permeability level. In addition, proposed development will be on or near the Decorah edge. RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs recommend the following to assist in protecting groundwater quality and reduce the risk of contamination of public water supply wells: 1) Storm water basins should be designed to prevent infiltration; 2) If there are any on -site handling and storage of fuels, pesticides, chemicals and other potential sources of contamination, it is suggested that the facility be engineered, designed and constructed with appropriate safeguards and best management practices to minimize the risk of contaminant release; and 3) Minimize alteration of springs, seeps, wetlands or areas with hydric soils. Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The lot and block layout for the development appear to be consistent with the Subdivision Design Standards for commercial development. Page 5 ! General Development Plan 05-259 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 Recommendation: Based on the above criteria, staff would recommend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 1. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 2. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of T.N. 63. 3. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. 4. A portion of the Property lies within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the remainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. If development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned Infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. if proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 5. A portion of this property is included in the approved Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11). The approved Plat identifies the roadway as "private" and plats the road as outlots. The applicant agrees that the Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11) will be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the Canal Place SE Subdivision (#06-10). i ti��' ROCHESTER Kl � TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 7/l/05 REVISED APPLICATION COMMENTS 5/17/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for General Development Plan #259, for the proposed Canal Place SE Property. The following are Public Works comments from 7/l/05. New comments are indicated in BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed by the plan revisions are indicated with A portion of the Property lies within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the remainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. If development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. If proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding stormwater management, will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. C:\Documents and Settings\plamhake\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Flles\GLK246\GDP259 Canal Place SE REVISED GDP.doc ROCHESTER 2-d M�4�IL TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPART PUBLIC WOR S Rochester, MN 55904 201 4'" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Mark E. Baker 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 4. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of T.H. 63, 5. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and /or Development Agreement if applicable, and will include but are not limited to: :• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC J9799) @ $3,012.69 per developable acre B• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2008.62 per developable acre w Qihty c oetion Charges TOTI Transportation Improvement District Contribution @ $0.54 per developable square ft Storm Water Management — TBD ❖ Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer ❖ First Seal Coat @ $0.57 per sq yd ❖ Pedestrian Ramps - TBD C:\Documents and Settings\plambake\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK246\GDP259 Canal Place SE REVISED GDP.doc AGENDA SECTION: PLBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PLANNING DEPT: I' MEETING V DATE: 06-19-06 ITErO./ ) ' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #06-10 by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC PREPARED BY: to be known as Canal Place SE. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 26.28 acres Theresa Fogarty, into 5 lots for commercial i Industrial development. The plat also dedicates right-of-way Senior Planner for a new public roadway. The property is located along the east side of T.H. 63, north of 481h Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. June 12, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2006 to consider this preliminary plat. The applicant's representative, Wade Neubauer (Yaggy Colby Associates), addressed the Commission stating that the applicant 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 Plat shall be revised as follows: a. Dedicating controlled access along the entire frontage of T.H. 63. 2. The larger lots may require additional easements and water main stub -outs for necessary onsite water main looping ad fire protection dependent on the final building layouts. These can be dedicated as the lots are developed. 3. Grading & 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, will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. 4. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery frontages abutting the Property. 5. A portion of the Property lies within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the remainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. if development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. If proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 6. A portion of this property is included in the approved Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11). The approved Plat identifies the roadway as "private" and plats the road as outlots. The applicant agrees that the Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11) will be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the Canal Place SE Subdivision (#06-10). COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: �IS,RCA Preliminary Plat #06-10 Canal Place SE 6/12/2006 Mr. Pestka moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #06-10 by MSD, LLC, Call! R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC to be known as Canal Place SE, with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated May 17, 2006. Govncri.�ctfon Ne 64. �t �� c mai'}ppro 'v thconditrons,ard the land subdivrsk ow IF-IMItd}r s� fact b � e criteria inclua��� ,1 o ${l,s�(t sap for a cod Us�ot .tat +kn. �. �. least one ctr(fiifeen findingsdr fienla para r"ap�i can be m Attachments: 1. Staff report, dated May 17, 2006. 2. Minutes of the May 24, 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, June 19, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester! Olmsted County Government Center. I '7i>3F '•.e fie;'" 3s.;xa 3i3 a? fyy�1 rt ! I 3 n idld MW 11321d YLOONNiw'131OH70M W '- '3'S 3DVId IVNVD N � � \ \ 0 2 Wewp em¥ p#oCIO a ` . �, � N£d+,mo z 28mD m__a� |� !. :9'. § | 3s2� 2NYDEli n !| ! 77 <_b,mm imod - ; - ---- y. \ \ \ ..... . ............... -§ — � . - . \ - « |; AN k I ..\ , „ ! || 0_�i! ^............ ,-- F- c:f| 2 2200 ft. Notification Area of proposed Preliminary Plat #06-10 to be known as Canal Place S.E. located in the E 1/2 Sec 26 Rochester TWP (General Development Plan #259 and Zone Change #06-03) V Prel. Plat #06-10, GDP #259, and ZC t106-03 sw 11` by MSD, LLC, Calli R, LLC, and Ryanna, LLC 15 � (\.\ PINS: 64.26.11.067468; 64.26.13.072497; 64.26.14.026073; 64.26.14.055803; f 64.26.13.026076; 54.26.13.026075; SC26.42.064282 Ward: 1 B I I I� rAmy Assoc:� Neighborhood ssoc: None 519106 N Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map. please notify the GtS Division, Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE. Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232. 00 1 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTniENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C U Y M T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: May 17, 2006 >ym�i�vi rnia"�'IWn �1 RE: Preliminary Plat #06-10 by MSD, LLC, Call! R, LLC and Ryanna, LLC to be known as Canal Place SE. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 26.28 acres into 5 lots for commercial / Industrial development. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for a new public roadway. The property is located along the east side of T.H. 63, north of 48th Street SE, along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. CP&ZC Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Tom Hexum MSD, LLC 1000 Rocky Creek Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906 Ron Schultz Calli R, LLC 6608 Zumbro Hyland Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Rob Gregory Ryanna, LLC 1083 Weatherhill Lane SW Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division Rochester Public Works Department Planning Dept —LGU Wetlands Staff Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 3 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. copy of GDP amendment being considered concurrently with the Preliminary Plat request 5. Location Map BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIRRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELIISEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER r. Page 2 Preliminary Plat #06-10 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 Development Review., 29-3 Zoning: Portions of the property are currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential), B-4 (General Commercial) and M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district on the City Zoning Map. The applicant has petitioned for a zoning district amendment to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) for the portions that are not currently zoned M-1. The zoning district amendment request is being considered concurrent with this Preliminary Plat request. Proposed Development: This development consists of approximately 26.28 acres of land to be subdivided into 5 lots for commercial / industrial development. Roadways: There is one new roadway planned within this Preliminary Plat. The roadway identified as "Canal Place SE" is designed with a 70" right-of-way along the northern portion of the roadway, reducing to a 54' right-of-way and ending with an 82' right-of-way along the southern portion of the roadway. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontage of T.H. 63. Pedestrian Facilities: Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. Drainage: 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, will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Managment Area Charge. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. A wetland No -Loss and a Replacement Plan have been submitted and approved for these properties. Page 3 Preliminary Plat #06-10 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 Public Utilities: The larger lots may require additional easements and water main stub -outs for necessary onsite water main looping and fire protection dependent on the final building layouts. These can be dedicated as the lots are developed. Static water pressures will range from 42 to 51 PSI within this area. Execution of a City -Owner Contract and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. Spillover Parking: Parking for the development of each lot will be determined at the time of Site Plan Development Review. Parkland Dedication: The property will not be used for residential development; therefore, there are no parkland dedication requirements. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Canal Place SE amended General Development Plan being considered concurrent with this Preliminary Plat request and the zoning district amendment request. Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised as follows: a. Dedicating controlled access along the entire frontage of T.H. 63. 2. The larger lots may require additional easements and water main stub -outs for necessary onsite water main looping ad fire protection dependent on the final building layouts. These can be dedicated as the lots are developed. 3. Grading & 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, will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. Page 4 Preliminary Plat #06-10 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 4. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery frontages abutting the Property. 5. A portion of the Property ties within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the remainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. If development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. If proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 6. A portion of this property is included in the approved Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11). The approved Plat identifies the roadway as "private" and plats the road as outlots. The applicant agrees that the Final Plat for Maine Street Development (#03-11) will be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the Canal Place SE Subdivision (#06-10). Reminder to Applicant: Prior to development, the execution a City / Owner Contract and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective October 4, 2004. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements. Page 5 r Preliminary Plat #06-10 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage to stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 1. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. Effective October 4, 2004 Page 6 �IZ Preliminary Plat #06-10 Canal Place SE May 17, 2006 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City s adopted Comprehensive Plan with regard to street standards and classification, and other matters not addressed in this ordinance. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. P. That the proposed land subdivision, if approved, would not result in a violation of federal state law, or city or county ordinance. 61.226 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. Effective October 4, 2004 rpul ;ve pledge, we de:tver May 5, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat #06-10 by Calli R, LLC, Maine Street Development Co. of Rochester, LLC and Ryanna, LLC to be known as Canal Place SE. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The larger lots may require additional easements for necessary onsite water main looping and fire protection dependent on the final building layouts. These can be dedicated later at the time the lots are developed. 2. Additional water main stub -outs from the public roadway may be needed for item 41 above. 3. Static water pressures will range from 42 to 51 PSI within this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yWVW� oursy�J6� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Gary Schick, Building & Safety Yaggy Colby Associates Calli R, LLC Maine Street Development Co. of Rochester, LLC Ryanna, LLC Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 501-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER M""Iellu TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 7/1/05 REVISED APPLICATION COMMENTS 5117/06 ;0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for General Development Plan #259, for the proposed Canal Place SE Property. The following are Public Works comments from 7/1/05. New comments are indicated in BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed by the plan revisions are indicated with 1. A portion of the Property lies within the area included in the executed Maine Street Development Agreement. For the remainder of the Property there are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer Capacity, Storm Water Management Facilities, and Public Roadways to accommodate the development of this Property. If development is to be phased -in, it must be done in a manner consistent with the City's existing and planned infrastructure improvements and, as required by city ordinances, pursuant to an executed development agreement prior to submittal of a Final Plat for the first phase of development. If proposed as a single phase, no development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in malting these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Specific obligations of the Owner, regarding stormwater management, will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and the entire Property may be subject to a Storm Water Management Area Charge. C:\Documents and Settings\plambake\Local Settings%Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK246\GDP259 Canal Place SE mcwMPn r np H" r. ROCHESTER M r�k T0: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development. 4. Dedication of controlled access is required along the entire frontages of T.H. 63. 5. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required along both frontages of the proposed new public street, as well as, along the periphery roadway frontages abutting the Property. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and /or Development Agreement if applicable, and will include but are not limited to: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC 79799) @ $3,012.69 per developable acre Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2008.62 per developable acre i �caxn. -c---- Transportation Improvement District Contribution @ $0.54 per developable square ft Storm Water Management — TBD ❖ Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer :• First Seal Coat @ $0.57 per sq yd to Pedestrian Ramps - TBD C:\Documents and Settinp%plambake\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Piles\0LK246\GDP259 Canal Place SE onnccn r:np rinn WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: PP#06-10 Canal Place SE No bydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. ® A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. ® Other or Explanation: A wetland No -Loss and a Replacement plan have been submitted and approved on these properties. From John Harford Wrtlanrlc T.GrTJ Representative n 1 Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 The Commission took a 5 minute break. PUBLIC HEARINGS: FIRM IL1►PJ Preliminary Plat #06-10 by MSD LLC Call! R. LLC and Ryanna. LLC to be known as Canal Place SE The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 26.28 acres into 5 lots for commercial/industrial development The plat also dedicates right-of-way for a new public roadway. The property is located along the east side of TH 63, north of 48th Street SE along the west side of Maine Avenue SE. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated May 17, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. The applicant's representative, Wade Neubauer (of Yaggy Colby Associated, 717 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant agreed with staffs recommendations. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. M Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 4 tth Page 14 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Heating Date: May 24, 2006 Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated May 16, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase 11 Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 (Cedarwood Plaza) by Richard Hawkins to allow for an increase in the size of the freestanding business sign located on the property. The approved plans for the PUD limit the size of the freestanding sign. The applicant is proposing that the area for the freestanding sign should be determined by Section 63.224 Sub. Div. 3 for the City of Rochester Land Development Manual. The property is located along the east side of 18"' Avenue NW and north of 41s` Street NW and is known as Cedarwood Plaza. June 12, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: MEETING a3s' DATE: 06-19-06 & c I "REPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner On May 24, 2006 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 (Cedarwood Plaza). The Commission is recommending approval of the amendment request to allow for an increase in the size of the freestanding business sign located on the property. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase 11 Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 (Cedarwood Plaza) by Richard Hawkins with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Only seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. 1. If additional lighting of the freestanding sign is proposed, a lighting plan must be submitted. In preparing this plan, the lighting standard "B" shall be used. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 16, 2006. Council Action Needed. 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving, approving with conditions, or denying the PUD Amendment request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 16, 2006. 2. Minutes of the May 24, 2006 CPZC Meeting. �- ,, ,rtty. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on June 19, 2006 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: I •• i m � cc i rf i CC• CD ORCD 00 CY) • • ey sr'Y 'F 1 fkH- r f ,. n �i`h w y1 y, RECEIVED • P f 2006 Lo -• OLMSTED i V) z O w W jQ F a vz 500 ft. Notification Area of Cedarwood Plaza Lot 1 Block 1 Candlewood Subdivision ® 1 43 ST-NW N (�l= 42 ST NW-__ ,._—_ Z.—_- a Z Z m 231 44 ST NW u r 43 STNW—i Amendment to PUD #99-03 42-ST-NW by Richard Hawkins �� PINs:74.15.43.002834 Ward: 6 (Bandar Means) z �s Neighborhood Assac: None .,,.� Fr 6l8106 as g Z z J 22 �Ja C1T TTr1T�l _ 39 ST-NW --- - - - ----- N FRTG 37-ST-RD NW ---- 40 ST NW- NW- Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepanoes are found within this map, please notify the Q f1h,-i— Planninn nenartmenl 91 97 Camnuc fnnw SF Rneheder MN ;Sand 1;n7) 7RSA73 is14 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C O U N T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.comiplanning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner Bar �f��gai�ci\ , ��}gfAN��NlC9 DATE: May 16, 2006 RE: Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 (Cedarwood Plaza) by Richard Hawkins to allow for an increase in the size of the freestanding business sign located on the property. The approved plans for the PUD limit the size of the freestanding sign. The applicant is proposing that the area for the freestanding sign should be determined by Section 63.224 Sub. Div. 3 for the City of Rochester Land Development Manual. The property is located along the east side of 18th Avenue NW and north of 415t Street NW and is known as Cedarwood Plaza. CPVC Hearing Date: May 24, 2006 Planning Department Review: Petitioners: Cedarwood Plaza Richard Hawkins 2207 NW 7" Street Rochester, MN 55901 Referral Agency Comments: No objections received by referral agencies Report Attachments: 1. Copy of propsed free standing sign 2. Location Map PUD summary: PUD R-11 (Candlewood) is an R-1 PUD which is located at the northeast corner of 18 Avenue and 413' Street NW. It was originally approved in 1974, amended in 1978, 1995, 1999 and 2000. The PUD presently consists of both residential and commercial uses. The total site if 585,200 square feet in size (13.4 acres) . Amendment Summary: The applicant has petitioned to amend PUD R-11 to increase the square footage of the free standing sign by approximately 74 square feet. it is reasonable to compare the B-1 standards to the development of this property. In doing so, Section 63.224 (3) of the LDM allows for increases in the sign area in the B-1 district. The total that would be permitted if this property were zoned B-1 is 124 square feet (377' of frontage, less first 80 feet totals 297' x 0.25 = 74 sf + 50 sf = 124 sf). BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/2B5-8224 PLANNING2ONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/2B7-2275 All cni'Ai r1PPORTUNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i 05/16/06 r%I PUD Amendment— Free Standing Sign vvvv Cedarwood Plaza Page 2 of 7 As stated in Section 63.224 (3) of the LDM: "In the B-1 District, the maximum area for free standing and wall signs under Standard B may be increased for sites with large frontages according to the following rules: b) along an arterial 0.25 square feet for every one foot of frontage beyond the first 80 feet". The existing sign is located along 18' Avenue NW which is classified as an arterial on the current Adopted Thoroughfare Plan (now identified as a Major Urban on the recently adopted ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan). Therefore, the total square footage allowed for a sign is 124 square feet. The existing sign is currently 75 square feet in size, the proposed increase for the existing sign is 30' square feet and will be located directly above the existing sign. The total square footage of the sign will be 105 square feet. Review Criteria and Suggested Findings: Amendments to an existing PUD are processed according to the regulations applicable to a conditional use permit and restricted developments. Paragraph 61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits as follows: 61.146 Standard 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. The proposed amendment should not affect vehicular loading, unloading, parking for vehicular and pedestrian circulation and will not create hazards to safety, or 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. The proposed amendment should not affect the intensity, location, operation or height of existing structures and will not be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. The proposed amendment does not affect the existing on -site bufferyards or landscaping. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. Not applicable W 05/16/06 �^ PUD Amendment — Free Standing Sign Cedarwood Plaza Page 3 of 7 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. The proposed amendment does not include any additional free standing lighting. A lighting plan was not submitted. If the PUD amendment is approved, and additional exterior lighting is proposed, an exterior lighting plan must be submitted and meet the requirements of the B-1 District. 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. The proposed amendment does not interfere with emergency vehicle access to the site. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. Not applicable 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. The proposed amendment to PUD R-11 does comply with all the standards of the B-1 District with the exception of submitting and receiving approval for the lighting plan, if increased lighting is proposed. A plan for any additional lighting for this proposed amendment must be pvoided, meeting lighting standard "B". 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. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. Utilities are existing and available within this development. 05/16/06 �� ,1 PUD Amendment — Free Standing Sign Cedarwood Plaza Page 4 of 7 b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. Not applicable c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. Not applicable d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; Not applicable e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. The proposed development should not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. The proposed increase in square footage for the existing free standing sign is compatible with the surrounding development. g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. The proposed sign location meets the required setbacks and is consistent with permitted uses in the B-1 District. /06 0001 05D Am PUAmendment — Free Standing Sign Cedarwood Plaza Page 5 of 7 h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Not applicable. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. There are no changes relating to the existing landscaping regarding the proposed amendment for increased square foot of the existing sign. j) ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the ease of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. Not applicable. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. The proposed amendment increasing the square footage of the free standing sign is compatible with the existing uses on the property and the surrounding properties. 2) Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted. Not applicable. b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside from development. Not applicable. c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as to: 1. Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized; 2. Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the site. O5/16106 PUD Amendment — Free Standing Sign Cedarwood Plaza Page 6 of 7 In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned public improvements which will alleviate the problems have been provided. The existing ingress and egress points will remain in the same location. The proposed amendment will have no affect relating the ingress /agrees points. d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood area, and where appropriate, accommodations for transit access are provided. Not applicable e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of the surrounding area. Not applicable. f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and landscaping. Not applicable. g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the need identified in Phase I for the project. Not applicable. h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design. Not applicable. i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design. Not applicable. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency access. The proposed amendment is consistent with the underlying zoning district B-1. if additional lighting of the free standing sign is proposed, a lighting plan must be submitted. In preparing this plan, the lighting standard "B' shall be used. 05/16/06 PUD Amendment — Free Standing Sign Cedarwood Plaza Page 7 of 7 Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning staff has reviewed this request based on the above criteria. The staff finds that this proposal is generally consistent with the above criteria. The staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. If additional lighting of the freestanding sign is proposed, alighting plan must be submitted. In preparing this plan, the lighting standard "B' shall be used. Planning Commission Action Required: The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of this request. This recommendation will then be forwarded to the Council. The Council will hold a public hearing on this item at a later date. FS Page 14 �4 J City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes T4,nrino hate- MaV 24. 2006 Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated May 16, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. �XIage 15 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date. May 24, 2006 The applicant, Mike Hawkins (residing at 2207 7`h Street NW, Rochester MN 55901), addressed the Commission. He stated that he agreed with staffs recommendation and was present for any questions. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. As may be brought up with members No discussion items were brought forward. ADJOURN: Motion made by Mr. Ohly to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Rivas. Mr. Burke, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP jlg Mr. Jay Burke, Chair REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING z41 6-19-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEMAO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING It — ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-15, by Arcon Development, Inc. to be known as PREPARED BY: Forest Knoll Condominiums. The applicant proposes to subdivide Mitzi A. Baker, approximately 9.51 acres, into 8 lots for townhome development and two Senior Planner common lots. The Plat includes re -platting Lot 1, Block 1 Forest Knoll Subdivision and the property is located along both the east and west sides of Forest Knoll Drive SE, north of Forest Knoll Place SE. June 15, 2006 The applicant filed a REVISED Plat on June 15, 2006 to change the name of the Plat to FOREST KNOLL COMMONS, dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the common lots and re -number the lots in Block 1 to match the lot numbering on the approved grading plan. A treelbrush disposal form was also filed, identifying methods for disposal as chipping on site and salvaging and removing from the property. Burning is not proposed. Staff has reviewed this final plat for compliance with the applicable regulations and recommends approval subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the June 7, 2006 fetter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department G1S/Addressing division. 2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via deferred land dedication, as specified in the June 9, 2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. The applicant agrees to dedicate right-of-way for the extension of Forest Knoll Drive SE, adjacent to Block 1 with the plat for adjacent property to the south of said block. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p�m. on June 19, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 1. "OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: ►. �^ 1600 ft. Notification Area of proposed Final Plat #06-15 to be known as Forest Knoll Condominiums located in the NE 1/2 NE 1/4 Sec 35 Rochester TWP Final Plat #0&15 by Arcon Development, Inc. PINS:64.35.11.071917;64.35.12.071919; 64.35.12.071920 Neighborhood Assoc; None Council Ward 1 (Amy Blenker) 6/06/06 I N Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or enors 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 559D4, (507) 285.8232 ♦ YYLL LY1 y- �%O r sa • t Eg 3 ipyY'�j� E t9 SgF6 F� 3i FFe�; �• �aa& 99n�e� • sI e 331 -ag€ i IFTOTI] `3 •S QdOJ i30OI31 `iS '.IA1 � �•N �' rJ oLO y :g31e CO 'h . �, �``b��.�+..o`'.. , rq i I I fjj I I I I N I? I I I I 1 I it v� I L._ p I L•''I I I 1 -{— ;p� 1 l.J I�w it N 1=I [ILaI I i7- d1 I N • I I$-- 1 I i t CA I: i -I' I �_��ti \D r------ 1 N I 1 \D ' eivml i I '� I i ty Z Y QI I h R wR j, 1 x l J ICA 1co cq 07 susi,� W z i N g01 Ad IM H£'ZZ£ .SZ,L L.00 15y _311V7dNn I RoCITESTFR-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ar �in■rw�n■wed www.olmstedcounty.com/planning�mrr, inn■� Z'ED TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: June 15, 2006 RE: Final Plat #06-15, by Arcon Development, Inc. to be known as Forest Knoll Commons. The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 9.51 acres, into 8 lots for townhome development and two common lots. The Plat includes re -platting Lot 1, Block 1 Forest Knoll Subdivision and the property is located along both the east and west sides of Forest Knoll Drive SE, north of Forest Knoll Place SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Report Attachments: Arcon Development, Inc. 7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 350 Edina, MN 55439 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located east of TH. 52, south of 20'h Street SW and on Edgewood Court SW. Zoning: Most of the property is zoned R-3 (Multi -Family Residential), with a sliver along Forest Knoll Drive zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). Proposed Development: The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 9.51 acres, into 8 lots for townhome development and two common lots. The Plat includes re -platting Lot 1, Block 1 Forest Knoll Subdivision and the property is located along both the east and BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIVADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/2B5-B224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELVSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 fp June 215, 2006 SE. Wetlands: No wetlands exist on this portion of the property. Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. Internal roadways will be private. Removal of Trees/Brush: Methods for disposal proposed include chipping on site and salvaging and removing from the property. Burning is not proposed. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication will need to be met deferred land dedication with dedication to be 6.71 acre neighborhood park shown on the General Development Plan. Planning Staff and Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and G1S impact fees, as outlined in the June 7, 2006 letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department G!S/Addressing division. 2. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via deferred land dedication, as specified in the June 9, 2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. The applicant agrees to dedicate right-of-way for the extension of Forest Knoll Drive SE, adjacent to Block 1 with the plat for adjacent property to the south of said block. rP' kOCHESTER F14-""u TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 6/13/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX— 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-15, for the proposed Forest Knoll Condominiums development. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. The existing Development Agreement for Forest Knoll includes this Property. Development of this Property is subject to the terms of the Agreement. 2. A City -Owner Contract has been prepared and executed by the Owner & Contractor. Approval by the City (anticipated 6/19) is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this Property. 3. There will be Storm Sewer across portions of the common areas that would not be within an easement as shown on the Final Plat. Either the common areas should be identified as a Drainage Easement, or specific easements should be shown on the Final Plat for the proposed Storm Sewer. Charges/fees applicable to the development are addressed in the Development Agreement & City -Owner Contract and include: .• Sanitary Sewer for J9799 Water Availability Charge (WAC) Willow Creek Transportation Improvement District Contribution J9846 • Contribution for the TH 63 Environmental Assessment Traffic Analysis s• Seal Coat Charge •: Pedestrian Ramps d• Street Signs as determined by the City Engineer C:\Documents and Settings\plajgann\Local Settings7emporary Internet Files\0LK61\FP06-15 Forest Knoll Condos.doc / 12 WETLAND C0MAffiNTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: Final Plat #06-15 by Arcon Development, Inc. to be known as Forest Knoll Condominiums 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. EINo 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: No wetlands exist on this portion of the property. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative r. fr Hacfiester, M19 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT DATE: June 9, 2006 iED RE: Jennifer Garness Planning Forest Knoll Condominiums Final Plat #06-15 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 9.51 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 68 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.66 a Fair market value of land ............................................. na The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication with dedication to be the 6.71 a neighborhood park shown on the GDP. Dedication of land to occur when the park site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development of the park. CADocuments and Settings\plasfostlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\01-K1C\FOREST KNOLL CONDO, DOC Rochester -Olmsted Plann.�., _impartment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: June 7, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; Peter oetliker RE: FOREST KNOLL CONDOMINIUMS FINAL PLAT #06-15 Phone: (507) 285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE PLAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. E911 ADDRESSING FEE: $ 640.00 (8 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 550.00 (10 LOTS/OUTLOTS) Notes: 1. Additional E911 Addressing fees may be required upon Site Plan review. 2. Final Plats must be approved and the above fees paid before application requests for addressing can be submitted to the E911 Addressing Staff — Rochester/Olmsted A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS or ROADWAY related issues: 1. Upon review of FOREST KNOLL CONDOMINIUMS the GIS/ Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. we p!rdge, we drltrer June 7, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-15 by Arcon Development, Inc. to be known as Forest Knoll Condominiums. 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, 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 06i14i2006 05:36 JUN-1&-22a5 03:34 RRCON DE_ELOPMENT = 15072335053 vgGGY COLBY RSSJCIATS N0.331 D002 S272SB5059 P.02 I DISPOSAL OF TREES AND BRUSH In November 2004, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The text of the amendment is as follows: 61,200 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES: The requirements of Sections 61.200 through 61.584 identify approvals that will be required to authorize any subdivision activity which is defined as a subdivision by statute or City ordinance. Any person seeking approval of subdivision activity, development activity or a,conditional use permit must indicate whether there will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be cleared as part of the subdivision activity. In order to apply this provision, you will need to indicate at the bottom of the page plans for disposal of trees, slash, and brush. Please sign and date the form. You must submit this information to the Planning Department prior to applying for a buming permit from the Fire Department. If plans change prior to obtaining a burning permit, you will need to notify the Planning Department. Within this Fn 255r uoa� Copimor-J development, as proposed through the pxay nrol - development application, trees, slash, and brush will be disposed by: ❑ Burning on site FXC, Chipping on site %CI Salvaging and removing from the property ❑ Other, describe in detail: IM V ,p Qignature of App can f I Development Propos Date r.'a]anGata�appl�caoon - fn-ns11920.85.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING -P DATE: 06/19/06 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY CLERK ITEM DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT The following SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. Brandon Helgeson 2112 -49'/z Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Big Bang Entertainment —Fundraiser Event for Sjhon Podein The Break Room 1635 Hwy 52 North WAIVE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 10:30 PM Ability Building Center (ABC) 1911 14't' Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 50d' Anniversary Celebration 08/04/06 6:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. MAXIMUM SOUND OF 85 DECIBELS Mayo Clinic 201 1"Street SW Rochester, MN 55902 Department Celebration 08/04/06 7PM to 11 PM AT Mayo Civic Center 30 Civic Center Drive SE MAXIMUM SOUND OF 85 DECIBELS Bigelow Homes LLC 3428 Lakeridge Place NW Rochester, MN 55901 Grand Opening 06/30/06 4PM to IOPM WAIVE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 10:30 PM Boomer's Lounge 3737 40'h Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 30 Year Class Reunion 07/14/06 6:30PM to 10:30PM WAIVE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 10:30 PM 6/24/06 5:00 P.M. to 10:30 P.M. AT COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second ny: to: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS ^� PAGE 2 U .TUNE 19TH, 2006 Glynner's Pub 1643 North Broadway Rochester, Mn. 55906 Autism Awareness Foundation Fundraiser 7/12/06 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM WAIVE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 10:30 PM American Cancer Society 882 7' St NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Relay for Life Fundraiser 7/14l - 15, 2006 AT University Center Rochester 851 30" Ave SE MAXIMUM SOUND OF 85 DECIBELS COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motio to approve the sound amplification permits as presented. 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM F-1 DUNE 195 2006 AGENDA Mayor & Council Stevan Kvenvold Gary Neumann Terry Spaeth Terry Adkins Richard Freese Y APPLICATION # 3 �SL3 PERMIT # oQQ23 "OUNCLL DATE: DATERECEIVED G i 9ID (.o RECEIPT NUMBER 462.4, AMOUNT PAID o)S• APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICA TION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: �- a - 0 6 APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TH ST. SE, ROCEIESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: t i & L %c Siir Mn) S S TELEPHONE NUMBER: S o l Z 1 � - K 3 D 3 CELL PHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: S D i 4 S 2 g9 S O b CELL PHONE NUMBER: 0� nGr s Qv,6 0 y- 25q yb,4U >o-� 1S4 404 n I EVENT INFORMATION l PURPOSE OF EVENT: fU/' DATE(S) OF EVENT: 1 v �y I 1 Y�� �o DAY(S) OF WEEK: W C �- DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: ter t tl, LA Ys-e dA 6-1,-� j0(xt 6I,s be ,'J MA)[IMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMTITED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY 1 DC b - I S 0 O HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED d wk c G ti 11 bc. Y`r-o K�i rr- .C. It START TE%IE: S LU . �'. o c p r, 2 c� END TIME: 10 ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AND PREMISES TO BE USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) ()tL', h r e r s �Akjti ,Q.,U_ S &it 6f aj i ttfilj i r rc S�ZIu rZa .�� L0 G�-t P (� L e UnaA H 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 CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. � a t ,a� 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) 5(QGd ktrs w�li jj�x__ )ej t P ST D � ft,Yt c lrZc+tA a-wk� 0L G,�J- �p � Vl r�� . to 5 t nt S i 1 •, F'� L�CA' �Z. 1 l 4'Lc. &-y t iL G V't 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXA4UM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LATE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. V/WAIVE THE MA)GMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. braJ tiI�.w PERMIT FEE S25.D0 ; tS YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: FIRE DEPARTMENT: / J- COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) CITYCLERKAPPROVAL: �/"7 n _ `C� B'd DATE: ��`�' 7UN-07-2066 14:12 CITY CLERK APPLICANT INr ORXLkTION DF APPLICANT/RESPONSIBLE PARTY: l!�____.�Y� Q� n (1�DLE�) (LAS n ' (FIRST) ADDRESS: �v o7 d J Imo} C.� �S �6P1LoJ.1+� I/ M tl1 , cSS 9D )F BIRTH: TELEPHONE NUMBER:, L CELL PHONE NUMBER: OF ORGANIZATION: :Ss: /L 4 3 HONE NUMBER ��a • d O V" _ CONTACT PERSON INTORnALTION kCT PERSON DURING EVENT: D J 4ASVte - ADDRESS: �a al [o l,G� ��" S OF BIRTH SE NUMBER: CELL PHONE NUMBER: Schott, Donna From: Scharr, Judy Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:02 AM To: Marcoux, Marcia Cc: Schott, Donna Subject: RE: MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT-BEACH COMEDY SHOW-RT AUTISM AWARENESS FOUNDATION Very definitely they will need a sound amplification permit as they will have (at least) microphones. I will ask Donna Schott to contact them to obtain one. Thanks for the heads -up. Judy Scherr, City Clerk City of Rochester 201 Fourth Street S.E. Rochester, Minnesota 55904 (507) 287-2363 (507) 285-8256 fax -----Original Message ----- From: Marcoux, Marcia Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:57 PM To: mlmarcoux@aol.com Subject: FW: MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT-BEACH COMEDY SHOW-RT AUTISM AWARENESS FOUNDATION ------------------------------------ From: Brad and Joanie Trahan(SMTP:BTJT@MYCLEARWAVE.NET] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:56:42 PM To: Runkle, Tory; Ruiz, Carlos/Home; Rossman, Lee and Kris; Rosenblad, Bob; Rohren, Dr. Charles; Rodman, Jenny; Rod Toomey-Adler's; Severson, Mechelle; Pittenger, Jim; Norton, Kim; Lynch, Ann; Fischer, Cris; Daily, Fred; Bly, Breanna; Williams, Jerry/Rochester Superintendent; Brede, Ardell; Hanson, Dennis; Means, Sandra; Carr, Pat; Marcoux, Marcia; Council Member Jean McConnell-3rd Ward; Nowicki, Bob; Blenker, Amy; Rindahl, Scott/Willow Creek Head Golf Professional & General Manager; Riggott, Dean; Reynolds, Tim; Reynolds, Lori/Sign Here; Sobczak, Dana; Peterson, Allix; Niess, Trudy; Mahrer, Lorelei; Lee, Kathryn; Hufstedler, Lisa; Graham, Brittney; Bly, Ashleigh; Barnes, Nicki; Toogood, Kathryn; Rech, Debby & Dale; Quandt, Pat; Pike, Brian/UPS; Peterson, Woody and Wendy; Peterson, Steve; Peterson, Doug and Jackie; Passe, Molly; Oslund, Craig; Neurer, Mari; Murphy, Matt; Mulvihill, Tim/Universal Marine & RV; Morse, Mark -Class of 85; Morris, Shelly (Petersen) -Class of 85; Moore, Brian R., M.D.; Monahan, Deb/ARC; Moger, Teri; Moger, Scott; Miller, Joe and Annie; Midthune, Gail/Autism Specialist; McIntyre, Cory -Ruch. Schools Dir. of Student Support Services; McCready, Scott and Ann; Marlborough, Sara; Marlborough, Kerri; Marlborough, Kerri; Marlborough, Jamie; Marlborough, Chris/Work; Majsterski, Amy -Keller Williams; Macken, Becky Subject; MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT-BEACH COMEDY SHOW-RT AUTISM AWARENESS FOUNDATION Auto forwarded by a Rule Note: BT's Shortest E-Mail Ever To: Family and Friends and our Autism Community What: To promote Autism Awareness and to benefit the RT Autism Awareness Foundation, Inc. Who: 1st Ever Beach Comedy Show Featuring nationally known Comedian, Scott Hansen, and other major acts (Names Released Soon) ..... but I can tell you that they have been on David Letterman, The Tonight Show, Fox Sports, Bob and Tom Show and more! There will be four to five very well known National Comedians at this event! This is a PG-13 Comedy show and it is ENCOURAGED to bring the family out! When: Wednesday, July 12th, 2006..... Comedy Show is from 8p-10pm. Where: The Parking Lot of Glynner's Pub, North Broadway, Rochester, MN. Scott Hansen anticipates attendance for this event at well over 1,000 people. Laser 101.7, Fox Country 102.5 and AM 1270 KWEB-The Fan will be promoting this event very heavily on all of it's stations! Get there early! Bring lawn chairs to sit in! Cost: FREE TO THE PUBLIC -FREE TO THE PUBLIC..... Yes, you are reading this correctly! This is FREE to the great citizens of Rochester, MN. and SE Minnesota! Stay tuned for details .... but mark your calendars now! Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 Glynner's Pub Beach Comedy Show To Benefit the RT Autism Awareness Foundation FREE TO THE PUBLIC Bring a Lawn Chair m JUN-06-2006 10:05 CITY CLERK PLICATION # ,IPL'RMIT # 005 �i a __ COUNCIL DATE: l 1191 a S- DATERECEIVED RECEIPT'AU.LIB'ER c-' G o AMOUNT PAID �2 S D0 APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFIC4 TION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION:,W)e APPLICATION TO BE STTT'*4ITfED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CTIY CLERK'S OMCE, 20147 ST. SE, ROCHYSTER,'MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION 4 kj LC .oaf J NAME OF APPLICANT/RESPONSIBLE PARTY: "I �r tiC'SS DIME ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: I -HOXE TELEPHONE NUMBER NAME OF ORGANIZATION:_ ADDRESS: t Ak TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: oI CELL PHONE NUMBER: �W ' t 9 I -In)l S5y Z) P.02/13 , •Q � �r aa�a� � x✓ � �..r•.- HOME ADDRESS: ,35� � 61 + � "o • A) D C� Qr � , m � s" 90 J DATE OF BIRTH TELEPHONE NUMBER. , I I " I YJ I CELL PHONE NUMBER: 56 7 EVENT WFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: DATES) OF EVENT: LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: DAY(S) OF WEEK: • J p W� !l � � d SUN-06-2006 10:05 CITY CLERK MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY P.03/13 i I HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED START TIME: END TIME: I. ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LANv'D 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 DIRCTFON THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet I{Necessam)1 n � �; l�� � GI,'✓' dr`��1 ��Id t i �i `ti9 ��^'jj�1L`� L'��1� �v� cLIY 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNEE STATING THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. � � a tr>� I 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) vv,e CCU ) -Rule, m';'ll tfit"�vnu` ' x' U I I �U'-fZ7- 116i SUN-06-2006 10:06 CITY CLERK P.04i1 ,ten.. , l J , nc wUrvW..0 i v imrvzr, ) tit. r'ULLUwiNCi SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY, WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 1030 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 con i ns of appr6/Nal imposed n the aT� it that might be granted in response to his application. / ! PERMIT PEE: $25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT: FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONl Y 6'8 (SIGNATURE) Tf IRF) JN-06-2006 10:06 CITY CLERK P.05i13 FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS. C_-- / - PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) CITYCLERKAPPROVAL; Ub/IZ/Uo 14:34 me SUN-04-2005 16:25 ! L6! LLlJ nU4n-UYm [a.rurn u.o uua i. -' �+•+ ��+�++ •ee "••" CITY CLERK r.05 FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: PLANMNGDEPARTMENT} COMMENTS: CITY CLERICAPPROVArL: I ,TE. APPLICATION # 3 59 PERMIT # d D C COUNCILDATE: DATE RECEIVED 41710(, RECEIPT NUMBER AMOUNT PAID �5 •• d D APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFIC.ATIONPERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: Z ZOD APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 471 ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT I1N-FORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: � I (� iV c I son- &! Iai �� l I'"Oo Lio l-7 f rl � l . ADDRESS: Ao 1 1 S I SY S%V C-t-l.'1'lL�M N TELEPHONE NUMBER:SD-7- Z`�4 0�b�!55 CELL PHONE NUMBER: CONTACT {PERSON INFORMMATION CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: Suc, CELL PHONE NUMBER: TELEPHONE NJlDER: Z b SJ3-e�p t , EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: DATE(S) OF EVENT: A t p4 DAY(S) OF WEEK:Y LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: w n U DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: l p snNo n l-O l rc J 1 � i rC� MAXrvfU I NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY hM HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED �V START TIME: I p m � END TIME: 9 I I p on ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AND PREMISES TO BE USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNEE STATL'NIG THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS ILAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. Mp`io C.1V1 C er1;�� S�CUr1�l� 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MA)JMU`M ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. Signature of Applicant 'ERMIT FEE: S25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: TUBE) POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: %'�S'�/ ��' � ?"�.� c*✓�K /'�y"' Jos �--. � . /✓� � ��h � � �S. 1v4)j5'� JA4 l L FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: (SIGNA URE) (SIGNATURE) PLANNING DEPARTME.'VT: COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) CITY CLERK APPROVAL: LrP4'� -JCJ-WV DATE: GIi5�0� 'UB/12/UD 14:04 rAA BVI 451 LLIB nuun-uL ri.n:v:lllxu VLrl. Y Vlll ua ZAJ% 4J viv JUN-07-2006 14:12 CITY CLERK - P.lE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: (SIG CITY CLERKAPPROVAL: CB❑ Stage Plot ❑ MIX-6 Dress rlg Line Out Drum Vox Key Board/Wireless hd Rack ❑ HI -Hut ® Snare ®O.H. GA ® ®Kick{ ®Mix-4 Mix-5[01 Key 1 vox ®Conga Key Vox 3 Straight Stands Round Bose (DG ❑t�t Vox F Mix-L Mix-2 Mix-2 Mix-3 1 Kick 2 Snr 3 Hat 4 Rack 1 5 Rack 2 6 Floor 7 O.H. 8 O.H. 9 Congas 10 Bass 11 Gtr 12 Sax 13 Trumpet 14 Trombone 15 Key 1 16 Key 2 17 Wireless 1 Vox 18 Wireless 2 Vox 19 Wireless 3 Vox 20 Wireless 4 Vox 21 Pat Vox 22 Drum Vox 23 Key 1 Vox 24 Key 2 Vox APPLICATION # a 5 PERMIT # D D 5F O COUNCIL DATE: G/ l a I D �• DATERECEIVED 6/7/06 RECEIPT NUMBER 6 SSS AMOUNT PAID aS D APPLICATION FOR SO UND ARIPLIFICATION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: AtLm� { nQ APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4T" ST. SE, ROCIIESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORNATION NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: J ✓ � ( 12-to CELL PHONE NUMBER: 2-9 1- (P7-0Z, CONTACT PERSON INNFORMATION CONTACT PERSON DLRLNG EVENT: Kt1 lj `y V TELEPHONE NUMBER: CiJ�' l CELL PHONE NUMBER: AZf 5 PURPOSE OF EVENT: DATE(S) OF EVENT: LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: EVENT INFORMATION -T C(.lco DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: { (C l { YT ('/mI i tz tk/cZL/U rPciu (� �YIf Ca MAXLMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED OCFO TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED -f START TIME: a) END TIME: � 12M L ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AND PREMISES TO BE USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet IfNecessa7)) rYmOt-c"111CP t'a'�W cv�GLfi0.�rftfi�l�ctp�r�rr e�'vrc�s utrrr 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNTEE STATING THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL ANDPOLICEPROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. L�j�L!, b1C. 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary) Caftr a, , -111e or -ttt ,sp � W i 11. ae cim lda4t, et) en-f5 eXea�e �dchc �ce��ce��acE,r�tz�ff 1,1/111 �wr rn�.7P��eve� urll I 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCH. TO 'IMPOSE THE FOLLOWSOUND LIMITATION (Check One) g �I MAXIIvIU'M .ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. of A�I�I�I� 'ERMIT FEE: $25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTALN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. PARK DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS. POLICE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY L1� (SIGNATURE) TURF) (SIGNA PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) CITY CLERKAPPRO VAL: L) D'71�Q J'C h d-U DATE: VG/1Z/Ub 14:0Z rAA bul Zai 44/0 xwn-vL r�ininv uari. + u..i ., ZAA ..�� JUN-07-20M 14.10 CITY CLERK P.10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: TARE) CITY CLEAKAPPROVAL: DATE: �aYkinl- LCi MERGENCY EVACUATION ROUTES CAFETERIA . ADMINISTRATION ENGRAVING GENERAL SERVICES 0 E N S W PRIMARY SECONDARY - - Abi ll' h-1 -P, ; Ui-Ytc.� (erL �e►2� A1'ec Cl der I Ytc �r v2� rvi lrtcwt 4(o _'_ s Center 1911 NW 14th Street • PO Boa 6938 • Rochester, NIN �5903 Why Building ph 507.281.6262 fax 507.281.6270 TTY 507.529.4607 SOYears www.abcinc.org ' June 1, 2006 City of Rochester City Clerk's Office ATTENTION: Judy Scherr 201 4th Street SE Room 135 Rochester MN 55904-3742 Dear Ms. Scherr: Attached you will find Ability Building Center's application for a sound amplification permit. ABC wishes to hold a 50t" Anniversary dance for staff and participants on Friday, August 4, 2006, from 6:00 — 8:30 PM. I spoke with the Police Department and they stated it was unnecessary to have a written statement from the Chief due to the fact the dance would end by 8:30. However, if the City Council had concerns or questions they would send someone out to review the property. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 535-7126 or by email at kellyvkabcinc.org. I look forward to hearing the Council's decision. Thank you for considering our application. Sincerely, Kelly Voigt Program Mana r 00 Ability Building Center lag Enclosures: Application Check EquJ Oppo=iry Employer APPLICATION # a f 7. 3 PERMIT # D D� COUNCIL DATE: /, 11 91 D DATE RECEIVED G / / / O G RECEIPTNUMBER 4Sc I AMOUNT PAID QS-CZT FOR SO UND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4T" ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT,RESPONSIBLE PARTY: HOME ADDRESS: I (MIDDLE) (LAST) DATE OF BIRTH: /�7 7 / HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: 7 / '-V CELL PHONE NUMBER: & I < 71 NAME OF ORGANIZA ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: '_S Ar V (- CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION HOME ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH• TELEPHONE NUMBER: c//�/� CELL PHONE NUMBER: ✓'/��C cet / _ EVENT INFORMATION PURPOSE OF EVENT: I—VA11VAIMI ? / C--(/e111/ 14l/lp ✓z�C,� �c�N} �7v� DATE(S) OF EVENT: CO �T��G� DAYS(SS) OF WEEK: LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: �: /Z�✓1 -LG / V ZoL � zoZ&39-.r /�A-/ DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED START TIME:'W END TIME: / J� /r✓1 ��N%}/ U v 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 PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL, 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNEE STATING THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT 1S SOUGHT INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet lfNecessary) d/,j /7 ;> �;r 7114T ; '31o'- jV744 -/- /-31L 5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. Signature o Applicant 122IN31Y ay51=34i[IIII YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY PARR DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS. V1 (SIGNATURE) POLICE DEPARTMENT. COMMENTS. FIRE DEPARTMENT: _ J, ! 1 COMMENTS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: 41 (SIGNATURE) CITYCLERKAPPROVAL: S�:,j �Chwu DATE: 611S_10(� 06/12/06 14:54 FAX 507 28"! Y27S JUN-07-222S 16:25 CITY CLERK Nunn-uLm YLAINININ unri. iii Lrnn <� P.as FIREVEP aRTMENT.- COMMENTS: PLANNLWG" DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: CA7YCLERllrAPPROYA4. ATE. rage r of i Brandon K. Helgeson From: "Laivell, John" <JLaivell@ci.rochester.mn.us> To: <brandon@thebigbang. us> Cc: "Edwards, John" <jedwards@ci.rochester.mn.us>; "Peterson, Roger" <reterson@ci. rochester. mn. us> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:50 AM Subject: Sound permit Dear Brandon, I am Chiefs Peterson's designee concerning Sound Permit applications. I have reviewed the e-mail you sent the Chief and see no police concerns with your event. I noted that you indicate the music will stop at 10:30 PM. This makes it easy for both you and I. Simply check the appropriate box on the permit application that indicates this, and submit the completed application to the City Clerk's office. I will simply note "no police issues with a 10:30 stop time", and sign off on it. That is all that is needed for the city council concerning police issues. Good luck on your event and feel free to call me if any issues arise. John Sgt. John Laivell Rochester Police Services Unit jlaivell@ci.rochester.mn.us phone: (507) 285-8270 fax: (507) 281-7354 6/1/2006 APPLICATION # J,. t </ 2 PERMIT # OD D �-v _ COUNCIL DATE: ' D (- DATE RECEIVED Zo RECEIPT NUMBER �( 7 G AMOUNT PAID --�25. 0 0 APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATIONPERMIT DATE OF APPLICATION: (A 1 APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLI( HOME ADDRESS, DATE OF BIRTH: HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: A 80 - 09L)3 CELL PHONE NUMBER O 2j4- I a-1 t NAME OF ORGANIZATION: mo YV%2 YS y� ' 1 G ADDRESS: �l �� 40+� �V�.' 1 1 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 14 ; '(4 - 3 �- V CONTACT PERSON+�+ DURING EVENT:: HOME ADDRESS: ] C l a 4e f �1 (LAST) DATE OF BIRTH: TELEPHONE NUMBER: d40- 09 y3 CELL PHONE NUMBER: PURPOSE OF EVENT: DATE(S) OF EVENT: J 0 LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: C i I 1 +J� Y\ vt- de - 'a, DAY(S) OF WEEK: o h A-h ht�✓� h C � t� — DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: fo Vi O ooyY T J in gr MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED - TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED START TIME: Q • 3 END TIME: 1. ATTACH A SKETCH, SITE PLAN, STAGE PLOT OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AND PREMISES TO BE USED FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT. BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF SOUND SYSTEM SPEAKERS AND THE DIRCTION THE SOUND WILL TRAVEL. 2. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HANDLING OF FOOD, MEDICAL NEEDS, SANITATION, FIRE SERVICES, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND SECURITY INCLUDING CROWD CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)) • • ►� _t t r►_ 1 e � L. r. "R 3. ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNEE STATING THAT, IN THE CHIEF'S OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND OLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. ` , L ,d A 4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE EVENT. (Use Additional SheetlfNecessary) 5: APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY. VX WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M. The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be granted in response to his application. MR% PERMIT FEE: $25.00 YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK DEPARTMENT PERMITS W YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY. PARK DEPARTMENT, COMME.tiTS. POLICE DEPARTMENT. COMMENTS. FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY (SIGNATURE) TLrRE) FIRE DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: --- / J PLANNING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) CITYCLERKAPPROYAL (J `7 --" c-V a t7 DATE: VV/lY/VY VI. VV !'[fA VV/ LV/ �il�li VL33• � viaa v/u�l�3 -Yg vvv P.05 iLt-13-2006 11:36 CITY CLERK FIRE DEPARTMENT. - COMMENTS" (SIGNATURE) PLANNPYG DEPARTMENT.• COMMENTS: CITY CLERKAPPROVAL: DATE: TOTAL P.05 .1-T �U Q, 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ivl/ DATE: 6119/06 kGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NQ,_ Reports and Recommendations Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annual MS4 Storm Water Permit Public Meeting PREPARED BY: ti,,yyB. Huberty As part of our Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, we are required to hold an annual public meeting prior to the submittal of our annual MS4 report. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING I; (SWPPP). Staff will make a presentation of 2005 permit activities, summarizing the SWPPP's Best Management Practices (BMPs), discussing the appropriateness of the selected BMPs, and describing the City's progress toward achieving its measurable goals. After the presentation, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide oral input about the SWPPP for consideration by the City Council and Public Works staff. At least 30 days notice must be given for the public meeting. The public notice was published in the May 13, 2006 edition of the Rochester Post Bulletin. In addition to the opportunity for oral comment at the Council meeting, the public also has the oppodunity to provide relevant written comments by mail, e-mail or fax by the close of business of Wednesday, May 21, 2006. Copies of the SWPPP and related documents are available on the City's storm water web site: www.rochestermn.gov/stormwater. Additionally, hard copies of these documents can also be viewed at the Public Works Department or at the Rochester Public Library. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Listen to the storm water permit progress report, consider public comments on Rochester's SWPPP, and provide input, as desired, on the storm water program. COUNCIL ACTION: motion Second In P:IC0MM0NIMS4\Pem1itWnnual Reports12005\RCA for 2005 SWPPP An Rpt Public Mtg.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION N A SECTION: SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES MEETING Tuy DATE: 6/19/06 CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE I G TERRY BY: G. 1. RESOLU I IUNa G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).G" a) An Ordinance Amending and Re -Enacting Section 134.34 Of The. Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating To Enforcement Of Parking Meters. � ,u- ,4t_��.�" b) An Ordinance Amending And Re -Enacting Section 134.23 Of The Rochester Code Of Ordinances, f Relating To Overnight Parking Of Vehicles In City -Owned Parking Lots. An Ordinance Amending Official Street My Number 12 Concerning The Proposed Right Of Way For The Interchange Of Trunk Highway 63 With 40 Street And 48`" Street S.W. And S.E. In The City Of Rochester, Minnesota, And Repealing Ordinance No. 3703. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS lafi. �`'�9 �+�iF�fryrs�rrfd° �k,'° ri °ad°Y'^�• C_ W 0 E AL �- M s� r' �, = �- ea G.: i � A � 3 � � i }.} R+w+ �� � "�y ° W t � v�-4. ,^ y�:8 - .. 0 RE: Email address to forward plant inventory memo Page 1 of 1 Scherr, Judy From: Frank Kottschade [fpknar@deskmedia.com] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:22 PM To: Scherr, Judy Attachments: MemoPackage.pdf Judy Scherr, Rochester City Clerk - Please provide a copy of this email to the Mayor and City Council Member so they have this in advance of the meeting tonight. Any questions please call Thanks, Frank Kottschade From: Michele Caron Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:22 PM To: Gen Bolling; Rob Bouta Cc: Frank Konschade Subject: Email address to forward plant inventory memo Gen and Rob - Please forward the completed plant inventory summary that you are assembling, along with the DNR certified botanist's report, to the email address in the Cc: above. Elaine of Frank's office will forward it to the City clerk to be sent to the City Council as soon as it is available, so they can see it prior to the meeting tonight. I am heading out to Rochester and will not be on my email until tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for your assistance - Michele Michele Jackson Caron, PE Senior Project Manager Weshvood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7310 DIRECT 952-697-5712 EMAIL michele.caron(o westwood so com MAIN 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 wrB wwwwestwoodps.com 6/19/2006 W.A Od RRiesslo ml Services MEMORANDUM-,,,,.,.:::,, e Date: June 19, 2006 W Re: Willow Heights, Rochester; EAW Petition and Rare Species Westwood File 20061082.00 To: Michele Caron, Eden Prairie From: Rob Bouta, Sr. Environmental Scientist Gen Bolling, Environmental Scientist/Bota2KA�_ Background This memo responds to the rare plant species discussion in the petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on Willow Heights Residential Development. After review of the site by the DNR Regional Plant Ecologist and three natural resource professionals on two separate days, we have concluded that the protected species identified in the petition were not present on the site. The three natural resource professionals include Gen Bolling (BS, Plant Biology), Rob Bouta (BS, Wildlife Biology; MS Forest Biology) and Renee Nation (BS, Biology and Horticulture). Renee Nation is a Rochester Botanist who has contracted with the DNR and is included on the DNR Natural Heritage Program list of Botanists/Ecologists who are qualified to survey for rare species. Renee's letter is attached. The primary purpose of an EAW is to determine whether a project has potential for significant environmental effects. In our opinion, the project does not have potential for significant environmental effects on rare species. Consequently, an EAW process is not necessary. The petition for an EAW and additional information provided by the petitioners mentioned seven plant species that the petitioners believe may be present on the site. Of those seven species, only prairie shooting star (Dodecatheon meadia), Sullivant's milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii), and Christmas fem (Polystichum acrostichoides) are state protected (i.e., threatened or endangered) and have the potential to occur in the project area. Of the four remaining species, western Jacob's-ladder (Polemonium occidentale ssp. lacustre) is a state -endangered species, but is only known to occur in six locations in far northern Minnesota and Wisconsin (See attached Internet pages). Small -leaved pussytoes (Antennaria parvifolia) is a state -listed special concern species. Although it was not blooming, we found what we believe is field pussytoes (Antennaria neglecta), a more common species with less pubescent leaves. The petitioners also expressed concern regarding lily -leaved twayblade (Liparis lihifolia) and showy orchis (Galearis spectabilis). Although we identified two local populations MIN CITIESIINEno SE CLWD BRAINERD Memorandum — Willow Heights, Rochester; Rare Species June 19, 2006 Page 2 ��. of few individual orchids on the site, neither of the species suggested to be on the site by the petitioners are state -protected Westwood Initial Site Review A site walk-through was conducted by Gen Bolling of Westwood Professional Services and the DNR Regional Plant Ecologist (Ann Pierce) on May 30, 2006. Ms. Pierce indicated the site consists of mesic oak forest with ravines, wetland, and degraded dry prairie and savanna. Onsite observations of common buckthorn, prickly ash, and smooth brome confirmed that the plant communities are degraded. The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS), began by the DNR in 1987 as a systematic survey of rare biological features, has been completed for Olmsted County. The MCBS did not identify any plant communities within the project site, and did not identify the species listed by the petitioners as occurring in Olmsted County. Rare Species Survey Methods Prior to surveying the site in the field on June 16, 2006, Gen Bolling, Rob Bouta, and Renee Nation prepared for the review in the following manner: 1. Reviewed the preferred habitat, flowering phenology, and distinguishing taxonomic characteristics of each of the species in question. 2. Reviewed photographs and available herbarium specimens of the species in question. 3. Georeferenced the map of species locations that was provided by the petitioners, and uploaded the coordinates of each species observation into a sub -meter accuracy Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) (see Exhibit 1). Review if available information indicated that prairie shooting star and Christmas fern would be more likely than Sullivant's milkweed to occur on the site. According to Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna (Coffin and Pfannmuller, 1998), most surviving plants of Sullivant's milkweed in Minnesota are confined to prairie remnants that occur on railroad rights of way, and the species shows little ability to survive in degraded habitats. This memo includes a fairly complete list of plant species that occur on the property. In some cases, we did not identify plants to species if it did not affect the conclusions of the survey. The unidentified orchid does not have characteristics similar to state threatened and endangered species. planning a engineering > surveying w Memorandum — Willow Heights, Rochester; Rare Species June 19, 2006 Page 3 Table 1. S ecies identified by petitioners as potentially being onsite. Scientific Common State State Flowering Preferred Petitioner name name Status Protected Phenology Habitat Notes Prairie, Dodecatheon prairie May, June savanna, In ravine meadia shooting Endangered Yes D. rodicotum: rock within wet star Apr -Jun outcrops, prairie woodland Jun, Jul Mesic Asclepius Sullivant's Threatened Yes A. syriaca & tallgrass Possible St. sullivanlii milkweed A. speciosa: John's Wort July, Augprairie Depression west of Polvstichum Christmas Threatened Yes Not Wooded wetland and ocrostichoides fern Applicable slopes in ravine in the NW comer Rather American open rich basswood Polemonium western July conifer grove surrounded occidentale Jacob's- Endangered Yes P. reptans: swamps by Virginia ssp. lacustre ladder Apr -Jun with waterleaf Sphagnum and other moss carpet forbs May -Jul A. Open or Near Antennaria small- Special microphylla: partially snowberry parvifolia leaved concern No May -Aug; shaded bushes on pussytoes A. areas; wet prairie plantagnifolio: sandy soils Apr -Jun Depression May, Jun in NW Galem-is Showy Not listed; O. Not i comer; a spectabilis orchis under No rotundifolia: Applicable glade south review Jun, Jul of American Basswood rove Liparis Lily- Not listed; Jun, Jul Not lilifolia leaved under No Applicable None twa blade I review planning > engineering > surveying �v Westwood Memorandum — Willow Heights, Rochester; Rare Species June 19, 2006 Page 4 Table 2. Plantspecies observed on the site - Scientific Name Common Name Acer negundo Boxelder Acer saccharum Sugar maple Achillea milli olium Yarrow An elica atro ur urea Angelica Antennaria ne lecta Field pussytoes Arctiwn minus Common burdock Arisaema tri h llum Jack-in-the-pulpit Ambrosia artemisii olia Common ragweed A oc num s . Do bane Ascle ias s riaca Common milkweed Ascle ias verticillata Whorled milkweed Aster s . Aster Bromus inermis Smooth brome Cannabis sativa Wild hem Carex s . Three sedge species Carex blanda Bland sedge Circium arvense Canada thistle Circium vul are Bull thistle Circaea s . Enchanter's nightshade Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Coronilla varia Crown vetch Cyperus esculentus Yellow nut sedge Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace E uisetum arvense Field horsetail Eri eron annuus Daisy fleabane Eu atorium ru osum White snakeroot Fra aria s . Wild strawberry Fraxinus perinsylvanica Green ash Galium a arine Cleavers Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw Geum canadense White avens Glechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie Hes eris matronalis Dames rocket Hypericum s . St. John's wort Impatiens s . Jewelweed .Iuncus s . Rush Zuni erus vir iniana Eastern Red Cedar Lactuca s . Wild lettuce L chnis albs White cam ion planning > engineering > surveying Memorandum— Willow Heights, Rochester; Rare Species June 19, 2006 Page 5 Table 2. Plant observed on the site - Common Name Lily leaved twa Motherwort Lonicera sp.. Honeysuckle L co us sp. Water horehound Malus s /Cratae us sp. Apple Melilotus ofi:cinalis I Yellow sweet clover Ne eta cataria Catnip Orchids . 1 Orchid Oxalis stricta Wood sorrel Parthenocissus sp. Virginia creeper Pastinacasativa Wild parsnip Phleunt pretense Timothy Ph salis sp Ground cherry Plantaeo sp. Plantain tremuloides Prunus sp. Plum Prunus serotina Black cherry Pvcnanthemum virQinianum I Mountain mint Ranunculus abortivus Rhamnus cathartica Rumex crispus Rhus glabra Rhus radicans Ribes sp Robinia pseudoacacL Rubus sp. Rumex crispus Salix exigua Sa/ix cf. amygdaloide; Scrophularia lanceolc Silene spAvchinis sp. awitarla Stellaria Smooth sumac Sandbar willow Peach leaf willow figwort White tampion Stiff goldenrod Canada goldenrod Giant goldenrod Great chickweed Mouse -ear chickweed planning > engineering > surveying w Westwood Memorandum — Willow Heights, Rochester; Rare Species June 19, 2006 Page 6 Table 2. Plantspecies observed on the site - Scientific Name Common Name Taraxacum o icinale Dandelion Triosteum perfoliatum Coffeeplant Ty ha angustifolia Narrow leaved cattail Tri olium s . Hop clover Tri olium arvense White clover Tri olium pratense Red clover Ulmus s . Elm Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Verbascum tha sus Mullein Viburnum trilobum Hi hbush cranberry Vicia americana American vetch Viola s . Violets Vitis s . Wild grape Xanthox lem americanum Prickly ash planning o engineering a surveying DID96 WeaMooe iNfwAoni 6mlcen bs. Legend Property Boundary O Plant Locations - June 16, 2006 CHRIST" FERN T DECORAH EDGE SHOWEY i4S k { _ WETLANDS PUSSYpORC IES f S y "� OAK STANDS SlAk1_ f A- FORS LADD �s BASSWOOD GROlIk _ LOW" TWAYBILAID ORCHID r w_ I v � •aM `_ fiit"�i - F I E t r , i J sr I YL,k EYy Rjf`*W .. w, e S yiSk D+u Sm+ralsl' Willow Heights w�rDeNe,isexK Rochester, Minnesota YORAnng'am Eden P.+i.Ve, MNN S53M Ed— SM ��. PHONE 953-937-5150 N Plant Locations -June 16, 2006 }Wf 95}A3}38]] TOLL fAEF 169&93'I-5159 wood mow. emnedn. m 0 WestN 300 Feet EXHIBIT 1 Report of Survey for Rare Plants, Willow Heights Residential Development, Rochester, Olmsted County, MN June 16, 2006 Renee G. Nation, botanist 5090 Milly Lane SW Rochester, MN 55902 rnation(arconnect.com (507) 288-37 t 8 On June 16, 2006, I met with Rob Bouta and Gen Bolling of Westwood Professional Services and conducted a rare plant survey on the proposed Willow Heights Residential Development site located in Southwest Rochester near the intersection of 40`s Street SW and U.S. 63. Our survey was conducted in response to a petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the proposed development. Specifically, we searched for seven species that petitioners thought were present on the site. Five of these species are Minnesota endangered, threatened or special concern species. Two more are not listed under these categories, but their status is under review by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. We did not find the five state protected species of concern to the petitioners (Dodecatheon media, Asclepias sullivantii, Polystichum acrostichoides, Polemonium occidentale spp. lucustre, Antennaria parviflora). We specifically visited locations identified by the petitioners as possibly containing these species and I am confident that the five species were not present. We did see orchids, with degraded flower stalks, that may have been Liparis lilifolia. The plants were photographed and the location documented by Gen Bolling. We saw orchids which had no flowers, and these were also photographed and location documented. None of the orchids we saw could be positively identified as Galearis spectablils. Attached is a list of the plant species I identified on the Willow Heights Residential Development site. This list should not be considered to be an exhaustive list of the plants occurring on the site. Plant list, Willow Heights Residential Development site, Rochester, Olmsted County, MN June 16, 2006 Acer negundo Boxelder Achillea millifolium Yarrow Angelica atropurpurea Angelica Antennaria sp. Pussytoes (this did NOT look like A. parviflora) Arctium minus Burdock Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Asclepias verticillata Whorled milkweed Aster sp. Aster Bromus inermis Smooth brome Carex spp. Sedges Circium sp. Thistle Comus sp. Gray dogwood Coronilla varia Crown vetch Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Equisetum sp. Horsetail Erigeron sp. Fleabane Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Fragaria sp. Wild strawberry Fraxinus sp. Ash Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Galium aparine Cleavers Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw Geum sp. White avens Hesperis matronalis Dames rocket Hypericum sp. St. John's wort Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Lactuca sp. Wild lettuce Liparis lilifolia Lily leaved twayblade Lonicera sp. Honeysuckle Lycopus sp. Water horehound Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweet clover Monarda Bergamot Nepeta cataria Catnip Oxalis stricta Wood sorrel Parthenocissus sp. Virginia creeper Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Phleum pratense Timothy Physalis sp. Ground cherry Populus sp. Aspen Potentilla recta Rough leaved cinquefoil Prunus sp. Plum Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain mint Ranunculus abortivus Kidney leaf buttercup Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn Rhus glabra Sumac Rhus radicans Poison ivy Ribes sp. Gooseberry Robinia sp. Black locust Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix sp. Willow Silene sp/Lychinis sp. White campion Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod Solidago sp. Goldenrod Taraxacum officinales Dandelion Triosteum perfoliatum Coffeeplant Typha angustifolia Narrow leaved cattail Ulmus sp. Elm Verbascumthapsus Mullein Viburnum trilobum. Highbush cranberry Vicia sp. American vetch Viola spp. Violets Vitis sp. Wild grape Xanthoxylem americanum Prickly ash Jacob's ladder - Wildflowers: Minnesota DNR Page 1 of 5 es h r� rV) r'�ti Enter Keywords Sdeiih= Site Map I Contact the DNR What's New? Newsroom I Events & Seasons > MN DNR Home > Natural resources > Plants > Wildflowers > Jacob's ladder A occidentale spp. lacustre For botanist Bruce Carlson, discovering a new location of western Jacob's ladder (P. occidentale spp. lacustre) will surely rank among the best personal discoveries of a lifetime. The botanists, ecologists and s of western Zoologists of the Minnesota County Flowers ladder. Biological Survey (MCBS) spend countless hours hiking, crawling, climbing and wading through Minnesota's native plant communities and geologic features searching, in part, for rare plants and animals. Although most rare features are by their very nature difficult to find, rarities are nonetheless found every field season. However, western Jacob's ladder is elusive. As Bruce recalls, "Some of the best field botanists in the country have searched thousands of acres for P. occidentale spp. lacustre with little success. Therefore, when I came upon the first vegetative shoots I was not immediately confident that I was looking at western Jacob's ladder. I thought, 'Urn, looks like Jacob's ladder ... but it can't be ... that's too rare for me to find. It surely must be an escaped cultivar or some sort of fern.' But then I looked across a small opening in the wet cedar forest and nearly fainted with amazement when I spotted a flowering stalk. A rush of adrenaline surged through my veins as I shouted to the heavens, 'Lord, I am not worthy, show me a sign if this is indeed the rare Jacob's ladder!' The words had barely left my lips when my feet uncontrollably started dancing the releve jig, my belly rolled with amusement, and a smile formed on my face so big that I had to turn my head sideways in order to fit that grin between the trees as I hiked out of the forest!" Western Jacob's ladder (Polemonium occidentale ssp. lacustre) is a perennial plant with conspicuous sky-blue/bright violet flowers and ladder -like dissected leaves found in rich conifer swamps in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin. In fact, all six known locations of the subspecies worldwide are in these two states. Minnesotans can take pride in knowing that their home Plants Aquatic plants Ferns. lichens. mosses Trees & shrubs Wildflowers Natural resources Animals Plants Rocks & minerals Endangered species Exotic species Climate Forests Prairies Water CONSERVATION VOLUNTEER u ` oil' http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildflowersljacobsladder.html 6/13/2006 Jacob's ladder - Wildflowers: Minnesota DNR Page 2 of 5 state contains four of those populations, while Wisconsinites can lay claim to the other two populations. Closely related to Polemonium occidentale, a species common in the Rocky mountains, the subspecies located in Minnesota and Wisconsin was first discovered in 1944 in St. Louis County, Minnesota by Olga Lakela, then curator of the University of Minnesota at Duluth Herbarium and a noted authority of northern Minnesota flora. This discovery served as the basis for defining a new subspecies previously unknown to science. A subsequent collection was made by Sixth location worldwide. one of Lakela's students in 1946 somewhere near the original location, but the location of both these populations became somewhat of a mystery to Minnesota botanists, who searched unsuccessfully for the plant throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Because the population could not be found, some people discredited Lakela's discovery, claiming that she might have transplanted a garden variety Jacob's ladder, P. caeruleum, into the site; or even faked the collection. Because the species had been nominated for consideration for the federal endangered species list, the Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program initiated a search for the lost populations in 1988 and literally stumbled upon a population after two days of searching within a mile of the area described in Lakela's field notes. The 1946 location, however, has never been relocated and is not counted among the six known locations. Meanwhile, in 1982, Polemonium occidentale ssp. lacustre was discovered by botanists working for the Nicolet National Forest. This was an interesting find because it is located in habitat similar to the Lakela site but it is over 200 miles to the east in Florence county, Wisconsin, near the border of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. At that time the botanists who found the Florence population speculated that perhaps it originated from seeds brought into Wisconsin on the boots of http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildflowers/jacobsladder.html 6/13/2006 Jacob's ladder - Wildflowers: Minnesota DNR Page 3 of 5 forest fire fighters working between midwestern and western states, thus downplaying the subspecies' rarity. Both the attempt to discredit Lakela and the dirty -boot hypothesis were laid to rest in 1989, when Wisconsin specimens were sent to Dr. Dieter Wilken, an authority on the genus, for verification. He determined the Great Lakes Polemonium to be a distinct subspecies, as well -differentiated from other members of the genus as they are from each other. Western Jacob's ladder also differs from the garden species, P. caeruleum, in its lack of glands at the summit of the stem, its shallow, creeping rhizome, and its larger number of leaflets (9- 13 as opposed to 3-7) in the leaf subtending the flowering stalk. Because P. occidentale ssp. lacustre was being considered for inclusion on the federal endangered species list, a concerted effort to locate new populations was conducted between 1992- 95. Two professional botanists, working in Minnesota and Wisconsin, spent many weeks visiting 73 sites covering over 10,000 acres of habitat similar to the known locations. Despite these extensive searches and the efforts of other field botanists, only three more populations of the species were found between 1988 and 2001: two Minnesota sites 15 miles east and 50 miles south of the original location, and a second Wisconsin site, less than a mile from the first Wisconsin location. Another nine years passed when, in the summer of 2001, Bruce Carlson, a botanist and ecologist with MCBS, located the fourth Minnesota location and the sixth worldwide location in a conifer swamp in southeastem Itasca county, approximately 30 miles from the nearest previously known Minnesota site. Typical habitat for western Jacob's ladder is in a rather open wetland forest community with various amounts of white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), tamarack (Larix laricina) and black spruce (Picea mariana), and a continuous carpet of moss dominated by Sphagnum spp. Other interesting plants often associated with western Jacob's ladder include dragon's mouth (Arethusa bulbosa), showy lady's-slipper http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildflowers/jacobsiadder.html 6/13/2006 Jacob's ladder - Wildflowers: Minnesota DNR Page 4 of 5 (Cvpripedium reginae), cuckoo -flower (Cardamine pratensis var. palustris) and greater arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima). All of the known locations have a near neutral pH and water chemistry that suggests groundwater up - welling. Two human activities that often occur in this type of native plant community are peat mining and logging. While peat mining would definitely destroy all plants within the mining area, Cedar swamp habitat. winter logging appears to either have no affect on the species or may actually promote its growth. All of the known locations have a history of logging. In some cases the logging occurred during the early 1900s while other sites have a more recent logging history dating to the 1980s and 1990s. In all six known locations, P. occidentale ssp. lacustre is most abundant and only blooms abundantly in natural or logging -related open areas where direct sunlight reaches the ground layer. While the relationship between logging and western Jacob's ladder has not been investigated it appears that winter logging under frozen ground conditions is not a serious threat to the persistence of this species. Factors controlling the rarity of this species are not well understood. In fact, the species has many characteristics that suggest that it should be more common. For example, there are millions of acres of apparently suitable habitat; it is a conspicuous plant not easily overlooked even by amateur botanists; the known locations have hundreds to thousands of individuals; and there is a large gap with many acres of suitable habitat between the Minnesota and Wisconsin populations. Despite the immense acreage of potential habitat, this species has received more concentrated attention than the majority of rare species in the Upper Midwest. Yet, over the course of recent field seasons, these efforts produced very few additional locations. Clearly, Polemonium occidentale ssp. lacustre is a true rarity! http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildflowers/jacobsladder.html 6/13/2006 Jacob's ladder - Wildflowers: Minnesota DNR Page 5 of 5 Back to to © 2006 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copyrikht Notice. Web site policies: Accessibility. Linking• Privacy http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wildflowers/jacobsladder.html 6/13/2006 MEETING DATE 06/19/06 AULNUA Stt. 11VN: ■ TAeG PLAT N71NG ITEM DESCRIPTION: Decision on the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet I PREPARED BY: (EAW) in response to the citizens' petition to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) with Phil Wheeler, AICP regard to the Willow Heights 51h Addition Planning Director A group of citizens has petitioned the EQB requesting that an Environmental Assessment W orksheet be prepared for the Willow Heights 5'h Addition development described in GDP #268 and preliminary plat #06-02, which was heard at the May 1, 2006 Council meeting. The petition (which is attached) identifies the following environmental concerns: 1. Substantial Land Alteration 2. Decorah Edge 3. Wetland Species 4. Disturbance of Dumping Sites 5. Proximity to Rochester Public Utilities Well #31 Action on the EAW was originally scheduled for June 5, 2006, but was delayed due to the receipt of correspondence from attorney Thomas Casey, on behalf or Rochester Citizens for Responsible Development, who raised questions that staff did not have time to respond to at the meeting. Since then, staff has also received information from attorney Walter Rockenstein II, on behalf of North American Realty. The City Attorney has advised us of his legal opinion that the request for an EAW does not fall within the mandatory EAW category. As such, the Council must consider this matter as a request for a discretionary EAW. The Council can approve the petition for the discretionary EAW only if the Council finds this project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The Planning Department continues to conclude that there is no such potential based upon existing processes that will prevent the occurrence of such effects. To that end, I have asked the City Attorney to prepare a proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order that adopts the Planning Department staff's recommendation. That document is enclosed for the Council's consideration. If the Council concludes that there is a potential for significant environmental effects, the Council should order an EAW to analyze those effects. Recommendation: Staff concludes that an EAW is not necessary if the Council imposes a condition on the SLA regarding identification and proper management of rare or endangered species of plants. Because City ordinances do not address rare plant species as a standard condition of approval of SLA's, if that is not made a condition of SLA approval then an EAW would be warranted because no other process will guarantee its completion. If the Council concludes that an EAW is not necessary, the Council may adopt the prepared Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Council Action Needed: 1. Direct the staff to prepare findings in support of the direction the Council takes with regard to the need for an EAW. The Council needs to make this decision in response to the petitioned request for an EAW within 30 working days of receipt of the petition on May 16,2006. 2. If the Council determines that further steps need to be taken with regard to the design and implementation of mitigation measures in upcoming stages of the development approval process, you should direct the Public Works Department and Planning Department to work with the developer to refine those measures. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File V COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: Petition for Findings of Fact, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Conclusions of Law, Willow Heights Fifth Addition and Order On June 19, 2006, the Common Council of the City of Rochester considered a petition presented to the Environmental Quality Board requesting the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW") for the Willow Heights Fifth Addition development approved in General Development Plan #268. The Council considered all information presented to it including that which is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A. Based upon the evidence presented to the Council, the Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Willow Heights Fifth Addition is a residential development proposed by North American Realty. 2. The Willow Height Fifth Addition development consists of 61 single family detached dwellings on 38.94 acres of land along with accompanying roads and 5.13 acres of parkland. 1 1Q1 Mandatory EAW Categories 3. Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subp. 19 states that an "EAW is required for residential development if the total number of units that may ultimately be developed on all contiguous land owned or under an option to purchase by the proposer, and that is zoned for residential development or is identified for residential development by an applicable comprehensive plan, equals or exceeds a threshold of this subpart." 4. The thresholds of subpart 19 include the following: A. 50 or more unattached or 75 or more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a sewered unincorporated area; B. 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a city that does not meet the conditions of item D; C. 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a city meeting the conditions of item D if the project is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan; or D. 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan or in a city not located within the seven -county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has filed a certification with the EQB chair. 5. Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 addresses mandatory EAW categories and, at subpart 1, states, in part, as follows: If the proposed project is an expansion or additional stage of an existing project, the cumulative total of the proposed project and any existing stages or components of the existing project must be included when determining if a threshold is met or exceeded if construction was begun within three years before the date of application for a permit or approval from a governmental unit for the expansion or additional stage but after April 21, 1997, except that any existing r A%A/ __ CIO need not be included. (emphasis added) I, 4 6. Thomas E. Casey, attorney for Rochester Citizens for Responsible Growth, submitted the following information to the Council: A. The proposed Willow Heights Fifth Addition development contains approximately 39 acres with approximately 61 detached units. The same developer is working on a nearby development called 'Bonnie Vista Estates," which proposes 175 twin homes and a 68-unit condominium building on 55.2 acres. These development proposals must be considered together in determining the need for an EAW. B. The combination of Willow Heights Fifth Addition approximately 39 acres) and Bonnie Vista Estates (approximately 55.2 acres) exceeds the 80-acre threshold of naturally vegetated land that will be permanently converted. Therefore, an EAW is required. C. The combination of Willow Heights Fifth Addition and Bonnie Vista Estates exceeds the 150 attached unit threshold. Therefore, an EAW is mandatory. 7. Walter H. Rockenstein ll, attorney for North American Realty, Inc., submitted the following information to the Council: A. Willow Heights Fifth Addition comprises 61 unattached units on 39 acres. This does not exceed any of the mandatory EAW thresholds. B. An EAW has already been performed for the Bonnie Vista Estates development. As such, Minnesota Rules do not allow for the aggregation of Willow Heights Fifth Addition with Bonnie Vista Estates in determining the need for a mandatory EAW. 8. Phil Wheeler, Planning Department Director, submitted the following information to the Council: A. Because the Bonnie Vista Estates development proposed by the applicant on the south side of 40th Street SW is covered by another EAW, it cannot be required to be included with Willow Heights as part of a single development in determinations related to the thresholds for a mandatory EAW (Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 subp. 1). 3 Zg` u B. The property is less than 40 acres in area, therefore even if it were considered non-metallic mining under the definition provided in Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 subp. 19, it would not meet the threshold for a mandatory EAW. That threshold is 40 acres mined to an average depth of 10 feet or more, which amounts to 645,333 cubic yards. The Willow Heights Fifth Addition is 38.94 acres in area and is proposed to result in removal of non-metallic earth material totaling 400,000 to 500,000 cubic yards. C. For residential development, the threshold for a mandatory EAW for a sewered development in a city outside of the seven -county metropolitan area is 100 detached dwellings. The proposed project approved under the general development plan for the project consists of 61 detached dwellings. D. Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subp. 1, states that an "EAW must be prepared for projects that meet or exceed the threshold of any of subparts 2 to 37, unless the project meets or exceeds any thresholds of part 4410.4400, in which case an EIS must be prepared." The Petition for an EAW filed by Rick Brink states the "proposed project is known as Willow Heights 5th Addition (formerly proposed as Creek View Estates), and identified as General Development Plan #268 and Preliminary Plat #06-02 and is proposed by North American Realty, 3800 Hwy 52 North, Rochester, MN 55901." The petition's description of the "project' does not include the Bonnie Vista Estates development. Discretionary EAW Categories 9. Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. Section 116D.04, subd. 2a(c); Minn. Rules 4410.1100 subp. 1) states that an EAW must be prepared whenever 25 individuals petition the RGU to take such action and the RGU determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. 10. A petition requesting an EAW must include a description of the project, a description of the potential environmental effects of the project, and material evidence demonstrating that, because of the nature or location of the project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. Minn. Rules 4410.1100, subps. 1, 2. 11. Minnesota Rules 4410.1100, subp. 6 states as follows: The RGU [responsible governmental unit] shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental impacts. 12. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has stated that, "[i]f the evidence presented by the petitioners demonstrates that the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, then the responsible governmental unit 'shall order the preparation of an EAW."' Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation v. Department of Natural Resources, 651 N.W. 2d 533 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) quoting Minnesota Rules4410.1100, subp. 6. 13. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp. 7, states that, in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City must consider the following factors: A. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. 14. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has stated that proposed or required mitigation measures may be considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Iron Rangers Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board, et al, 531 N.W.2d 874, 882 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). 5 15. Thomas E. Casey, attorney for Rochester Citizens for Responsible Growth, submitted to the Council that the proposed Willow Heights Fifth Addition project has the potential for significant environmental effects for the following reasons: A. The proposed project will adversely impact a rare plant species. That possibility needs to be investigated with public input on design alternatives and mitigation measures. B. The proposed project will adversely impact the Decorah Edge geological formation. Environmental review will provide a formal, orderly process to determine, with input from citizens, the best way to protect the Decorah Edge from development impacts. C. The proposed project will adversely impact drinking water well #31 in terms of the background concentrations of nitrate, the effect of blasting on the drinking water wells and other potential adverse impacts on water quantity and quality. D. The proposed project will adversely impact stormwater runoff resulting in adverse environmental effects on groundwater. The precise amounts of unremoved pollutants and the methods to prevent or mitigate these pollutants need further examination through the environmental review process. 16. Phil Wheeler, Planning Department Director, submitted to the Council that the proposed Willow Heights Fifth Addition project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects for the following reasons: A. The grading of the site will result in removal of a significant amount of rock and earth material from the site. However, the risks associated with slope stability, runoff, diversion of groundwater to surface water, offsite impacts, and impacts of trucks hauling, blasting, dust, and so on, will be addressed by Rochester Public Works as part of its grading plan review and stormwater management requirements. The environmental effects of such grading work are comparable to other grading activities in the vicinity, such as those associated with the West 80 development. Those effects have not been found to be environmentally significant. If the Council finds the impacts of the Substantial Land I r. � ArK Alteration ("SLA") to be incompatible with adjacent development, then it will deny or modify the SLA rendering this aspect of the petition for an EAW moot. B. The project is located in the Decorah Edge. The general vicinity of the project in its pre -development condition was characterized by two areas of perched water tables and potential wetlands that may have contributed to groundwater discharge, interflow, and recharge processes associated with maintaining groundwater quality and quantity. However, one of the areas of perched water tables has been developed (the Willow Court development) and another has been substantially altered by work in the expanded right of way of 40th Street SW. Furthermore, the approval criteria for GDP's include a finding that "areas in the DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers..." That finding was made as part of the GDP approval. C. The petition for the EAW reports that there are several threatened or endangered species of plants on the property, which could be at risk of destruction. To address this concern, the recommended conditions for the Substantial Land Alteration (SLA) require that the developer conduct a survey by an expert botanist or plant ecologist and follow the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources with regard to protecting or taking those plants. This may result in modifying or even rescinding approval of the SLA. The condition of approval of the SLA therefore eliminates the possibility of a significant environmental effect. D. The petition for the EAW expresses concern that disturbance of the tree disposal site on the property may be detrimental. Grading plan review and building code enforcement involve guaranteeing that finished grades are stable. Depending on the depth of tree material, the grading of the site may result in removal of such material, and the tree disposal site will be less of a risk to groundwater than it is at present. The grading plan approval process will assure that building sites and roads are stable and sufficient to support development. E. The petition for the EAW expresses concern about the impact of the project on Well 31, located near the southwest corner of the project. RPU staff has reviewed risks to Well 31 and conclude that they are minimal. F. The nature of the development resulting from the project after its completion will be low density residential development consisting of single family housing and parkland, in the midst of other single family neighborhoods. The Council finds this to be consistent with 7 11 913 the zoning district that the property is located in. The environmental effects of the completed development will not be significant. 17. Walter H. Rockenstein II, attorney for North American Realty, Inc., submitted the following information to the Council: A. The potential environmental impacts must be "significant." B. As part of its determination of whether potential impacts are likely to occur or to be significant, the City may consider all of the evidence presented or otherwise known beyond what is stated in the petition. C. The City, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), can look to its past experiences with similar projects and similar impacts to determine the likelihood and significance of the impacts claimed in this case. 18. Joe Hensel, Director of Field Services for Rochester Public Utilities, stated that RPU studied the impact of Willow Heights Fifth Addition upon Well #31 and found that, "[a]lthough there is some uncertainty, from an engineering, operations and water quality perspective our collective opinion is that the risk of water quality impairment is low." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Common Council of the City of Rochester as the responsible governmental unit with the obligation to make a decision as to the need for an EAW for the project known as Willow Heights Fifth Addition on either a mandatory or discretionary basis. 2. Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subpart 2 describes the mandatory EAW categories and states that an EAW shall be prepared for any project that meets or exceeds the thresholds of any of the EAW categories listed in part 4410.4300 or any of the EIS categories listed in part O IPk 4410.4400. 3. Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subpart 3 describes the discretionary EAW categories and states that an EAW shall be prepared when the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. 4. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 7 provides the criteria to be considered in determining whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. The project identified in the petition for the EAW is the Willow Heights Fifth Addition, 6. By a substantial amount of the evidence presented, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the project does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of the mandatory EAW categories found at Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subpart 2. The Bonnie Vista Estates development was the subject of a previous EAW and cannot be aggregated with the Willow Heights Fifth Addition development. (Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subp. 1.) The Willow Heights Fifth Addition project is less than 40 acres in area and will not be mined to an average depth of ten feet or more. The project will have less than 100 detached dwellings. 7. By a substantial amount of the evidence presented, and after applying the criteria found at Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 7, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. A. The environmental effects from comparable grading work have not been significant. There is no evidence the effects from this project's grading work would be any different. B. The effect upon the Decorah Edge geological formation should not FAI be significant as development has previously occurred upon this formation in this area and a condition of approval imposed on the Willow Heights General Development Plan requires the Decorah Edge area to be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers. C. As a result of tree fill material, the tree disposal site may actually be less of a risk to groundwater and slope stability following development than it is at present. D. Rochester Public Utilities states the risks to water well #31 are minimal. E. The recommended conditions for the Substantial Land Alteration (SLA) require that the developer conduct a survey by an expert botanist or plant ecologist and follow the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources with regard to protecting or taking those plants. This condition of approval of the SLA eliminates the possibility of a significant environmental effect. 8. By a substantial amount of the evidence presented, it is hereby determined by the Common Council that proposed or required mitigation measures will prevent the occurrence of significant environmental impacts. The staff -recommended conditions of approval for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration address a plant species survey, surface and subsurface drainage facilities, and the approval of all interim and final grading and drainage plans. Satisfaction of these conditions of approval will mitigate any environmental impacts caused by the project. 9. By a substantial amount of the evidence presented, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that there is no legal requirement for an EAW for the project known as Willow Heights Fifth Addition. adl 10 Aq 7' ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby make a negative declaration on the need for either a mandatory or discretionary EAW for the project known as Willow Heights Fifth Addition. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of June, 2006. Fof. zone051EAW WMM Heights Dennis L. Hanson President of the Rochester City Council 11 r COPY FAEGREJ C0PY.L'll BENSON UNITED STATES I ENGLAND GERMANY I CHINA WALTER H. ROCRENS[EIN II w k.o in@faege.wm (612) 766-7208 June 13, 2006 City of Rochester Common Council By E-Mail c/o Judy Scherr, CMC Oscherr@ci.rochester.mn.us) City Clerk And U.S. Mail Rochester City Hall, Room 135 2010 Street, SE Rochester, MN 55904-3742 Re: Willow Heights 5`b Addition, General Development Plan #268 And Preliminary Plat #06-02 Application For Substantial Land Alteration Permit Petition For EAW Dear Honorable Members of the Common Council: I represent North American Realty, Inc., which has made application to the City of Rochester to develop Willow Heights 5"' Addition. Specifically, North American Realty has requested approval of Preliminary Plat #06-02 and of a Substantial Land Alteration Permit. I have reviewed the Petition For An Environmental Assessment Worksheet filed by Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth (the "EAW Petition") and the letter from their legal counsel, Thomas E. Casey, dated June 5, 2006. My legal practice focuses on land development and redevelopment, including environmental regulations and land use and zoning controls governing such development. have been practicing in this area for over 20 years, have managed the preparation of environmental assessment worksheets ("EAWs") and environmental impact statements ("EISs"), and am familiar with the Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Rules ("BQB Rules"). Based on this experience, North American Realty has asked that I respond to certain assertions made by Mr. Casey in his letter. 1. Contrary to Mr. Casey's assertion, the EQB Rules do not mandate an EAW for the Willow Heights 51" Addition project. In his letter, Mr. Casey argues that an EAW is required for the Willow Heights 5"' Addition project because the project exceeds the mandatory thresholds for an EAW in two categories — residential development exceeding 150 attached units and land use conversion 2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER 1 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET I MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402-3901 TELEPHONE, 612-766-7000 FACSIMILE 612-766-1600 '., WWW_FAEGRE.COM City of Rochester Common Council June 13, 2006 Page 2 exceeding 80 acres. See Minn. Rules 4410.4300, subps. 19.1). & 36.A. Willow Heights Ste Addition alone comprises 61 unattached units on 39 acres, which does not exceed either mandatory EAW threshold. So Mr. Casey is forced to argue that the Willow Heights 5th Addition project must be added to another North American Realty project, Bonnie Vista Estates, to reach the number of units and acres necessary to exceed the mandatory EAW thresholds. However, an EAW has already been prepared for Bonnie Vista Estates, and the EQB Rules make clear that projects for which environmental review has been completed are not to be added to other projects when determining the need for an EAW. Minn. Rules 4410.3800, which controls the aggregation of projects, states in relevant part: If the proposed project is an expansion or an additional stage of an existing project, the cumulative total of the proposed project and any existing stages or components of the existing project must be included when determining if a threshold is met or exceeded ... except that any existing stage or component that was reviewed under a previously completed EAW or EIS need not be included. [Emphasis added.] 2. Mr. Casey is correct that the proper legal standard for determining whether an EAW must be prepared in response to the EAW Petition is whether "the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects." The full rule in question, Minn. Rules 4410.1100, subp. 6 states: The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental impacts. Please note three important aspects of this rule. First, the potential environmental impacts must be "significant." A minor impact does not suffice to trigger an EAW. Second, when determining whether potential impacts are likely to occur or to be significant, the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") looks to all the evidence presented or otherwise known, not just the petition. Third the phrase "otherwise known" means the RGU can look to its past experience with similar projects or similar impacts to determine the likelihood and significance of the impacts claimed in the petition. 3. Contrary to Mr. Casey assertions, City staff has applied the standard correctly. Mr. Casey argues that City staff, when making a recommendation to the Common Council on the likelihood and significance of potential environmental impacts, 11, City of Rochester Common Council 2AQ June 13, 2006 !� Page 3 cannot take into account any of the mitigation measures that are part of the proposed Willow Heights 5`h Addition project, any mitigation measures that will be required by existing City processes, permits, and requirements, or the City's experience with the impacts of similar projects. Mr. Casey is wrong. If City staff knows the environmental impacts likely to result from Willow Heights 5`s Addition and knows or can determine that project proposed or City required mitigation measures will prevent significant environmental impacts, then City staff can recommend against preparing an EAW, and the Common Council can consider this information in making a decision on the need for an EAW. See Iron Rangers Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board et al., 531 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1995). And City staff can investigate the impacts alleged in the EAW Petition, determine their validity, and make recommendations based on their investigation. The Request For Council Action on the EAW Petition dated 06/05/06 includes City staff comments that flow from both prior experience and investigation and that are appropriate for consideration by the Common Council. Thank for this opportunity to present the position of North American Realty. Sincerely, Walter H. Rockenstein II ROCWHjorsa:m11328198.02 cc: Terry L. Adkins, Esq. (By E-Mail and U.S. Mail) Mr. Philip Wheeler (By E-Mail and U.S. Mail) THO Il`p M.AS E . CASEY V Attomey aE Law 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-1099 (952) 472-4771 (fax) tcasey@micom June 5, 2006 City of Rochester Common Council do Judy Scherr, City Clerk 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 !Tq FAX ONLY (507) 285-8256 RE: Notice of Intervention - Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (Mmn_ Scat. I its&o9) PAW Petition and Application for Substantial Land Alteration Permit "VTillow heights - 5tt' Addition" - Rochester, Mnnesota Dear Honorable Council: On behalf of Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth, enclosed please find my cliera's Notice of Intervention, pursuant to the Mnnesota Environmental Rights Aa (Mum. Stat. 116B o9, Subdivision 1). As the Notice states in detail, my client becomes a "party" to this -proceeding upon the filing of this Notice with your office. As a party to this proceeding my client respectfully requests (and is entitled to) all "due process" considerations including but not Limited to, timely receipt of documents, adequate time to review documents and prepare for any meeting or hearing, adequate opportur ity to present their viewpoint at any meeting or hearing, M. Therefore, Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth requests adequate time to present and respond to comments during the June 5, 2006 Common Council meeting. VI E. TEGr f you for your kind consideration - cc: Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth file Encl. �U�Y-C:J-Gt"l✓JO 14-U= LI I I.LtNK P.04 CITY OF ROCHESTER COMMON COUNCIL In Rey The Application of North American Realty, Inc. for a Substantial Land :Alteration Permit for the proposed "Willow Heights - 5`h Addition' Development NOTICE OF INTERVENTION TO: Rochester Common Council, c/o Judy Scher, City Clerk, 201 4'6 Street S1=, Rochester, Mad 55904, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the Mmnesma Environmental Rights Act (NEnnesota Statute 116B.09, Subdivision 1), the undersigned intervenes in the above -entitled proceedings before the City of Rochester Common Council and other applicable commissions and cot mt rtees. BACKGROUND I. North Ameican Realty, Inc. (bereinafter the "Developer") has filed an application with the City of Rochester for a Substantial Land Alteration Permit on approximately 39 acres of land to build a residential development. 2. The City of Rochester Common Cou'zcil has scheduled a m=—ting for Monday, June 5, 2006 to consider the Substantial Land Alteration Permit. Therefore, a "proceeding" has been commenced pursuant to Minn. Stat. 11613.09, Subd. 1. 4. Intervenor is the Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth (hereinafter "Intervenor"), a Minnesota non-profit association organized, in part, to protect the City of Rochester fxom the adverse impacts of excessive development. Virtually all of Intervenor's members reside within the State of Minnesota Mr, Rick Briny Intervenor's authorized representative, lives within the City of Rochester, 5. Intervenor asserts its legal right to be a party to this proceeding pursuant to the NEnraesota Environmental Rights Act (Minn. Stat. 116B.09, Subd. 1), which states in part, "Except as otherwise provided in section 116B.10, in any administrative, licensing, or other similar pmceedrng ..., any natural person residing within the state ... or any association, organization, or other legal entity having , , . members -- residing in this state shall `ve permitted to iPtervene as a party upon the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the proceeding .., involves conduct that has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other nawral resources located within the M10 ((N states" (Emphasisaddr&) i V I 6. The Minnesota F.avj=rtmearul Rights Act (Mum. Star 116B.0Z 3ubd. 4) sraus, r "Na-Mal Resources shall indnde, but not be limited to, all minerai, anirn[, botza.ical., air, u,zzcr, land, timber, soil, quietude, recyee.6onal and historical ttsouTces. SC66c and esthetic resources shall also be oonsidcrcd natural resources when owned by any governmental unit or agency-" 61 i ?GATIONS, FACT This Notice of Int-rvtmdon is based an the following: 1. Upon information and belief, as explainod below, the Developer's subdivision application, if granted, "... is Likely to cause pollution, impaianant, or desauctioa of the ... air, water, land and other neutral resources located within the state." 2. In support of this Notice of intervention, the Petition for an Environmental Assessment Wa:ksbect (EAW , on Me in the City of Rochester offices, is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 3. This Notice of Intervention is not intended to constitute a oomplcta iovenlory of of environracntal imDwm, Rocbost= Citizens For Responsible Growth reserves th¢ right to submit addrtional facts in support of the Notice of Intervention ar the various hearings and meetings in this proceeding. STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COU?4TY OF OL.MSTED ) Rick Brink, being first duly sworn on oath, wares that he is the author zed representative of the Rcc-bester CitiZcas For Responsible Growth, the Intervenor above -named, that he has rc,'I the foregoing Notica of Intervention, and that the tarot is true of his own knowledge, except as to those things stated on information and bcliof and es Posuchbe verily believes it to be true_ Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of June, 20Q6. �r _i.//.�� / • : tii� - 2 Rick Brink, Authorized Roprescnrative Rochester Cild2tns For Responsible Growtb 3740 - 9"' Ave. SW Rochester, MN 5.5902 (507) 287-0887 • A n1. - � •_nren—mn5 14 r ub L 1 1 Y CLLXK P. es I / MLNhTESOTA C}OyERNMENT DATA PRACTICES jLQj$ f T This Notices is also dcnmed a request by the Rochester Citizens For Responsible Grow-h, the Intervenor, pursuant to the. Mi=czota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. 11.01 at seq), that Intervenor be provided a copy of all darn and information pertairdng to the Developer's application ar the C=r said date and/or informatioh arc gcacratc& All information and cozrespoudr ncc shalt be submitted to intervenor at the above address, Rick Erinlr, Authorized Rzprescntat3va Rochester Citizens For Iteaponaible Growth .. `... -- ---- -- a.. THOMAS E. CASEY Attorney at Law 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-1099 (952) 472-4771 (fax) tcaseyevisixom June 5, 2006 City of Rochester Common Council c/o Judy Scherr, City Clerk 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 VIA FAX ONLY (507) 285-8256 RE: Comments regarding EAW Petition and Application for Substantial Land Alteration Permit "Willow Heights — 5` Addition" Rochester, Minnesota Dear Honorable Council: On behalf of Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth, I offer the following comments: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET MUST BE ORDERED I. AN EAW IS MANDATORY BY RULE. A. PI -LASED ACTION. Minnesota Rule 4410.1000, Subpart 4 states, "Multiple projects and multiple stages of single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when deterudaing the need for in EAW ..." (Emphasis added.) Minnesota Rule 4410,0200, Subpart 60 defines a "phased action" as "... two or more projects to be undertaken by the same proposer that a RGU determines: r U1 "A. will have environmental effects on the same geographic area; and "B. are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time." The proposed "Willow Heights - 5 h Addition" development contains approximately 39 acres with approximately 61 detached units. The same developer is working on a nearby development called "Bonnie 'Vista Estates," which proposes 175 twin homes, a 68-unit condominium building, situated on 55.2 acres. These development proposals must be considered together in determining the need for an EAW. Junre5-20eS 14;L1'I CITY CLERK P.39 / Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 EAW: B. LAND USE CONVERSION. Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, Subpart 36, requires an "A. For ... residential developments where the lot size is less than five acres ... resulting in the permanent conversion of SO or more acres of... agricultural, native prairie, forest, or naturally vegetated land ...." The combination of "Willow Heights — 5" Addition" (approximately 39 acres) and "Bomue Vista Estates" (55.2 acres) exceeds the SO -acre threshold of naturally vegetated land that will be permanently converted. Therefore, an EAW is required. C. OVER 100 UNATTACHED OR 150 ATTACHED UNITS. Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, Subpart 19, states in part: "An EAW is required for residential development if the total number of units that may be ultimately developed on all contiguous land owned or under an option to purchase by the proposer . — equals or exceeds a threshold of this subpart ... `S. 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a city that does not meet the requirements of item D." Paragraph D requires that a city, not located in the 7-county Twin Cities metropolitan area, file with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Chair a certification that it has adopted a comprehensive plan containing the following elements: (1) land use plan; (2) transportation plan; (3) sewage collection system policy plan; (4) capital improvements plan; and (5) implementation plan. There is no evidence that the City of Rochester has complied with this requirement. The combination of "Willow Heights — 5`h Addition" and `Bonnie Vista Estates" exceeds the 150 attached unit threshold. Therefore, an EAW is mandatory. II STAFF APPLIED AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN EAW IS NECESSARY, The June 1, 2006 Staff Report (page 1) states in part, "The City makes its decision on whether or not to order an HAW based on three considerations: (1) the likelihood that information important to the development decisions will be produced through the EAW that is not already produced through the City's developmental review processes, (2) the consistency of the propose development with the City development policy and (3) whether there are conditions that can be established through the review process that can mitigate impacts." Staff provides no legal authority for this criteria. In fact, the Rochester Zoning Ordinance, Section 61.540, states that the current rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board must be applied in deciding whether or not to order an EAW: Rochester Common Council June 3, 2006 "61.540. RNVIl201Q NTAL REVIEW: "The current rules issued under the authority granted in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116D, implementing the Environmental Policy Act, shall be followed in determining the need for preparation of Environmental Review Program documents. Necessary documents, such as Environmental Assessment Worksheets and Environmental Impact Statements, shall be prepared and the review of such documents completed prior to final local action by the City of Rochester on any development related permit or process related to the project." [Emphasis added.] Minnesota Rule 4410.1100, Subpart 6, states in part: "The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects." [Emphasis added.] Based on the facts described in this Petition and this legal standard (note double modifiers — "may" and "potential'D, the City of Rochester Common Council has no choice other than to order an EAW. EQB staff member Greg Downing's letter (May 12, 2006) states on page 1, "The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6." Minn. Rule 4410.1100, Subpart 6 states in part, "The RGU shall order preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented ... demonstrates that ... the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects." Emphasis added. Note a iFc >f [ gain the double mod r r — ` may and "potential." In fact, Staff appears to incorrectly apply some of the.standards used to determine whether an EIS must be ordered. Minn. Rule 4410,1700, Subp. 7 contains the four specific factors that must be considered in determining whether an EIS must be ordered. The P factor is: "C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority." Staff incorrectly analyzes whether laws and permit agencies will minimize impacts in determining whether an EAW is necessary. Reminder: Minn. Stat. 116D.04, Subd. la(3) defines an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) as " a brief document which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required for a proposed action." [Emphasis added.] See also Bolander v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W. 2d 203, 206 (Minn. 1993); and Trout Unlimited V. Minnesota Dent. of Aericulture-528 N.W.M 903, 909 (Minn. App. 1995). The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) discusses various permit review processes and concludes that the environmental impacts will be minimized by the permit requirements. Again, az described above, Staff applies the wrone standard to determine whether an EAW must be Ordered. J'.JI4-M-G0170 14 ; b f l l I Y U_E=KK Rochester Common Council .Lune 5, 2006 "The very purpose of an EIS _.. is to determine the potential for significant environmental effects before they occur. By deferring this issue to later permitting and monitoring decisions, the fRGU] abandoned fits] duty to require an EIS where there exists a potential for significant environmental effects." (Emphasis added.) See Trout Unlimited V. Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture 528 N.W.2d 903, 909 (Minn. App. 1995). See also Pope County Mothers v. MPCA 594 N.W.2d 233, 237-238 (Minn. App. 1999). [An EAW is the first step towards an EIS.] In summary, the purpose of environmental review is to inform the permitting agencies of issues before they make their decision. Instead, Staff prematurely concludes that there are no facts that would be helpful to permitting agencies (i.e. the City, MPCA, etc.) before they make their decisions. III. STAFF INCORRECTLY STATES THAT THE EAW DECISION MUST 13E MADE BEFORE JUTE 14, 2006, The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) incorrectly states on page I that the City Council must make a decision on the EAW Petition before June 14, 2006 because that is the expiration date of the 120-day period (the so-called "60-day rule"— codified as Minn. Stat. 15.99) for deciding on the Substantial Land Alteration Permit application, In fact, a citizens' EAW Petition tolls the "60-day rule" until the environmental review ' process has been completed. See Allen v. City of Mendota Heights 694 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. App. 2005); review denied. IV. IN SO MANY WORDS, CITY STAFF ADMIT THAT THERE "MAY BE A POTENTIAL' FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS." THEREFORE, AN EAW MUST BE ORDERED. The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) states on page 1, "If the EAW raises issues not adequately addressed, an EAW may be needed" The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) also states on page 1, "... if' mitigation] measures are unknown or difficult to identify, then an EAW may be useful.,, As described in Section V below, protection and mitigation measures are vague and inadequate. Staff acknowledges the vagueness on several occasions. Therefore, an EAW must be ordered. V. PROTECTION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ARE VAGUE AND INADEQUATE. Although my client asserts that mitigation measures are not part of the EAW Petition analysis, the proposed mitigation measures are, in fact, vague and inadequate. Therefore, under these facts, an EAW must be ordered. A. The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) states on page 1, "if the Council determines that further steps need to be taken with regard to the design and implementation of mitigation Imeasures in upcoming stages of the development approval process, you should direct the Public Works Department and Planning Department to work with the developer to refine those El �.nr u.�—euer� t•+•C» 1.1 I T I LtKK Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 measures." In other words, Staff candidly admits that mitigation measurers are vague and need more work. One of the outcomes of environmental review is that mitigation measures are discussed in an orderly way, with orderly time frames for citizen input and response. Citizens would be deprived of these opportunities if environmental review is denied. B. RARE SPECIES. The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) states on page 2, "City Ordinances do not address rare plant species as a standard condition of approval of SLAB [Substantial Land Alterations] ..." Staff, therefore, recommends that that the rare species "... be investigated further and dealt with in accordance with applicable state law and rules." This is contrary to the purpose of environmental review; that is, to inform the permitting agencies before a decision is made. Environmental review will allow the citizens the opportunity to comment on the investigation and provide input on design alternatives and mitigation measures. C. DECORAH EDGE. The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) states on page 2, "The Council has not yet initiated an ordinance defining more clearly how development should proceed on the Decorah Edge-" The existing process is vague; that is, ".., areas in the DEOZ [Decorah Edge Overlay Zone] will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers ,,." Environmental review will provide a formal, orderly process to determine, with input from citizens, the best way to protect the Decorah Edge from development impacts. D. PROXIMITY TO ROCHESTER WELL #31. The Staff Report (June 1, 2006) states on page 2, "RPU staff have reviewed risks to Well 31 and conclude that they are minimal." However, the RPU report (no date) contains a very important CAVEAT: "This [report] is based on the assumption that up -gradient concentrations of nitrate are not grossly elevated. We do not have background concentrations of nitrate in t he upper aquifer in the vicinity or Willow Heights." Furthermore, the RPU report also states, "We do not know what impact blasting will in the vicinity of a well would have on the yield or efficiency." Finally, the RPU report discusses a lawsuit for damages as a remedy if the development adversely affects the well. Lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, the developer may not have enough money to pay for damages and a surety bond may not be high enough. Prevention is a more prudent practice. Therefore, my clients respectfully request that an RAW be ordered to begin the process to determine the background concentrations of nitrate, the effect of blasting on the drinking water well, and other potential adverse impacts on water quantity and quality. VI. STORMWATER DISCHARGE, Urban runoff ordinarily contains a large variety of pollutants, including petroleum compounds, heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, fecal coliform bacteria, oxygen -demanding substances, phosphorus and other nutrients. Motor vehicles are one of the major sources of urban runoffpollutants. Other sources include lawn treatments, deicers, pets, lawn clippings and garden waste. Stormwater ponds, even if properly designed and maintained, generally have approximately 65% removal eEciency of phosphorus. Predictions of removal efficiency for YJN-05-2006 14:03 CIT`f CLERK Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 P.12 . other pollutants are beyond the scope of the EAW Petition. Improperly designed stormwater ponds may directly contact groundwater, creating even more adverse environmental effects. [See also MPCA manual, "Protecting Water Quality Runoff in Urban Areas" (March 1, 2000), pace 5.01-2, which describes pollutant removal by type of facility. Removal of nitrogen is even less efficient than phosphorus.] In other words, a substantial fraction of pollutant loads entering any stormwater pond will move into the groundwater, discharge from the pond to a public water, or bioaccumulate. The precise amounts of unremoved pollutants, and the methods to prevent or mitigate these pollutants, need further examination through the environmental review process In conclusion, stormwater runoff from the site (even after best management practices are instituted) "... may have the potential for significant environmental effects ..." and, therefore, an EAW must be ordered. THE PROPOSED LAND ALTERATIONS CONNSTITUTE A "QUARRY," WHICH IS PROHIBITED IN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT My client agrees with the Planning Department Report (June 1, 2006) that the "— excavation ... meets the threshold ... [of] ... a quarry, A quarry is not a permitted use in the R-I zoning district, which is the zoning district of the property." (See Zoning Ordinance, Section 62.1101, which defines a quarry as an excavation over 100,000 cubic yards of material.) In fact, the proposed excavation may exceed 500,000 cubic yards. THE PROPOSED LAND ALTERATIONS DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION Zoning Ordinance, Section 62.1102.1.f creates an exemption that would allow the proposed land alterations if the City Council makes certain findings: "62.1102 EXEMPT ACTIVITIES: "I. 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: 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-adi_ng permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105." However, the developer has not complied with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance, Section 62.1105 as follows: 20' ...n, -- eue,, ia•c+c t111 I.LCrCK P.13 Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 611105 FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 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 [emphasis added]: "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; " [Comment: The grading, as proposed, will result in some areas exceeding the requirement that no site shall exceed a slope of 3 feet horizontal to i foot vertical over a distance of 30 feet. Staff cannot conclude at this titne that this criterion will be satisfied. Staff defers to a later date the issue of whether grading plans, drainage plans, construction techniques, etc. will satisfy city standards. Furthermore, the lack of information frustrates public review and circumvents the environmental review process.] "2. Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or o�`f 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; " [Comment: No "fully detailed" plans have been submitted to demonstrate the mitigation methods. There is no evidence at this time that the developer will satisfy this criterion. Furthermore, the lack of information frustrates public review and circumvents the environmental review process.] "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; " [Comment: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) incorrectly states that "... materials being hauled from the site would be going for the roadway construction project adjacent to the property or to the applicant's property located south of 40`h Street SW. One of my client's members, Rick Brink, has informed me that the roadway construction project will be completed before the proposed development is underway. Furthermore., no plans have been submitted to demonstrate the mitigation methods. There is no evidence at this time that the developer will satisfy this criterion. The lack of information frustrates public review and circumvents the environmental review process.] "4. The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; " 7 JUN-e�-�ez6 14:idtJ CITY CLERK P.14 i Rochester Common Council I June 5, 2005 ^ [Comment: The EAW Petition amply indicates why ground and surface water will be adversely affected. Moreover, as stated above, the purpose of environmental review is to determine the environmental impacts before permit decision are made. No plans have been submitted to demonstrate the mitigation methods. There is no evidence at this time that the developer will satisfy this criterion.] "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 far adequate restoration of the site following completion of zhe excavation activity; [Comment: There is no evidence at this time that the developer will satisfy this criterion and adequately "restore" the site, even if a "reclamation" plan is completed.] "6. The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in she 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; [Comment: The proposed activity is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject property as "open space/recreational." Furthermore, the 24-month mining activity is not consistent with nearby residential uses.] "7. The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; - [Comment: Many citizens have stated how the proposed development will adversely affect the use and enjoyment of theirproperties. For example, see April 12, 2006 Planning Commission minutes, when citizens voiced concerns about noise, traffic, and general incompatibility.] 118. The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; " [Comment_ The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) implies that no buff%rs will be required for the first 24 months. Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied. 119. The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas;" [Comment: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) states that the recla_*nation plan meets existing ordinance standards. My clients request adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Reclamation Plan. Furthermore, environmental review must be ordered to determine the adequacy of the Reclamation plan.] P.is Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 "10. The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; " [Comment: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) candidly admits the grading and drainage plans have not been provided to the City. Therefore, there is no evidence that this criterion is satisfied. Furthermore, the lack of information frustrates public review and circumvents the environmental review process.] "11. The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; " [Comment: The proposed quarry will adversely impact the "Decorah Edge" areas which directly contribute to ground water recharge. As stated in the EAW Petition by Justin Slum, Minnesota Department of Health, "Therefore, to maintain the drinking water quality a this well [RPU Well #31], it is important to maintain the capacity of the [Decorah] edge in the area to filter out contaminants such as nitrate commonly found in shallow ground water_" There is no evidence that the proposed activity will "minimize" wetland impacts because wetland delineation is not been completed and proper wetland ``sequencing" has not been accomplished — which first requires "avoidance" of wetland impacts. Finally, the RPU report is cited to indicate that the risk to Well #31 is "minimal." As stated above, the RPU report (no date) contains a very important CAVEAT: "This [report] is based on the assumption that up -gradient concentrations of nitrate are not grossly elevated. We do not have background concentrations of nitrate in the upper aquifer in the vicinity of Willow Heights." Furthermore, the RPU report also states, "We do not know what impact blasting will in the vicinity of a well would have on the yield or efficiency." Finally, the RPU report discusses a lawsuit for damages as a remedy if the development adversely the well. Lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming. The developer may not have enough money to pay for damages and a surety bond may not be high enough. Prevention is a more prudent practice. Therefore, my clients respectfully request that an EAW be ordered to begin the process to determine the background concentrations of nitrate, the effect of blasting on the well, and other potential adverse impact on water quantity and quality.] "12. 772e intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity;" [Comment: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) incorrectly states, "The grading work is expected to be completed in coordinated [sic] with the 40 Street SW reconstruction project." One of my client's members, Rick Brink, has informed me that the 40`h Street reconstruction project will be completed before the proposed development is underway. Furthermore, the proposed excavation is too intense for that location.] uury j-eUr 14• e7 1.1 I Y l_LttiK Rochester Common Council Tune 5. 2006 "13. Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; " [Comment: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) candidly admits that no interim or permanent erosion or sediment control plans have been submitted, except for a "preliminary" erosion control plan. No plan has been approved.] "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;" [Comment: According to the Staff Report (May 31, 2006), no surety has been provided.] P.16 , "15. The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. " [Comment: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) states that this criterion has not been satisfied.] NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 6 1. 146 As Zoning Code, Section 62.1105 (discussed above), also states that the land alteration (i.e. quarry) must comply with Section 61.146: "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. [Comment: A traffic analysis is necessary to answer this question.] "2. The intensity, location, operation, or height ofproposed 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, " [Comment: The proposed development has the potential for significant environmental effects on groundwater and surface water. See EAW Petition for details.l 3. The provision for on -site buffer yards and landscaping does not provide adequate 10 Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. " [Comment: Certainly, nearby properties will be adversely affected during the 24- month excavation period.] "4. The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. " [Cotmnent: The Staff Report (May 31, 2006) candidly admits that this criterion has not been satisfied.] "S. The provisions for anterior 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. " [No comment at this time.] "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." [No comment at this time.] "7. In cases where a Phase 1 plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. " [No comment at this tune.] 118. 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 assigns which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. " [Comment: This requirement is not satisfied. See above for details.] THE PROPOSED OUTLOT FOR DRAINAGE NEEDS ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT The "Request for Council Action" contains the recommendation: "The applicant shall install surface and subsurface drainage facilities on the back portions of Lots 6, 7, and 8 consistent with the final approved drainage plan to mitigate any surface water runoff or groundwater discharge from the site to the dwelling units oft he 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 ..." 11 - -- ---- _ _.. Li i i IA MN P. Is , / Rochester Common Council June 5, 2006 According to Rick Brink, ibis is the first time Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth has heard of this recommendation_ My client requests additional time for investigation and public input before a decision is made. CONCLUSION The standard by which the City of Rochester Cottonton Council must apply to order an EAW is low. "The city need only find that `there may be potential for significant environmental effects.' ... Given this minimal standard, we conclude that the city's decision to order an RAW was reasonable..." Boland er V. -� QfMinneapolis 488 N.W.2d 8041 810 (Mnn. App. 1992); affirmed 502 N.W. 2d 203 (Mm,1993). [Emphasis added.] The very purpose of an E15 . -. is to determine the potential for significant environmental effects before they occur. By deferring this issue to later permitting and monitoring decisions, the [1ZGT1] abandoned [its] duty to require an EIS where there exists a potential for significant environmental effects." (Emphasis added.) See Trout Unli-ntlted v. Mumesota Dew of Acriculture 528 N.W.2d 903, 909 (Man. App. 1995). See also Pope Coon Mothers v. MPCA 594 N.W.2d 233, 237-239 (Man. App, 1999). [Emphasis added.] Lticewise, based on the facts known to the City of Rochester Common Council at this time, and the vague and insufficient mitigation measures, there is no option other than to order au RAW. Therefore, Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth requests that an EAW be ordered and the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Permit be tabled until the environmental review process has been completed, Even if the City Council decides not to order an RAW (a decision subject to judicial review, at my client's and other citizen's discretion), the City Council must deny the Substantial Land Alteration Permit application for non-compliance with the ordinance criteria described above. On behalf of Rochester Citizens For Responsible Growth, I thank you in advance in anticipation of your ldnd attention. Very lyyours —�l W Thomas E. Casey TEC/rf cc: Rocbester Citizens For Responsible Growth ble RS_ — bear Ms. Scherr: Please include this letter as part of the public record in this proceeding and include this document as a handout to the Common Council. Thank you, 12 TOTAL P.13 Mullenbach, Lisa From: /��� Baker Mitzi [baker.mitzi@CO.OLMSTED.MN. US] Sent: r r Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:56 AM To: Mullenbach, Lisa Cc: Svenby Brent Subject: FW: Development Lisa: Please print the below e-mail and include this with the Council packet for the EAW citizen petition item. Thank you! Mitzi A. Baker Senior Planner Monday - Thursday Phone: 507-287-1696 FAX: 507-287-2275 "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped." Hubert H. Humphrey -----original Message ----- From: Ann Pierce[mailto:Ann.Pierce@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:34 AM To: Baker Mitzi Cc: Sarah Hoffmann Subject: Development Hi Mitzi, good to talk to you earlier today. I am writing to clarify what I was able to accomplish on the site visit with the representative from Westwood. We spent approximately an hour on this site. At that time, Gen Bolling a representative with Westwood, was not familiar with the species location descriptions in the petition. Without this information a species survey would take a couple of days. Therefore, I told Gen that I would not be able to do a species survey but what I could do is walk the site to determine if the habitat could support the species listed in the petition. Based on this walk through the site does have habitat that could support some of these species. The site consists of mesic oak forest community with ravine areas, wetland, and degraded dry prairie and savanna areas. These areas are in need of management and invasive species control but there are still a number of native species occurring on the site. At the end of the field visit I confirmed with Gen Bolling that this site could support some of the species listed in the petition. I noted that Gen should try to contact the people who initially identified the species and get better location information. She could then hire a contract botanist to survey the site. Once I returned to the office and received a copy of the petition I noticed that the location description was on the petition. I then sent an email to Gen Bolling reiterating my conclusion that the site could support these species based on my habitat review. I again suggested that an ecologist experienced in identifying these species conduct a thorough survey based on the location description given in the petition. This would likely take at least a full day field visit to relocate the locations described and to search for the species in question. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks you, Ann Pierce Ann Pierce, Ph.D. Regional Plant Ecologist ^ �/► Southern Region MNDNR 1rL-1 2300 Silver Creek Road Rochester, MN 55906 Office-(507)280-5076 ann.pierce@dnr.state.mn.us REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING X' DATE: 6-19-06 ",GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO. 'UBLIC HEARINGS — Tabled Item ITEM DESCRIPTION: Substantial Land Alteration for Preliminary Plat 406-02 by PREPARED BY: North American Realty known as Willow Heights 5th Addition. The applicant is Brent Svenby, Senior Planner 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. June 15, 2006 On May 1, 2006 the Council held a public hearing on General Development Plan # 268 and Preliminary Plat #06- 02. As part of the preliminary plat, the applicant requested 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 151h meeting. The excavation proposed on the property meets the threshold for removal of material associated with a quarry. A quarry is not a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district, which is the zoning of the property. However Section 62.1102 exempts certain excavation activities from all of the requirements of Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113, which includes the section incorporating the threshold of 100,000 cubic yards that, if exceeded, places the SLA into the quarry category. Exemptions include development activities for which a GDP, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. this means that an SLA meeting the definition of a quarry is exempt from the zoning constraints on locating in .he R-1 zoning district only if the findings to Section 62.1105 can be made. A citizens' petition for an EAW has been filed for this project. The determination on the EAW petition will also affect the SLA requested. If it is determined that an EAW is warranted the SLA request can be tabled until the EAW process is completed. If the Council concludes that it cannot make the required findings addressed in Section 62.1105 of the Land Development Manual with regard to the proposed Substantial Land Alteration, then it should deny the SLA for reasons associated with the relevant finding. During the public hearing, the testimony seemed to center around how this development would affect the adjacent properties which complain that 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 portions of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2 consistent with the final approved grading and drainage plan to mitigate any surface water runoff or groundwater discharge from the site to the dwelling units of the residents on Willow Court SW. This would require that the preliminary plat be revised so that these drainage facilities are located within an outlot. The maintenance and ownership of the outlot would have to be addressed. lfthe council approves the requested SLA staff recommends that the following conditions be added 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed plant survey of the site conducted by a professional botanist in consultation with the DNR to identify rare, threatened, or endangered species and plant communities prior to proceeding with any activities associated with development. if the plant survey results in required revisions to the SLA, the SLA approval shall be suspended until a modified plan has been approved by the Council. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 RCA June 16, 2006 [Conditions, continued] 2. The applicant shall install surface and subsurface drainage facilities on the back portions of Lots 6, and B, Block 2 consistent with the final approved grading and drainage plan to mitigate any surface water runoff or groundwater discharge from the site to 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. 3. Any Interim and Final Grading Plan(s) and Drainage Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 5'h Subdivision shall meet the standards reflected in the findings of Section 62.1105, and appropriate geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. 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: 1. SLA Findings 2. Grading Plan Spreadsheet 3. 3-D Drawings of the site (existing & proposed grading) 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, June 5, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center. j ! �t SLIP, 'Y� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite too • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 0 0 0 x r. o r www,oimstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner Phil Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director r f�w._sa��.cFlf gA.��rJ�oe147 ,r{7pIH AQfI� DATE: May 31, 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 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 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). The amount of material to be removed from the site exceeds the _ threshold established in Section 62.1101 (100,000 cubic yards) distinguishing a quarry, which is not allowed in the R-1 District. However, Section 52.1102 of the LDM exempts a substantial land alteration from those thresholds (and other parts of the ordinance dealing with substantial land alteration) when it is 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,D00 to 500,000 cubic yards of materials on the property and change the existing elevations more than I feet. Some of the material will be moved to the 40" 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 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 qrplanpe�n"! areas, parks and roadways Tha-gmd�zg will need In BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 C7� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER for meet engineering standards adopted by the City. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards as well as the reclamation standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. Access and traffic will not create unsafe conditions. Rochester Public Works Department advises that any Interim and Final Grading Plan(s) and Drainage Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 5`h Subdivision shall meet these standards and any geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. Failure by the Applicant to meet these standards shall result in denial of the Grading Plan(s) and /or revocation or suspension of the Grading Permit(s) until the standards are met. 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. Rochester Public Works Department advises that any Interim and Final Grading Plan(s) and Drainage Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 51h Subdivision shall meet these standards and any geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. Failure by the Applicant to meet these standards shall result in denial of the Grading Plan(s) and /or revocation or suspension of the Grading Permit(s) until the standards are met. 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. The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. The applicant has stated that access to site would be from 40`h Street SW and the materials being hauled from the site would be going for the roadway construction project adjacent to the property or to the applicant's property located south of 40'h Street SW. Rochester Public Works Department advises that any Interim and Final Grading and Drainage Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 5" Subdivision shall meet these standards and any geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. Failure by the Applicant to meet these standards shall result in denial of the Grading Plan(s) and /or revocation or suspension of the Grading Permit(s) until the standards are met. 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality. The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality. The SLA is likely to reduce the flow of groundwater through the site, diverting It to become surface water. However, since the quality of the lower aquifer is high (and typically higher in quality than the groundwater in the upper aquifer), there should not be a significant site -specific impact on groundwater quality. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be required during grading activity. Stormwater management control measures will be required during and following development. Rochester Public Works Department advises that any Interim and Final Grading Plan(s) and Drainage Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 51h Subdivision shall meet these standards and any geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. Failure by the J?ID Applicant to meet these standards shall result in denial of the Grading Plan(s) and /or revocation or suspension of the Grading Permit(s) until the standards are met. 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat, or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity. The 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. The EAW petition addresses concerns about rare plant species found on the site. These species should be identified by a professional botanist and mitigation measures identified meeting DNR standards and rules applying to takings of rare species. These measures may result in restrictions on the amount and location of grading and earth removal on the site. 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. Single family residential uses adjoin the property to the east, north and west. The scale of earth removal and the removal of the majority of the existing forest cover is not typical of low density residential development, but is allowed by the ordinance. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed within 24 months. After restoration of vegetation and development of the property, the result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The extent of the grading and removal of vegetation will affect views from adjacent properties and therefore the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Whether this is an undue impact or not is a matter of judgment, since the LDM accommodates substantial grading in conjunction with GDP's, subject to these findings. The grading is anticipated to be completed with 24 months and the reclamation plan meets the standards of the ordinance. 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation. The grading is anticipated to be completed with 24 months, so no bufferyard is required. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas. The City Engineer has waived the requirement for a 3:1 slope and advises that the cut and fill areas will be stable. The reclamation plan meets existing ordinance standards. 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities. 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. Rochester Public Works Department advises that any Interim and Final Grading Plan(s) and Drainage Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 5' Subdivision shall meet these standards and any geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. Failure by the Applicant to meet these standards shall result in denial of the Grading Plan(s) and /or revocation or suspension of the Grading Permit(s) until the standards are met. 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality. According to the Sinkholes and Sinkholes Probability Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted County, there are no known 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. A preliminary investigation found 3 wetlands on the property. The applicant will need to work with the Local Government Unit on any mitigation. It appears that the grading will affect a wetland located on the western portion of the site. Approval to fill this wetland will need to be granted by the LGU. Since part of the property is in the Emergency Response Zone of Well 31 and much of the property is affected by Decorah Edge geology, groundwater impacts related to drinking water supply should also be considered. The wetland delineation necessary to determine if there are groundwater supported wetlands on the site has not yet been submitted to the Planning Department. It appears from published soil maps that there are two areas of elevated groundwater associated with edge hydrology associated with the site, one on the southwestern corner of site and one encompassing most of the existing Willow Court development. The access to the site off 40t" Street SW crosses the western perched water table area; much of this area has already been extensively altered by Mn/DOT's work in the 40t" Street SW right of way. While concerns have been expressed by DNR staff about the impact of the grading on the potential impact of the SLA on the municipal well, RPU staff have concluded that the risk to the well is minimal provided runoff is directed away form the well. 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity. The extent of removal of material from the site meets the definition of a quarry, normally not allowed in this district. However, the LDM exempts excavation and grading activities from the thresholds defining quarry operations when associated with an approved GDP or plat. The grading work is expected to be completed in coordinated with the 40t" 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) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City. 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 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. 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. Rochester Public Works Department advises that any Interim and Final Grading Plan(s), Drainage Plan(s) and Reclamation Plan(s) reviewed and approved by the City for the proposed Substantial Land Alteration within the Willow Heights 5' Subdivision shall meet these standards and any geologic investigations, analysis and resulting recommendations, grading and drainage plans, and construction techniques and other appropriate measures / mechanisms will be required of the Applicant to guarantee compliance. Failure by the Applicant to meet these standards shall result in denial of the Grading Plan(s) and /or revocation or suspension of the Grading Permit(s) until the standards are met. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 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. 6) 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: I ) 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; 3�-1 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. 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. B) 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. i w: �:'rd�r. xr drlrrrr Phil Wheeler, AICP Planning Director 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Subject: Willow Heights 5th GDP Impacts on RPU Well 31 RPU Staff have discussed the proposed development and potential impacts to Well 31. We also hired a consultant (geologist) for an outside opinion. Although there is some uncertainty, from an engineering, operations and water quality perspective our collective opinion is that the risk of water quality impairment is low. This is based on the assumption that up -gradient concentrations of nitrate are not grossly elevated. We do not have data on background concentrations of nitrate in the upper aquifer in the vicinity of Willow Heights. In the past Well 31 had nitrate concentrations that were detectable, but not significantly elevated. We will continue to monitor water quality and watch for changes in trends. Well 31 is an important water supply well. It was 9th and loth out of 24 high capacity wells in terms of pumpage and hours of operation (respectively) in 2005. It is likely that annual pumpage will go up in the future with the extensive commercial development underway in this part of the city. The well is also relatively efficient (kWh/1000 gallons pumped). We don't know what impact blasting in the vicinity of a well would have on the yield or efficiency. It is possible that some maintenance or redevelopment could be required if the overlying formation is disturbed. We will continue to take monthly static water level (SWL) measurements to determine if there are any changes to the potentiometer surface. We are also considering installing instrumentation to gather continuous water level data (SWL and cone of depression). Developers should be aware that if a well is clearly impacted by development activity, and the well would subsequently have to be re -developed or replaced the City would have the right to seek damages from the responsible party. If the decision is to proceed with an EAW, RPU requests that potential impacts to water quality, water quantity, and well operation be included in the scope. ' allo' G wfor Joseph S. Hensel Director of Field Services ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES 4000 East River Road NTE Rochester, MN 55901-2813 Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-290-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 M I z W-W MIS -4 oa NVODRWV HAON F r. LU C/-) Lij OR z uj L�u t J�u L *.-�l T.-EF-1 17'7�77T-T'F- I-T 7 T T T-T- F 0 I 11—m. I �—.T —..! . I t 0 0 Z LL Z 0 < Z W(DgN w z �w < U5 CO a: ozn - t','� I _ , k \. % . �7. zes. 3:,Noo mawoot c )U768 W31MV UON 190 w isle, W t zs oz a i 2 Z H N M ;e a '! LL, Sim, aw 0 M ZI � Lu a d E her s��,� 0 .1 .,,-.••.e�..a,. —gym--� � —s... »T w I —_ asss wwlaxry,00n Id NOLLtl11tlT] 31 xiicalsv �°'�'�'�•, - ... iuwxn xrmMwuvi + A1143aWDISM HiSONF sir �HM6�iw s/r gigs i$ �:ia-1,IV Ra � e 3 66 -' tip R� q 1 IL 9 i i i? ulsiy Z c? gaLLI u k LL F ! G .j 3w;Nr ,vmr 1� I L 16 fYM I . � wv XdRlfoW ON ONV SIV130 �lsq/co ZQM wsoN 6.trweaw aws R�, ���3tl ON7 �NIQtl 2f9 nsas�z _^ E - A I'Id7)1 Mf'1177aNM u 1?It1N +ou as S/S _ ____, _e .._..__..._.__....—_... _..__...._..... _ . Xv � w Lit a e-- W j €� V Wo 1511 eE a8 Lou)z e'Ebg6g b£WrY�'= 'z E IN W Etl 5 Yg€ 8- zu md1- x !R 3� e € e 9 e z �xsYS _--1 �sW s=� al !a i N og K o s z 'seN 9's`"9 M�ffi a 3 `sI ¢pq�y i! a �'��j ax F 1 :..➢ qq V1 Y �8 i 36 Revised Project Narrative Substantial Land Alteration Permit Willow Heights 5th Addition - Rochester, MN (Formerly Proposed as Creekview Estates) Prepared By: RLK Incorporated March 15, 2006 For Substantial Land Alteration Permit For Review Concurrently with the Preliminary Plat Purpose This request for concurrent review of a substantial land alteration permit with the preliminary plat has been prepared for the Willow Heights 51h 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 40d' Street SW, between 40'h Street and Willow Court. Revised applications for a General Development Plan (GDP) and land subdivision permit/ preliminary plat are being submitted concurrently with this request. It is anticipated that the applications will be heard before the Planning Commission on April 26, 2006. The proposed grading activities constitute a substantial land alteration as defined by the Zoning Ordinance due to the amount of excavation and grading required to provide fill material for the adjacent 40'h Street improvements, as well as to constrict acceptable slopes on the proposed public roadways that will access 40'h Street and 9" 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 40'1' Street for crushing within the Willow Creek Commons project area. A Conditional Use Permit was obtained for substantial land alteration and quarry activities for the crushing operations on the Willow Creek Commons site. The hauling will be coordinated with the 40 Street improvements contractor. As required by the Land Development Manual for the City of Rochester, the project will meet the requirements of Section 62.1105 of the Code as described below: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life orproperty due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the propeny, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proxinvity 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 Sth Addition Revised March IS, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 1 of 8 zoning district. The majority of the construction access will be off of 40" Street. including all hauling. Access will be coordinated with the 40" Street improvements contractor. 2) I t.mul, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be udequatel' mitigated by the Applicant and a f dlr de tuiled plan is submitted br the Applicant to demonsiiale the mitigation methods to be used. the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds forsuch nvtigatiam, and adequate legal assurance that all gfsuclr 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 will 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 or surface 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 if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; The project proposes to maintain the naturally sloped character of the site and area. The preliminary plat plans identify the roadway, park and grading improvements that will be constructed following the excavation. The reclamation plan includes tree plantings as required by Code. 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing orplanned development, 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-I zoning district requirements, and comparable to the adjacent residential developments. 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment ofadjacent properties; Excavation activities will be completed in accordance with all regulations. The proposed development is comparable to the adjacent developments. Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5u' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M °age 2 of 8 v< 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers rind screening rear -round from unsrohilr• features ofihe excavation operation: The project will be minimally visible from the west and north sides of the property due to the elevation difference of the graded property. 40"' Street is anticipated to be under construction during the excavation of this project; the properly 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. 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; A preliminary drainage study has been completed that identifies proposed stormwater management facilities that will address surface water quality and will encourage infiltration for groundwater recharge. Stormwater runoff currently being routed across the site from the adjacent residential neighborhoods will be routed through the project in a manner that will not negatively impact the existing drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities. 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; There are no anticipated sinkholes. Minimal wetland impacts are proposed that will be mitigated as required by regulations. A preliminary drainage study has been completed that identifies proposed stormwater management facilities that will address surface water quality and will encourage infiltration for groundwater recharge. 12). The intensity and the anticipated duration of theproposed 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'n Street construction project, as needed to provide fill material from this site. 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; Preliminary erosion control plans have been submitted with the preliminary plat documents for concurrent review. Prior to excavation, final plans will be submitted for approval for a grading permit. 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. The project will result in a residential use that is consistent with existing R-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 5'1' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 3 of 8 JS) The proposed octivin complies with the requireMems of the adopted building code. Buildine plans will be submitted for permit upon site plan approval that will meet the building code requirement s- 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, invol6ng a change in pre-existing grades of 10 or more vertical feet (substantial land alteration). Disturbed Area The project will disturb approximately 39 acres. The applicant is North American Realty, Franklin P. Konschade, President. Amount of Material to be Moved Approximately 400,000 to 500,000 cubic yards of material will be moved as a part of the Creek View residential development. Assessment of Existing/Pre-Alteration Conditions Information required by Section 62.1106, Paragraph 2, is included on the plans and supplemented with the following. Existing Zoning: R-1, Mixed Single Family Residential District Existing Site Use: The site is partially wooded with sloping topography and three small potential wetland areas. The site is currently undeveloped, with off -site drainage flows being routed from the adjacent developed areas down the slopes across the site. Soil Types: See attached geotechnical report (previously submitted) Roadway Conditions: 4e 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. noodplain: There are no I00-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 S'" Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 4 of 8 r 511 Goy ermnent 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 exisline Willow Court SW right of way. The project proposes to sen e the proposed lots from connections to the sanitary sewer in Willow Coun SW. The lower proposed lots will be served by the cotmecuon to the public water main in Willow Court. Public water main and sanitary sewer are located in the existing 9"' Avenue SW right of way. 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" Street right of way along the southern boundary, from the existing manhole at the intersection of 40'" Street and Willow Court SW. Traffic: A traffic analysis was previously prepared for MnDOT for the design of the TA 63/40" Street improvements that included this parcel and current zoning. Adjacent Land Use: The property is bounded to the north, east and west by existing residential development which is zoned R-1. The southern boundary is 40'" 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 40" Street. The Grading Plan identifies approximate limits and proposed contours for the project. Resulting slopes will be stabilized as the project progresses in accordance with City requirements. Trucking of the material will most likely not require travel outside the limits of the two sites; haul routes on the public roadway system will be identified as needed. The project grading is expected to be concurrent with construction of the 40'" Street project. Grading of the site will occur in conjunction with the 401" Street construction during the summer of 2006. The majority of the project will be graded within 24 months subject to coordination with the completion of the MnDOT 40'" Street project. A waiver will be requested from the City Engineer during final plat and grading plan review, for slopes steeper than 3:1, due to 2:1 slopes resulting after grading in the subsurface rock. Preliminary geotechnical investigation of the existing rock in the vicinity of the project indicate that the rock has adequate stability for 2:1 slopes. Drainage for the impervious areas of the site will be routed to infiltration areas that will recharge the water table. Temporary sedimentation ponds will be provided to accommodate runoff during the proposed grading operations. Final design will be completed after approval of the preliminary grading and drainage design that is being considered with the preliminary plat application. Drainage design has been completed in accordance with the City of Rochester standards. Off site flows will be routed through the development and into the existing pond area located in the low area along the west property boundary or directly into the ditch that outlets the pond. The majority of the site runoff will be routed to the south Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights 5u' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 5 of 8 l 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 dischar2es 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 storm sever construction. Other erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented including typical measures as illustrated on the grading plan. Operations Plan per Section 61.140 The site plan illustrates the proposed project area, street layout and a potential stockpile location. Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m., as allowed by City Code. The grading plan identifies approximate limits of the area that will have a vertical change in elevation greater than ten feet, and possible blasting limits. A grading permit application will be submitted after approval of this application. The contractor shall stabilize the graded site through respreading topsoil and seeding. The proposed and existing ponds will provide sediment removal as required until final roadway and utility improvements are completed and homes are constructed on the site. Vegetation will be removed by typical clearing methods and disposed of by the contractor in a lawful manner. The Contractor will be responsible for implementation of dust and noise control plans. Dust control measures include watering of on -site haul roads. Noise control measures include operational mufflers on equipment to meet state and local noise ordinance requirements. Limited blasting may be required on an "as -needed" basis for excavation of the rock material in the portions of the project area as shown on the grading plan. If required, a signage plan for construction activities will be submitted as part of the grading permit application. Stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation control for the rough graded site are identified on the Grading Plan. Final drainage and erosion control improvements will be designed with the final plat application upon preliminary plat approval. Due to the proximity of existing residential development to the project area, site fencing and/or additional security measures will be implemented including a six-foot high security fence around any potential blasting area as required. Anticipated construction equipment includes backhoes, dozers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, scrapers, rubber tired rollers, and other construction equipment as required for completion of the project. The following sequence of progression is proposed: Install erosion control measures and excavate ponds, - Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights Su' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 6 of 8 r 1)6 • Clear site within current excavation phase limits: • Strip topsoil and stockpile; • Cut material and process/screen: • 'Truck and scrapermaterial to fill area: • Grade and compact engineered fill; • Respread topsoil and seed area within 7 days of completion of earthwork activities: • Adjust erosion control fencing and other measures after turf has been established. Lightine is not anticipated to be required Current plans may include off -site hauling of material to the adjacent 40'h 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 cleanhemove 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 40th 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'a Avenue and 4'h Street SE. The nearest fire station is located at 6" Street and South Broadway. Site access will be available via 40'h Street and TH 63. Reclamation Plan and Report Requirements for reclamation are identified on the Grading and Reclamation Plan and in the above text. Permanent landscape and tree requirements are calculated based on the requirement of 8 deciduous and 8 coniferous trees per disturbed acre of area that will result in a change in elevation of greater than 10 feet, which includes approximately 15 acres of the f39-acre project area. Trees will be planted within the project area and/or on properties in the vicinity of the project that are owned by the Applicant/ Developer. Calculations result in a total 240 trees required as follows: 15 acres times 8 trees = 120 deciduous trees 15 acres times 8 trees = 120 coniferous trees Actual locations of the required trees will be determined with the final platting stage of project development as permitted. All erosion control, turf establishment and drainage facilities as required by the phased development and all applicable City requirements will be provided. Attachments Soil Borings (previously submitted) Project Narrative —Application for Substantial Land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights Su' Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M Page 7 of 8 e�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 fnknar@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 mcaron aArlkinccom idietrich(@rWnc.com G.`.Willow Creek Com om LL02005-666-M1_Cwnpondence\Revised SLA 1-27-06Tcvised Narrative-substan land all 01-27-06Ad Project Narrative —Application for Substantial land Alteration In Conjunction with a Preliminary Plat Willow Heights Sth Addition Revised March 15, 2006 RLK Incorporated Project No. 2005-686-M 0\ m mo COm v r.t, m m min r, m m m m N rn m(D(n(n-gcowmi�m (pr.+)rnm(Orinm�rorymITr..t�(na(o (n mN mm(n r Q mN (nrnm mm r. rc)cq (n m t� W m G6 m Nmr Nm r-NN rr6COr N Nr� N r mr (n co N r N Cl) r` 00 m rrN(+3mr U Q r r U m o o� $ o 0 0$ m o (n o m V o O 0 O 0 O 0 O pp O o O N O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 pp 0 T O IO O O O N (n O O(n m m O O r M O r 00LL]0 0 0 W 0000NO000O • O000 CO N mom (� pi m m C+(O (g rz L OWi O OWi �n Nm w 0(mn in mmOmr r r r n d 1�N mq. m m m m N TNo, N Nr rN 1 rrr IL r r c 'v m c v d 0 c ca m 0 m E am 0 m 0 m m `o -"o U "n U a ro m E 0 j L 2 Q m m E a) ¢ N > ''0 U C o o Z �a vc 4 E m w m n) r U 'c o c� w E O v CC) LL m H C S a 0 N E (7 s v C. m s m s m (� N Cl) ^ d x m ('� Y cd F N r N Y p d Y (D =_ m __ 41 �_ N __ N _ W __ tD mm :O m ;p m pr 4T tll — p m m C.O 3 C p = -i m° Q o S x x x x x U¢¢¢= E mU¢ U o iQ m m ci JID cr Emctim c�cc c c c c cy0voo3�r�OorovatC O (D 0 CC] 0— «o m m m N N m c0 (tl N N O (a O— p L> (V t6 c6 O o(n(n3cn000UUU33mmmx�x(��c�rammmm r N('�'p (Omr OD m Or r r 4 r m r 7 r (O r m r �mm r r '- O N N N(O N N '?(Om N N N N W N m0 N om C7 N(h M V'(n co C9 Co le NC NC7Nn Nto NnN T n a co n<CO N M tO Cl) tnN N OO CO tO Otn *- �I' MnrNO)r NOMrOMNaONtOrN�rnMtOMTrN,N M7Namn�v o W nrr ONE N m r- N N N �COJ r 'ITnNNN M0001 M - 0 N N N M NMOO t0 U o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o m o 0 0 o pp o v o o O r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o to m — 0000 o m ro o o N N ao m o N ow o o to 0 CO tDO t0 to i66 W O N 000' N to OOO Nn tD 0-N V- o 0 9 V tto- NCi NA co 0- n tD O O n r N CO M M CO 0W r N O r r r n 0 r 0 r V r m CD CO N O V NO 00 N N n W N n M t�i of n CO M r M M r r w r CD m a E O t o m m m 3 i�.L.. �tf za m Ar a V m m �� Lo m N N M a n W d �-M O O O y N M H w y L y tC m Vj y 7 YC t� w 0_ fd m '0 m Y td tb m ro m m 2 m 70 C r In m® N W '� c22 S22 y J �.- 'L C O C O V O 'O Olm N VJ N co 0 0 Q. 0. „�.J m N V y;aL Z'�Z`Z`Z` ��U d m m m marl 3 y._ mQ-o c �U00 y0 ly4 tyd mrn� -O r o W W pl tiC m ro U a a L� n 0 0 -6 m>> "> m' E E m d m Q S co co LL m L m U U m m 0 X K FL f- � S co 0 Ol m 0 Of O� CO - m m m o>> cm m m .O h m o o 0 m c c c c c m o m� :4 q m m � tmi o UUU W W IL tLUH ERRRRRmZO�.Q fL Q fL to W � m W W 22d to to lL coccocotO77'QC C� V OnQ oa.0 to N. M. M 1 in 1 if I uMi 0to0 trD tND@ I t,0 I tc0 tOO WN tM0t0 I n � 11 6 • rnrmro�i'W LO 0 M co v4wm a L6 tri V rry� CiO mO Cl).r-NNN N U � m $ 4:1 C 5 V tDOa Oi GD [•JOrN N CO a 9 N W O W O W " N MtlJ W y N IlJ W =--O O rn aa�=xxx v °c c C'd 7 2=200000MM13 7 0 m m Q1 L L S N rrrrrp mV lrl tr tCC)rn0 rrrcoco V