HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA t
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS ` 1�
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 20
REGULAR ADJOURNED
VLMOE CF AIJ EOMCE
PAGE
1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
3-4 1) Request to be Heard — Devorah Shubowitz
5-6 D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
AUGUST 21, 2006
7:00 P.M.
1)
Approval of Minutes
7-10
2)
Appointment to the Park Board
11-12
3)
Amendment to Purchase Agreement— Olmsted Medical Center
13-14
4)
Memorandum of Agreement with the Transportation Security
Administration
15-18
5)
Public Transportation Franchise — Mohamed Hussein Salah
19-20
6)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous City Activities
21-22
7)
Development Charge Assessment Interest Rate
23-24
8)
Approval of Accounts Payable
25-30
9)
Modified Personnel Policy — Reclassification Policy
31-34
10)
Appointment — Assistant Fire Marshall — Rochester Fire Department
35-40
11)
Adopt Ordinance for a Portion of Zone Change Petition #05-11, by
Waterfront Business Park LLC and Southern Woods Development LLC.
The applicant is proposing to amend the Floodway and Flood Prone (100-
year floodplain) boundaries.
41-42
12)
Contribution Agreements for Project J-7744 — Hadley Valley Trunk
Sanitary Sewer to Serve Portions of Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
and 21, Haverhill Township (Service Area 29-A) Phase II
43-44
13)
Development Agreement — Harvestview Development — Joel Bigelow &
Sons Enterprises, Inc.
45-46
14)
Revocable Permit: Maine Street Development Amenities
47-48
15)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo Clinic
Center for Advanced Imaging Research Building Project — J5242
49-54
16)
Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan — Salem Heights Estates
Second
Council Agenda
Monday, August 21, 2006
Page 2 of 2
55-56
57-58
59-64
65-66
67-68
69-70
E)
71-84
85-90
91-96
97-100
101-142
143-154
17) Applications for Year 2007 State Transit Assistance
18) Project Green Fleet I Installation of Diesel Emission Control Equipment
19) Preliminary Project Analysis and Design Services: NE Main Level
Reservoir and Trunk Watermain, J7738
20) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges": Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve Rose Haven Subdivision, J9750
21) Advertise for Bids: (J4946 & J4947) Bike Path Construction and
Recondition Project
22) 2004 Plant Expansion ( 390) Chay Order JVo. 7,� M
.yam
HEARINGS
1) Final Plat #06-09 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, to be known as
Harvestview Second.
2) Vacation Petition #06-11 by Steve and Danice Mulholland, Terry and Mary
Ann Djonne, Bruce and Gretta Buller and John and Bonnie Poterucha, to
vacate a utility/walkway easement located between Lots 10 and 11, Block 2
Wilshire Estates Addition and Lots 13 and 14, Wilshires Estates Third
Subdivision.
3) Consider the Proposal of Central Minnesota Senior Housing, LLC to Assist a
Project by the Issuance of Revenue Bonds in and by the City of Buffalo,
Minnesota
4) Consider the Imposition of Service Charges Within the Established Special
Services District.
5) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05, initiated by the City Council on
June 26, 2006, proposing regulations for developing in the Decorah Edge
area.
6) Amend Chapter 59, the Wetland Ordinance, to expand the purposes of the
WCO to include protection of some areas that do not meet the definition of
wetland according to the Minnesota Rules
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
155-156 1) Minnesota Bio Business Center Parking Ramp Project — Approval of State
Grant Agreement
157-158 2) Sound Amplification Requests
G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
159-160
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENTr"
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 8/21/06 11
AGENDA
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
„eM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT
C= ADMINISTRATOR I A
S.KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
—OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
ADMINISTRATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO BE HEARD - DEVORAH SHUBOWITZ
MEETING
DATE: 8/21
rfEM NO.
S. KVENVOLD
Devorah Shubowitz, Kids First SEIU Child Care Providers Union, requests an opportunity to address
the Mayor/Council about the current child care providers goals.
"Devorah Shubowitz has requested that this item be delayed until approximately 8:00 p.m.
COUNCIL ACTION: Moton by: Second by: to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 8/21/06
NDA SECTIVN:
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
ITEM NO.
D-1-22
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) Appointment to the Park Board
3) Amendment to Purchase Agreement —Olmsted Medical Center
4) Memorandum of Agreement with the Transportation Security Administration
5)' Public Transportation Franchise — Mohamed Hussein Salah
6) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous City Activities
7) Development Charge Assessment Interest Rate
8) Approval of Accounts Payable
9) Modified Personnel Policy — Reclassification Policy
10) Appointment — Assistant Fire Marshall — Rochester Fire Department
11) Adopt Ordinance for a Portion of Zone Change Petition #05-11, by Waterfront
Business Park LLC and Southern Woods Development LLC. The applicant is
proposing to amend the Floodway and Flood Prone (100-year floodplain)
boundaries.
12) Contribution Agreements for Project J-7744 —Hadley Valley Trunk Sanitary
Sewer to Serve Portions of Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Haverhill
Township (Service Area 29-A) Phase II
13) Development Agreement — Harvestview Development —Joel Bigelow &Sons
Enterprises, Inc.
14) Revocable Permit: Maine Street Development Amenities
15) Owner Contract — Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo Clinic Center
for Advanced Imaging Research Building Project — J5242
16) Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan — Salem Heights Estates Second
17) Applications for Year 2007 State Transit Assistance
18) Project Green Fleet / Installation of Diesel Emission Control Equipment
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by: To:
T
Page 2
August 21, 2006
19) Preliminary Project Analysis and Design Services: NE Main Level Reservoir
and Trunk Watermain, J7738
20) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges": Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve
Rose Haven Subdivision, J9750
21) Advertise for Bids: (J4946 & J4947) Bike Path Construction and Recondition
Project
22) 2004 Plant Expansion (J4390) Change Order No. 7
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8/21 /06
xENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.'�
Organizational Business Mayor's Office
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment to the Park Board PREPARED BY:
Mayor Brede
I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Park Board:
Nora Dooley
5497 Leslie Lane SW
Ms. Dooley will fill the expired term of Rod Toomey — First Ward.
The four-year term will run to June 2010 and is eligible for reappointment (second term) that will
expire 2014.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name_ Nora Patricia Dooley
a
fil.4i � �d v
Ward-1' A/�e
Address_5497 Leslie Lane SIN Zip Code _55902 �
Phone (H)_529-9049 (C)_358-3349 (FAX)
E-mail_norad@chariermi.net
How long have you been a resident of Rochester? _almost 7 years
Are you or any of your family members presently employed by the City of Rochester or serving
on any of the City's advisory boards?
Yes_ No _X_ If yes, explain:
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
Name of Employer:_ Currently not applicable
Occupation: —Stay-at-home Mom
Education: Bachelors of Science in Biochemistry; Masters of Science; PhD in
Neuroscience
Community Service/Activities
Member of the Board for Friends of Quarry Hill and Zumbro Valley Audubon Society;
Southern Hills Neighborhood Association and weekly volunteer at Lincoln at Mann
Choice School
Please list major responsibilities that you have had or currently have in a community project or
organization or in your occupation:
Principal organizer of the Annual Southern Hills and Willowcreek Reservoir
Neighborhood Clean -Up Event
Civic/Professional Organization Memberships:
Audubon Society, North American Butterfly Association, The Prairie Enthusiasts, The
Bluebird Recovery Program; Cornell Lab of Ornithology
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Please indicate why you are interested in being appointed to an advisory board, and why you
feel you are qualified to serve on the advisory board(s) previously indicated.
As the mother of an active seven year old daughter I am interested in doing whatever i
can to keep our parks and recreational facilities at their highest possible standards.
During my research training 1 became accustomed to and enjoyed working with a team, a
skill which I have always found to be essential for any board position.
What do you believe you could contribute if appointed to an advisory board? My knowledge of
native plants, birds and butterflies and my experiences as the mother of a young child I
believe would be of interest. As well, during my research training I became proficient at
data analysis and grant writing, two skills which I believe would be useful for bringing in
novel funding sources.
How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a Board or Commission?
I cannot think of a better experience than to work with a dedicated group of individuals.
who like myself, are committed to improving the parks and recreation facilities for all the
children in Rochester.
I am NOT available for Board/Commission meetings on the following evenings (circle):
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
I would be available on any of these evenings
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest may arise by the participation in any activity, recommended action, or
decision from which you receive or could potentially receive direct or indirect personal financial
gain, or other personal interest. A conflict of interest may also occur if you hold a private or
other public position in addition to your City advisory board which may interfere with your
discharge of your City responsibilities. In accordance with these definitions, do you have any
legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which in the course of your
participation in a City advisory board, could give rise to a conflict of interest?
Yes_ No _X_ If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper.
Do you own any real property located in Rochester, other than your residence, in which you
have a legal or equitable interest which, in the course of your participation in a City advisory
board, could give rise to a conflict of interest?
Yes _ No _X_ If yes, please provide details on a separate sheet of paper.
As a Board, Commission or Committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between
civic responsibility and personal/professional interests?
There are no issues that I can think of that may cause a conflict
As required by City ordinance, if appointed to a City advisory board, you must complete a
disclosure statement and file it with the City Clerk.
You may attach a resume if you desire. The selection process will vary according to the number
of applicants and vacancies, and may not include interviews with all candidates.
Thank you for your interest in serving on an advisory board for the City of Rochester.
l LA j�� r
Date: Signature
L�
Curriculum Vitae for Nora P. Dooley, PhD
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
5497 Leslie Lane SW
Rochester, MN 55902
norad(a)chartemri.net
EDUCATION:
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Bachelor of Science, Biochemistry received 1987
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Master of Science, Neuroscience received 1990
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
PhD, Neuroscience received 1999
HONORS/AWARDS:
Fonds de Recherche Scientique de Quebec (FRSQ) for doctoral research
Network of Center of Excellence Award for post -doctoral research
PREVIOUS STUDENT GOVERNMENT POSITIONS:
Academic Affairs Coordinator Biochemistry Undergraduate Society 1985
President Biochemistry Undergraduate Society 1986
President Neuroscience Graduate Society 1997
MEMBERSHIPS AND SOCIETIES:
Friends of Quarry Hill Nature Center Board Member
Zumbro Valley Audubon Society Board Member
Bluebird Recovery Program
The Prairie Enthusiasts
North American Butterfly Association
Cornell Lab of Ornithology- Project Feeder -watch
Cornell Lab of Ornithology- Birdhouse Network
Southern Hills Neighborhood Association- Coordinator Environmental Affairs
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 8/21/06
Consent
Administration
b
EM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Purchase Agreement - Olmsted Medical Center PKtPAKtu etr:
Doug Knott D
On 07/06/05 the City Council approved a purchase agreement for the sale of the City Public Works garage
property located at 1602 4`b Street SE to Olmsted Medical Center for purpose of expanding the hospital
complex. The purchase agreement provided that closing on the sale could occur any time between 12/31/08 and
12/31/11. Either party could trigger the closing by giving the other 24 month notice.
The Public Works Department is pursuing several options for a new garage including the possibility of co -
location with MNDOT at their Highway 52 North facility. The funding and construction of a joint garage
facility may require more time than was anticipated in the original purchase agreement. Working with OMC,
we have drafted an amendment to the agreement that establishes a firm closing date of 12/31/12 for the sale.
This date should provide the City with adequate time to fund, design and construct a new garage.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Approval of an amendment to the 7/28/05 purchase agreement with Olmsted Medical Center establishing a
closing date for the sale of the property of 12/31/12 with the Mayor and Clerk authorized to sign any documents
related to the transaction.
3OUNCIL ACTION: Moeon by: second by:_to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
A3 '
DATE: 08/21/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Rochester International Airport �_1.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Memorandum of Agreement with the Transportation Security PREPARED BY:
Administration. Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Transportation Security Administration to assume the
ownership of a new air conditioner unit after it is installed at the Rochester International Airport. The
Transportation Security Administration will purchase the air conditioner unit and have it installed in an area
where they perform bag screening that does not currently have air conditioning.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 15
DATE: 8/21/06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Transportation Franchise - Mohamed Hussein Salah PREPARED BY
Judy Scherr
Mohamed Hussein Salah has submitted an application for a Public Transportation License for the
City of Rochester under the company name of Hirale. Mr. Salah will operate a van capable of
hauling seven or few passengers, including the driver. He will be specifically using the service for
the Somali community in Rochester.
Mr. Salah will operate on a fixed route to and from the African Mall and Apache Mall in
Rochester to the Mayo Clinic, the Rochester Airport, Minneapolis Airport, Blooming Prairie,
Owatonna and the Minneapolis Immigration Office.
Mr. Salah will be available for questions if the Council has any.
Mr. Salah is currently working part-time at IBM in Rochester. He wishes to be able to operate his
business as soon as possible to serve his community. If the Council so desires, the rules can be
suspended and the Ordinance given a first and second reading. Mr. Salah would then only have a
30-day waiting period to operate his business rather than 60 days.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the Public Transportation Franchise for Mohamed Hussein Salah dba Hirale
and request suspension of the rules and give the Ordinance a first and second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
NEW LICENSE
DATE RECEIVED
RENEWAL LICENSE
APPLICATION NUMBER
RECEIPT NUMBER
AMOUNT PAID
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISE LICENSE
COVERING THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 20 d Co THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 20_Q-.
NAME OFAPPLICANT: / (FIRST)�� r (F(jLL MIDDLE) L (LAST)
HOME ADDRESS: ?C ij� CAV12 �1� �A y �f� the r' 1 e� //)I �
NAME OF COMPANY:
COMPANY ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (BUSINESS) (5-0 �j - (HOME) I �f ram%
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER • Alm q 4 2Z,? FEDERAL ID NUMBER:
DRIVER LICENSE # 5�- lUn -4 09-71Q- 0
DATE OF BIRTH: L)3- 0 %' / Ll Yi Z
STATE ID NUMBER: M AI
iJ
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE COMPLETED AND/OR ACCOMPANY THE COMPLETED
APPLICATION.
TYPE OF SERVICE PROVIDED: -T
2. NUMBER OF VEHICLES TO BE LICENSED: L
3. MAKE MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF EACH VEHICLE:
VEHICLE 41 E M C 3 S
VEHICLE #2
VEHICLE #3
VEHICLE #4
tl�tfNtc
STATE FIXED ROUTE OF OPERATION.•
1
�1�t�l�s�i�l►ia... �v
e
SCHEDULE OF FEES CHARGED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY:
Ck) "'�
L t
6, LICENSE FEE: $120.00 PER YEAR PER VEHICLE
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE COVERING THE FOLLOWING:
NOT LESS THAN $100, 000.00 FOR BODILY INJURY TO ANYONE PERSON
NOT LESS T..N $300, 000.00 FOR LN)JUP.IES TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON W1441CHARF
SUSTAINED IN THE SAME ACCIDENT
NOT LESS THAN $50, 000.00 FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE RESULTING FROMANY ONE
ACCIDENT
IF EMPLOYER, PROOF OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION COVERAGE (MINNESOTA
STATUTE 176.182)
MAKE CHECKS OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO CITY OF ROCHESTER AND RETURN TO THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, ROOM 135,201 4TH ST SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904. UPON ISSUANCE
OF THE LICENSE, LICENSE PLATES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EACH VEHICLE.
(SIGN TURE OF APPLICANT)
POLICE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
DATE OF COUNCIL ACTION:
LICENSE NUMBER:
REVISED 1118102
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE:
DATE LICENSE SENT:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
lq �
DATE: 08/21/06
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CITY CLERK
BETHANY
GERBER
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.
MISCELLANEOUS
Alzheimer's Association Memory Walk
1001 10 Street NW #800
Rochester, MN 55901
Held at the Elk's Lodge
Multiple Myeloma 5K Walk/Run
2516 23'd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55902
Held at Essex Park
Mayo Civic Center Bob Dylan Concert
30 Civic Center Drive
Rochester, MN 55904
Held at Mayo Field
SIGNS
Imaginality Inc.
6182 Hwy. 55
Golden Valley, MN 55422
HEATING CONTRACTOR
Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Inc.
4451 West 76' Street
Edina, MN 55435
08/26/06
09/09/06
09/07/06
SINGLE GAMBLING
Bear Creek Longbeards National Wild Turkey Federation
1002 Folters Ct. Se
Rochester, MN 55904
Held at Rochester Golf and Country Club
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
7:00 AM to 12:00 PM
6:30 PM to 11:00 PM
09/14/06
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
19
LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
August 21 ", 2006
SINGLE GAMBLING
Beighley Cup
1630 South Broadway
Rochester, MN 55904 10/13/06
Held at Holiday Inn South
St Francis of Assisi Church
1114 3rd street se
Rochester, MN 55904 10/01/06
Held at the Gymnasium
Pheasants Forever Tri-County Chapter
P.O. Box 6225
Rochester, MN 55902 03/07/07
Held at the Rochester International Event Center
March of Dimes
32 Woodlake Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Held at Rochester International Event Center
11/06/06
Southeastern MN Center for Independent Living
2720 North Broadway
Rochester, MN 55906 09/09/06
Held at Rookies Sports Grill and Bar
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds, and miscellaneous city activities.
II
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
FINANCE
DEPT:
���in VGJ DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ASSESSMENT INTEREST RATE
MEETING /
DATE: 08121 ]Ub
ITEM NO.
B. ATKINSON
Resolution Number 335-03, adopted on July 7, 2003, set the interest rate on non -Water
Quality Protection Program (WQPP) development charge assessments at 5%. The
resolution also requires an annual review of this rate on August 1st of each year. The
basis for setting this rate is the 20 Year Bond Buyers Index (BBI) Rate on the date closest
to August 1st. The BBI is an approximation of the rate the City would pay if 20 year bonds
were sold to fund infrastructure projects to be repaid through assessments.
On August 1, 2006 the 20 year BBI rate was 4.55%. The City is also allowed to set this rate to
cover administrative costs associated with processing and maintaining assessment payments and
records, usually estimated at about 1.0% to 1.5%.
The rate established on 8/15/2005 was 5.75%.
It is therefore recommended that the interest rate on special assessments be set at 6.5% for the
period August 12, 2006 through August 10, 2007. The next rate change will take place on August
13t", 2007.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the interest rate on non-WQPP special assessments to be
set at 6.50%, effective August 12, 2006 with the next update on August 13, 2007.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second
L%Do menls and Senl,psumullenCaNncal Senin,$lTeMWMa Inflmel Fn.stOLKUC 0.6 rxe doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT:
Consent Agenda Finance Department
Approval of Accounts Payable
Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements:
Investment purchases of $9,791,111.15
Accounts payable of $3,999 379.32
Total disbursements $13,790,490.47
(Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.)
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by Second by: to:
MEETING ,
DATE: 8/21 /06
Dale Martinson
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8/21/06
iENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I i em i
Consent I Human Resources
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Modified Personnel Policy - Reclassification Policy I PREP,
Linda
Human Resources working with the City Attorney's Office has modified the personnel policy titled Reclassification
Department Heads reviewed the draft personnel policy regarding Reclassification. The Personnel Advisory Committee
also reviewed the draft via e-mail
The previous policy and the modified policy are attached.
Council Action Requested:
Resolution authorizing the adoption of modifications to City Personnel Policy on Reclassification.
l
rV
�03b MCC/
Purpose:
City organizational or departmental changes may require the assignment of significantly greater
responsibilities to an existing position. In this circumstance the position may be considered for
reclassification usually involving a recommended change in pay range assignment. The policy
and procedure below are meant to provide consistency and timeliness in the review of requests
for reclassification.
Policy:
Reclassification requests may be initiated given significant changes in a position's
responsibilities that impact:
• formal preparation and experience required to qualify for the position without making the
requirement an obstacle to protected classes applying for the position vacancy in the
future
• decision making assigned to the position
• thinking challenges and problem solving within the position
• interactions and communications required of the position
When possible reclassification requests should be submitted along with other budget
preparation documents for the upcoming fiscal year so appropriate funding is reviewed and
available if the reclassification is approved by the City Administrator, Personnel Advisory
Committee (PAC), and the Council.
The request for reclassification is reviewed initially by the City Administrator. The City
Administrator will forward the reclassification request to Human Resources (HR) staff for review
and recommendation. Human Resources' involvement in the reclassification process ensures
adherence to City pay equity compliance and consistency in treatment of requests for
reclassification from throughout the City.
Requests for reclassification should pertain to the position, not the individual in the position. A
reclassification is appropriate when it pertains to a job title occupied by a sole incumbent who is
assigned significantly greater responsibility.
Information shall also be provided on position(s) in the department previously assigned the
responsibility so the effects on the classifications of other positions within the organization can
be ascertained.
A reclassification should not be requested where a job title already exists and the Department
Head or his/her designee wishes to post an additional position with that same job title. The
Department Head should include such a request in upcoming fiscal year budget requests and
follow the posting procedure so all eligible internal applicants may be considered.
Where reorganization is being planned within a department, the comprehensive reorganization
plan should be presented to the City Administrator. He may assign the Director of Human
Resources to conduct a comprehensive review of any reclassification request(s) that the
reorganization may generate.
Procedure:
At the direction of the City Administrator, a request for reclassification including a job description
questionnaire (JDQ) showing the changes and additions will be reviewed and analyzed by
Human Resources staff.
Within 30 work days of receipt of a reclassification request and supporting information in Human
Resources, the Director of Human Resources will prepare a recommendation to the City
Administrator, which he may forward to the Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC) and City
Council. The relationship to positions both above and below the position in the internal
departmental hierarchy will be documented so the appropriate comparisons are available to the
City Administrator.
The City Council will make the final decision regarding reclassification of a job title from the
present pay level to a higher pay level.
Once the Council has approved the reclassification request, Human Resources is responsible to
ensure communication with the bargaining group certified to represent the position.
An approved reclassification may result in the incumbent moving to an existing pay rate in the
new range which can be up to 5% greater than the incumbent's pay rate prior to the
reclassification or in an amount approved by the City Administrator.
If the position held by an individual is reclassified, his/her anniversary date remains the same
Revised June 2006
i
RECLASSIFICATION
Purpose: The policy and procedure below are meant to provide consistency and timeliness in
the review of requests for reclassification.
Policy: All requests for reclassification will be reviewed initially by the Director of Human
Resources and Human Resources staff. Within one month of receipt of the reclassification
request and required information as outlined below the Director of Human Resources will make
a recommendation to the City Administrator and City Council. The City Council will make the
final decision regarding a reclassification.
Reclassification requests should be initiated given significant changes in a position's
responsibilities. Requests for reclassification should pertain to the position, not the individual(s)
in the position.
Procedure for Reclassifications:
The Department Head or his/her designee will review the existing job description. Changes
to the job description should be highlighted (e.g., bold type) to differentiate modifications
from wording which previously existed. The Department Head should identify the
significant changes (if any) in:
A. Accountability (impact of an error on departmental/City resources, operations, goals
and objectives)
B. Judgment (complexity of position responsibilities and degree of independent action)
C. Minimum experience required (e.g., change from 1-3 years required to 3-5 years
required) or specificity of experience required.
D. Minimum education required (e.g. change from Associate of Arts degree required to
Bachelor's degree required).
E. Direction of others:
1. Does incumbent provide supervision for other employees?; or
2. Supervise a particular function but no employees?; or
3. Perform an ongoing training function for peers and coworkers?
2. Indicate the level of decision making required by an individual holding the position for which
the reclassification is being requested (see below). Determine if the level of decision
making has increased given the additions, modifications or deletions made to the job
description.
A. Determine method and establish priorities among tasks to be performed.
B. Make operational decisions to achieve goals and processes determined at a higher
level.
C. Determine processes to achieve predetermined goals and ensure the availability of
needed resources and technology.
D. Make decisions regarding resource allocation, direction of others, and means to
achieve goals given uncertainty of outcome(s) and incomplete information utilized to
make decisions. Establish precedent(s) for the future.
Y
9�
Request for "Market Adjustment" which does not relate to a Reclassification Request
Wage or salary adjustments for an employee or employees in a job title which are necessitated
by significant compensation increases made by other employers for similar positions maybe
recommended to the Director of Human Resources. The department head recommending a
market adjustment should provide copies of the wage information obtained or wage/salary
survey data to Human Resources. Human Resources will analyze the comparability of the job
or job title to that which exists in the City of Rochester. Budget considerations will also be
taken into account prior to a recommendation to the City Administrator for a market adjustment.
The City Administrator will review a request for a market adjustment (s) and approve if he/she
deems such an adjustment necessary to recruit or retain.
Other Changes Affecting a Position
A department head recommending a change in an employee's present status in regard to any of
the areas listed below, but not requesting a reclassification, should contact Human Resources
for assistance:
A. Exempt/Non Exempt Status
B. Bargaining Unit Assignment
C. Job Family/Pay Grade Assignment
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8121 /06
;ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: r r cm
Organizational / Consent Agenda Human Resources
PREP
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment - Assistant Fire Marshal — Rochester Fire Department Linda
The retirement of Ross Parker, Assistant Fire Marshal, effective April 30, 2006 created a
vacancy for the position of Assistant Fire Marshal.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted a list of three candidates for the position
of Assistant Fire Marshal from the certified eligibility roster and recommends the
appointment of one of the candidates to the Assistant Fire Marshal position.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Appointment of Jason Whitney to the position of Assistant Fire Marshal effective
August 31, 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
0
bow
ALLM1Ek1CA LRTS R O
CHESTER
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
JOE POWERS JOHN WITHERS ROGER FIELD
August 14, 2006
Honorable Council Members
City Council
City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Council Members
The retirement of Ross Parker, Assistant Fire Marshal, effective April 30, 2006 created a
vacancy for the position of Assistant Fire Marshal.
We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Assistant
Fire Marshal from the following list of qualified candidates
1. Jason Whitney
2. Jeff Howe
3. Michael Bemardin
Respectfully Submitted.
d . I
o W"14Q
John Withers
Secretary
Fire Civil Service Commission
an'Eoaal ovvomnity EmPloya
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 14, 2006
TO: Fire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler ';�) L4*�
SUBJECT: Request to Hire
I respectfully request that you forward to the City Council a list of candidates from the
established Assistant Fire Marshal eligibility roster for appointment to the one (1) vacant
Assistant Fire Marshal position. The vacancy was created by the retirement of Assistant Fire
Marshal Ross Parker.
Thank you.
AUG "ITI
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 8-21-06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I IT M 0. l ( ■
CONSENT PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Adopt Ordinance for a PORT/ONof Zone Change Petition #05-11, IPREPARED BY:
by Waterfront Business Park LLC and Southern Woods Development LLC. The Mitzi A. Baker,
applicant is proposing to amend the Floodway and Flood Prone (100-year floodplain) Senior Planner
boundaries. The property is located south of 48 h Street SW, west of TH 63 and east of
11"' Ave. SW. No structures will be affected by the increases in Base Flood Elevation.
August 17, 2006
On October 4, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing to consider Zone Change petition #05-11, At that time, the City
Council adopted a Resolution of Support with the intent to adopt an Ordinance to amend the Zoning Map if the proposal is
deemed acceptable by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the MN Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).
FEMA issued a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) for a portion of the property on July 21, 2006. This letter
documents the agency's approval of the amendment to the floodplain for the portion of the property described in their letter.
The property will be removed from the 100-year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area). It has been elevated above the 100
year floodplain elevation. The MN DNR was notified by FEMA as part of the process to consider and approved the LOMR-F.
Council Action Needed:
Adopt an Ordinance amending the Flood Districts for Lot 1, and a portion of Lot 2, Block 2,
Willow Creek Plaza as described in the LOMR-F issued by FEMA for Case No.: 06-05-BC57A
dated July 21, 2006.
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.
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
COUNCIL ACTION:
on Monday August 21, 2006 in the Council/Board
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
i
J
i
O
a
M LY P
1fNWT
I ,
TRUNK FM 63 31
R/! PI+WT NO. 55-43 x t'!Y -'x
-----------
-------------------- — ------
rR
�BlhR 1' CV F �
o
�Cq
6 � '
f
P
„t
LL
i
of
xr Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
July 21, 2006
THE HONORABLE ARDELL BREDE
MAYOR, CITY OF ROCHESTER
CITY HALL
201 4TH STREET SE, ROOM 281
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
DEAR MR. BREDE:
CASE NO.: 06-05-BC57A
COMMUNITY: CITY OF ROCHESTER, OLMSTED
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
COMMUNITY NO.: 273246
31
This is in reference to a request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determine
if the property described in the enclosed document is located within an identified Special Flood
Hazard Area, the area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled
or exceeded in any given year (base flood), on the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
map. Using the information submitted and the effective NFIP map, our determination is shown on the
attached Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) Determination Document. This
determination document provides additional information regarding the effective NFIP map, the legal
description of the property and our determination.
Additional documents are enclosed which provide information regarding the subject property and
LOMR-Fs. Please see the List of Enclosures below to determine which documents are enclosed.
Other attachments specific to this request may be included as referenced in the
Determination/Comment document. If you have any questions about this letter or any of the
enclosures, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA
MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower
Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439.
Sincerely,
William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Acting Chief
Engineering Management Section
Mitigation Division
LIST OF ENCLOSURES:
LOMR-F DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
cc: State/Commonwealth NFIP Coordinator
Community Map Repository
Region
Mr. Jerry Schultz
Page 1 of 5
Date: July 21, 2006
Case In.: 06-05-BC57A
LOI
O�TN�\FH
Federal Emergency Management Agency
�4 Washington, D.C. 20472
Ar�ND Sf•�,
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION
LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF ROCHESTER, OLMSTED
Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Block 2, Willow Creek Plaza, as shown
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
on the Plat recorded as Document No. A-1101612, in the Office of
Property Records and Licensing, Olmsted County, Minnesota.
COMMUNITY
The portion of property to be removed from the SFHA is more
particularly described by the following metes and bounds:
COMMUNITY NO: 275246
Portion of Lot 2:
NUMBER: 27109CO303D
AFFECTED
BEGINNING at the Northeast
MAP PANEL
DATE: 4/17/1995
FLOODING SOURCE: SOUTHEAST BRANCH OF
APPROXIMATE LATITUDE 8 LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 43.951,-92.472
WILLOW CREEK
SOURCE OF LAT 8 LONG: PRECISION MAPPING STREETS 4.0 DATUM: NAD 93
DETERMINATION
OUTCOME
1%ANNUAL
LOWEST
LOW
WHAT IS
CHANCE
ADJACENT
LC.
LOT
BLOCK!
SUBDIVISION
STREET
REMOVED
FLOOD
FLOOD
GRADE
ELEVATION
SECTION
FROM THE
ZONE
ELEVATION
ELEVATION
(NGVD 29)
SFHA
(NGVD 291
(NGVD 29)
2
2
Willow Creek Plaza
—
Portion of
X
1081.9 feet
—
1083.5 feet
Property
(unshaded)
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the Flood having a 1-percent chance of being
equaled or exceeded in any given year base flood).
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.
LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION STUDY UNDERWAY
FILL RECOMMENDATION STATE LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA
This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision based
on Fill for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we
have determined that the described portion(s), of the property(ies) islare not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a
1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base good). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the
subject property from the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not
apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk
Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and haw one can apply is enclosed.
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this
determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627
(877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA
22304-6439.
,nru'�.., o nl.�n,nn b (`CAA L�}inn Cniaf
Page 2 of 5 I I Date: July 21, 2006 I Case No.: D6-05-BC57A I LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA
LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED)
comer of Lot 2, Block 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 88°00'00" West, 147.02 feet; thence South
45e09'17" West, 132.38 feet; thence South 44050'43" East, 235.19 feet; thence South 89a56'29" East, 84.01 feet;
thence North 01157'2B" West, 255.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
FILL RECOMMENDATION (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.)
The minimum NFIP criteria for removal of the subject area based on fill have been met for this request and the
community in which the property is located has certified that the area and any subsequent structure(s) built on the
filled area are reasonably safe from flooding. FEMA's Technical Bulletin 10-01 provides guidance for the
construction of buildings on land elevated above the base flood elevation through the placement of fill. A copy of
Technical Bulletin 10-01 can be obtained by calling the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627
(877-FEMA MAP) or from our web site at http:l/www.fema.govlmitttb1001.pdf. Although the minimum NFIP
standards no longer apply to this area, some communities may have floodplain management regulations that are
more restrictive and may continue to enforce some or all of their requirements in areas outside the Special Flood
Hazard Area.
PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the
preceding 7 Property.)
Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special
Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains
subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management.
STUDY UNDERWAY (This Additional Consideration applies to all properties in the LOMR-F
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL))
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. However, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency is currently revising the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map for the community.
New flood data could be generated that may affect this property. When the new NFIP map is issued it will
supersede this determination. The Federal requirement for the purchase of flood insurance will then be based on
the newly revised NFIP map.
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the
FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439.
rrr��� /? � 12---
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 8/21 /06
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Contribution Agreements for project J-7744 — Hadley Valley Trunk PREPARED BY:
Sanitary Sewer to Serve Portions of Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 f M. Nigbur
and 21, Haverhill Township (Service Area 29-A) Phase II
The City Council approved a Feasibility Report for Project J-7744 - Hadley Valley Trunk Sanitary Sewer to Serve
Portions of Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Haverhill Township (Service Area 29-A) Phase Il. A requirement
established by the City Council for acceptance of this project is that at least 50% of the Owners in the area served by
each respective phase of the project sign a Contribution Agreement prior to commencement of the project. The
following owners anticipate developing their respective properties at some future date and have executed a
Contribution Agreement for the sanitary sewer availability charged (SAC) applicable to their specific property.
Stonehedge Townhouses, LLC Paks Properties IV, LLC
Cassidy Land Development, LLC Stonehedge Land Development, LLC
Arcon Development, Inc. Oak Crest Enterprises
Morris Hills North, LLC Hadley Valley Partners of Rochester, LLC
Morris Hills Land Development, LLC
The SAC charge per developable acre has been determined to be $4,616.00 based on the costs of the project. This
SAC charge will be adjusted annually in August of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index. The charges will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the each
owner's respective property occurs and will be used to calculate the charges for that phase of development.
Owner agrees to pay their share of SAC charges for the Property pursuant to the following minimum payment schedule
commencing in 2007.
i) Years 1-3 — 5% of the minimum charge identified above as adjusted annually for ENR each year
ii) Years 4 -7— 10% of the minimum charge identified above as adjusted annually for ENR each year
iii) Years 8-10— 15% of the minimum charge identified above as adjusted annually for ENR each year
In the event the Owner develops all or part of the Property within the first 10 years after execution of the agreement,
the Owner shall pay SAC Charges based on the actual developable acres of the Property that is developed/platted.
Owner shall receive credit for prior payments of SAC when calculating the SAC charges payable at the time of
development/platting of the Property.
Owner agrees to execute a City prepared Development Agreement which shall outline all remaining development
related issues for the Property and the payment of the remaining development related charges prior to development of
any portion of the Property.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Contribution Agreements with the property
owners listed above.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
3ENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Harve
Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc.
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
Development —
MEETING 43
DATE: 8121 /06
ITEM NO.
b -t"3
PR PARED BY:
p,1W M. Nigbur j/J
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. (Owner) and the City Staff have had discussions relating to
impacts on the public infrastructure resulting from the development of the Owner's property to be
known as Harvestview Development. Based on the discussions, the content for a development
agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the
agreement include the following:
Storm Water Management
• Dedication of ROW
• Transportation Improvements
City/Owner Contract
Transportation Improvements
• Pedestrian Facilities
• Park Dedication
Wetlands/Open Space/Outlots
• Owner's payment of the development related charges including Storm Water Management,
Sanitary Sewer Availability, Water Availability, and Substandard Street & Transportation
Improvement District Charges.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the
Development Agreement.
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Harvestview Development Agreement with Joel
Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8/21 /08
GENDA SECTION: ( ORIGINATING
DEPT: I ITEM' 1�
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable
Maine Street
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
Maine Street Development Company of Rochester, LLC (Owner) owns property described as Lots 2
and 3, Block 1 of Maine Street Development. Owner has requested a Revocable Permit to construct a
waterfall and recirculation system, headwall, entry signage, pedestrian/pond lighting, landscaping,
irrigation and walking paths within and around the storm water detention facilities adjacent to the
described property. Owner also seeks permission to construct upgraded streetscapes, and irrigation
and planter beds in the public right of way adjacent to the described property. The proposed
improvements will meet the following criteria:
• Owner shall construct all amenities according to the plans included with the revocable permit.
• Owner shall perform all work and bear all costs associated with the installation, maintenance
and repair of all improvements.
• Owner will follow the required maintenance guidelines set forth in Exhibit B of the revocable
permit.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The
Owner has executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and
liability protection for the City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit with Maine Street Development
Company of Rochester LLC to allow the construction of a waterfall and recirculation system, headwall,
entry signage, pedestrian/pond lighting, landscaping, irrigation and walking paths within and around the
storm water detention facilities adjacent to the described property and for construction of upgraded
streetscapes, and irrigation and planter beds in the public right of way adjacent to the described
property.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
GENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /
DATE: 08/ 1/06
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo
Clinic Center for Advanced Imaging Research Building Project —
J5242
ITEM NO.
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
1ARED BY:
M. Baker
Mayo Clinic Rochester (Owner) & Opus Northwest Construction LLC (Contractor) are requesting a City -
Owner Contract J5242 consisting of 'Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo Clinic Center for
Advanced Imaging Research Building Project".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5242,
"Public Improvements Associated with the Mayo Clinic Center for Advanced Imaging Research Building
Project".
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
ING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan — Salem Heights Estates Second
August 11, 2006
Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan:
/
MEETING A
DATE: 8/21/06
ITEM NO.
John
The applicant has proposed the filling of 0.81 acres of Type 2 wetland on property owned by Ron Yanish, The
property is located uphill of West Circle Drive in the Salem Heights subdivision. The wetland area is a sidehill
Decorah edge related wetland that was previously avoided during the development of Salem Heights. Two wetland
areas remain after utility construction appears to have caused the loss of hydrology on the previously avoided wetland.
The wetlands are a part of several residential lots and will be affected by future use of the lots. The wetland impact is
37,932 square feet (0.87 ac.).
The Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed the alternatives and found that they meet the minimum standards for
sequencing. The TEP agrees that avoidance of the wetlands is not feasible due to the configuration and location of the
wetland and loss of 36. 292 square feet of the larger wetland. The applicant proposes replacement at a wetland bank
in Dodge County within the Zumbro River watershed. The total wetland replacement is at a 2:1 replacement ratio and
shall be 1.74 acres, half in new wetlands and half in buffer area. The TEP recommended approval of the wetland
replacement plan.
Planning Staff Recommendation:. The staff recommends approval of this replacement plan with two conditions:
1. that the applicant provide a copy of the wetland purchase agreement between the wetland bank owner inJ
applicant.
2. that the applicant provide a copy of the final wetland bank withdrawal form after completion of the wetland bank
purchase and application submittal to the BWSR. The applicant should use the standard form provided by the
BWSR.
City Council Action:
1. If the council agrees it should pass a resolution approving the replacement plan.
Attachments:
1. Report from the applicant.
Distribution:
1. City Attorney
2. City Administrator's Office
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
M
J Lawler Environmental Inc.
1418 1° Ave. NE Rmhesmr, MN 55906 Phone: (507) 282110901Fe : (507) 282-4405
July 19, 2006
Mr. John Harford
Rochester Wetland LGU Administrator
Rochester/Ohnsted Planning Dept.
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Wetland Mitigation Report — Salem Heights Estates Second
M
,ECEI` E-D
PUL 2 Ot '2006
ROCHESTER - OLFAS T EO
Per our discussions at several TEP meetings this year, a preliminary grading plan has
been developed for Outlot B of Salem Heights Estates. The proposed re -platting of this
outlot will be Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 1, Salem Heights Estates Second (see Figure 1 —
Preliminary Grading Plan).
On August 1, 2002, a Wetland Delineation Report for the Salem Heights property was
submitted to your office. The USCOE routine wetland delineation as described in this
report determined the boundary of a Type 2 wetland seep within Outlot B. A survey of
this wetland established the location as shown in Figure 2 — Outlot B Wetland Boundary.
The area of this wetland, including the small isolated feature in the southeasterly quadrant
was approximately 35,292 square feet (0.81 acre).
A routine three year inspection of the wetland boundary within Outlot B indicated a
change in the wetland hydrology. During the spring of 2006, several visits in April
through May 15th indicated a lack of wetland hydrology throughout much of the 2002
delineation. Mr. Floyd Whitaker, Olmsted SWCD Director and Rochester TEP member,
confirmed the change in hydrology during an April 28, 2006 site visit. Mr. Whitaker also
recalled the presence of primary wetland hydrology within much of the wetland boundary
during the delineation review and approval process in 2002.
At the request of the Rochester TEP, a re -delineation of the wetland boundary(s) was
conducted in May of 2006. This wetland delineation was based on the presence of
primary wetland hydrology, as hydrophytic plant communities and hydric soils have not
changed significantly from 2002 conditions. Two (2) small remnant wetland features
were delineated as shown in Figure 3 — Wetland Delineation Map. The northwesterly
feature is approximately 2640 sq. ft. ( 0.06 acre) in size and the southeasterly wetland
feature is approximately 814 sq.ft. (0.02 acre) in size. These remnant features, totaling
f 11.11C1I L.
�1
approx. 3454 square feet (0.08 acre), are located within the original wetland boundary as
delineated in 2002 (see Figure 2 — Outlot B Wetland Boundary Map). This is a loss of
over 90 percent of the original wetland.
As shown in Figure 2, the Applicant has avoided the wetlands delineated in 2002, platting
the general area as an Outlot. Reasons for the change in the wetland hydrology at this
site may relate to disturbance due to street construction and (or) utility installation above
Outlot B sometime in 2003. Attached are record drawings of the road and utilities
constructed in this area (see Attachment A). The depth of the sanitary sewer below the
existing private drive is an average of near 10 feet. This depth and disturbance from the
road grading could have disrupted groundwater flow patterns along the shale/limestone
interface. The Engineer indicated clay plugs were installed along the sanitary sewer
trench to inhibit piping of groundwater within the granular backfill. However, the
watershed above Outlot B is small as shown in Figure 4 — USGS Map. Due to the nose
slope landform and shallow bedrock soils in this area, the watershed area may resemble
the "groundwater -shed" in size and extent. The small area of this watershed and
potentially the "groundwater -shed" would make even minor alterations in sub -water flow
patterns much more significant at the discharge point.
It is the understanding of the Applicant any proposed changes to the land use of Outlot B
would, at the request of the TEP, require mitigation of any pre-existing wetland features.
With intentions to re -plat Outlot B, the Applicant would propose to replace 90 percent of
the original 2002 wetland delineation off -site at a 2:1 replacement ratio. In addition, the
Applicant proposes to replace the small southeasterly remnant wetland at the same
replacement ratio. Total offsite wetland replacement required would be 32.652 sq. ft.
0.75 acre or 92.5 percent of the original 2002 wetland delineation.
The Preliminary Grading Plan (see Figure 1) proposes grading requirements for three (3)
residential lots. In keeping the grading area small, stormwater runoff can be directed to
the wooded backyards, decreasing the fill requirements necessary to divert stormwater to
the street. Less fill requirements will allow for the avoidance of impacts to the
northwesterly wetland. This wetland will remain, hopefully as a contiguous extension of
the wooded corridor along the back yards. The southeasterly wetland, however, will be
easily isolated if the area is platted as a lot, even if no grading occurs at the wetland site.
The favorable grade of the upper portion of this wetland will be a prime area for
recreational and other residential activity and will probably not survive as a functioning
wetland in the future. This wetland is also extremely small due to lack of hydrology and
may continue to shrink even if avoided.
Attached for your review is a Joint Agency Application for Wetland Projects, requesting
replacement of 0.75 acre of Type 2 wetland. Replacement credits of equal or greater
wetland function and value will be purchased off -site at the Skov Wetland Bank in Dodge
County, located within the Zumbro River Watershed. A total of 0.75 acre of Type 2
NWC and 0.75 acre of upland buffer PVC will be purchased. An Application for the
Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the State Wetland Bank will be submitted
concurrently with LGU approval of this replacement plan.
We request to represent the Applicant upon review of this application with the TER
Please contact us if any further information is needed. On behalf of the Applicant, we
appreciate your time and consideration.
Respectively Yours:
Stephan E. Lawler
Lawler Environmental, Inc.
Cc: -Ron Yannish
-Wade DuMond
-David Studenski USCOE
Attachments: -Figure 1 — Preliminary Grading Plan
-Figure 2 — Outlot B Wetland Boundary Map
-Figure 3 — Wetland Delineation Map
-Figure 4 — USGS Map
-Attachment A — Record Drawings of Private Drive
m
I
I
iwt�
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 8-21-06
DATE:
AGENDA
SENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM APPLICATIONS FOR YEAR 2007 STATE TRANSIT PREPARED BY:
ASSISTANCE A KNAUER
Staff has prepared applications for calendar year 2007 State transit assistance. The State
amounts noted below are based on a 3% increases over 2006funding levels
Regular Route
A budget of $4,091,006 is projected for the regular route system. The service is contracted forwith
Rochester City Lines. The proposed budget provides that 40% of these expenses will be covered
by fares and advertising revenue. The State application for regular route operations projects
$1,403,485 in State operating funds. This includes general fund and dedicated funds from the
Minnesota Vehicle Excise Sales Tax. Projected program funding also includes $1,027,157 in
federal funds. MnDOT required that the budget submitted reflect no increase in service. However,
the application does identify the need for expansion of service under unmet needs. If additional
funds become available expansion of service will be considered.
Dial -A -Ride
A budget of $627,864 is projected for 2007 dial -a -ride operations. Program revenues (fares) will
fund 20% of the operating cost. The State application for dial -a -ride projects $437,566 in State
operating assistance funds. No changes in service levels are proposed. ZIPS is a required service
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed budget requires a local share of
$55,598.
The proposed budgets and subsequent applications for State funding are still subject to the
Council's deliberations during the budget process.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
(1) Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing submission of the an application to the State
of Minnesota for 2007 transit assistance for regular route operations and the signing
of any subsequent grant contract with MNDOT by the Mayor and City Clerk.
(2) Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing submission of the an application to the State
of Minnesota for 2007 transit assistance for dial -a -ride operations and the signing of
any subsequent grant contract with MNDOT by the Mayor and City Clerk.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:,
Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE:
`ENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITE11A NO.�
PUBLIC WORKS TL�
ITEM PROJECT GREEN FLEET / INSTALLATION OF DIESEL PREPARED BY:
EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT I A KNAUER
Minnesota Environmental Initiatives a non-profit corporation also know as Clean Air Minnesota is
partnering with bus operations around the State to install pollution control equipment on older
diesel buses. The equipment significantly reduce crankcase and particulate emissions. The filters
are sold through the program at a discount to school bus and transit agencies. Data will also be
collected for a 5 year period.
The City selected 8 buses in the 1999-2000 model years. The City's oldest active buses are 1989
models. However, these buses would be retired before the 5 year demonstration is complete. The
cost per system is $2,785 per bus plus installation which will be done under the operating contract
with Rochester City Lines. Laidlaw Transit which contracts with Mayo Clinic for shuttle service and
provides school bus service will also be participating.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
(1) Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing execution of a contract with Minnesota
Environmental Initiatives to participate in Project Green Fleet with the retrofit of
pollution control equipment on up to 8 transit buses.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
°NDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
Preliminary Project Analysis and Design Services: NE
Reservoir and Trunk Watermain, J7738
MEETING
DATE: 8/21 /06
NO.
\I
J. Loehr
This is a proposal from Yaggy Colby Associates to provide Preliminary Project Analysis and Design
Engineering Services for the following local improvement project:
Proiect No. M4-58. J7738
"Construction of Main Level Reservoir in Morris Hills Development to Serve the NE Main Level
Service Area."
Yaggy Colby is capable of providing the desired level of Preliminary Project Analysis and Design
Engineering Services for this project. Yaggy Colby represents a number of private developers in the
area and is able to coordinate the alignment of trunk watermain through the future developments. The
Department of Public Works recommends that Yaggy Colby Associates be retained to provide
Preliminary Project Analysis and Design Engineering Services for the project. Compensation is
proposed at the actual cost and expense fee structure not to exceed $74,823.
The project is included in the 2006-2011 Sewer & Water CIP, page 60. item no. 4
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of Preliminary Project Analysis and Design Engineering
Service Agreement with Yaggy Colby Associates for project J7738.
Attachments: Yaggy Colby Engineering Service Proposal
Project Location Map
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to
s'i ti• III "�f�..".a ___
J
Mr. Jim Loehr
City of Rochester
Department of Public Works
2010 Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: REVISED Proposal for Engineering Services
Preliminary and Final Design Proposal — City Project No. M4-58, J7738
Main Level Reservoir in Morris Hills Development
To Serve the NE Main Level Service Area
Dear Mr. Loehr:
Yaggy Colby Associates is pleased to respond to your request for professional services
related to the preliminary and final design of a main level reservoir in the Morns Hills
Development area. The project also includes trunk water main as described in the
Request for Proposal.
A!
Efl61UEEflS
flUCUI1EtT
1UflUSCflP
SUNUE40flS
The project will consist of constructing a 0.75 to 1.0 million gallon welded steel
reservoir with a geodesic dome cover. The site for the reservoir has already been
selected and platted in the Morris Hills Subdivision. The project will also include
installation of main level trunk water main from North Broadway to the reservoir and
from the reservoir in a northerly direction to 48`h Street NE. This northerly alignment is
expected to pass through the Dodge property, which is controlled by Arcon
Development. The proposed fees include the work of establishing an alignment through
this property. To -date, a GDP for this property has not been submitted.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The firm proposes to provide the following services:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN ANALYSIS
• Obtain soil data and rock elevations for the site and trunk water alignments
• Determine reservoir size limitations based on the site size
• Perform preliminary footing analysis
• Determine trunk water main alternate alignment options and profiles
• Review alternate alignments for potential wetland and environmental impacts
• Submit footing analysis and trunk water main alignments to the city
• Submit engineer's preliminary estimates based on footing analysis, size of reservoir
and trunk water main alignment selected by the city
L
LBI
9CJ.ATES' '
se-�osa
ssaw'hX
th fill tifice>`
i61-90A0
ill Iffito:
27-2909
l
Mr. Jim Loehr
August 16, 2006
Page 2
FINAL DESIGN
• Detailed survey work (elevations, etc.) based on city alignment selection
• Submit easement legal descriptions and exhibits
• Submit permit applications for reservoir and trunk water main construction
• Conduct a wetland survey of the final alignments and complete enviromnental reporting, as
necessary
• Delineate any wetlands and prepare mitigation plan, as necessary
• Prepare site grading plan
• Prepare erosion control plan and SWPPP
• Submit 50% completed plans and specifications to the city for review
• Submit revised engineer's estimate at 50% design completion
• Submit final plans and specifications for city review and approval
• Submit final engineer's estimate at 100% completion
• Assist in bidding process
• Provide electronic files in a format compatible with the city programs
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
The following schedule is based on a start date of September 1, 2006. if factors beyond our
control result in failure to achieve these milestones, then the final completion date must be
revised accordingly.
Collect data, develop alignment options
Sep1ber , 20006
September 06
Identify preferred alignment
Submit preliminary plans and estimate for review
September 22, 2006
Coordinate plan revisions with city staff
October 6, 2006
Submit final plans and specifications
October 20, 2006
Advertise for bids
November 3, 2006
November 28, 2006
Bid opening date
PROJECT FEES
The services required to complete the preliminary and final design are proposed to be performed
on an hourly basis plus expenses, as requested in the Request For Proposal. A spreadsheet
summary of the proposed fees is attached for review. The fees presented below are estimated
fees.
Preliminary Design $19,306
Final Design $50,717
Geotechnical Expenses for Soil Borings $4,000
Plan and Specifications Reproduction Expenses $800
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEES & EXPENSES $74,823
U3 r
Mr. Jim Loehr
August 16, 2006
Page 3
PROJECT TEAM
Mr. Don Miller will serve as the project manager for Yaggy Colby Associates on this project,
and will serve as the primary contact with the City of Rochester. Mr. Bill Anderson will
coordinate sizing and design of the water reservoir. Mr. Dillon Dombrovski will serve as the
assistant engineer on the project. Mr. Chris Munn will coordinate collection of existing and
needed survey data. Mr. Peter Oetliker will oversee preparation of easement descriptions and
documentation.
SUMMARY
Yaggy Colby Associates appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal and to work with the
City of Rochester on this project. We are very familiar with the project site and the developers
and property owners in this area. We have the expertise and staff available to continence work
on this immediately to meet the November 30, 2006 bid date.
If you have any questions regarding this proposal or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Y�AGG,Y�, COLBY ASSOCIATES
Don Miller, PE
DM:bd
YCA #9740
Attachments
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 0<
DATE: 8121 /06
ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment of "Unpaid Charges": Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
PREPARED BY: [
r
to Serve Rose Haven Subdivision, J9750
J. Loehr
The final projects quantities and costs for the following local improvement project have been
determined:
Project No. M1-06, J9750
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Rose Haven Subdivision Area."
The project was constructed under the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP).
Under the WQPP each property owner is required to enter into a Utility Connection Agreement prior to
connecting their property to the city sewer and water systems. The Agreement identifies the charges that
the owner is required to pay to the City for the right to connect to the city sewer and water systems. The
Agreement states that no payment of the charges is required nor is interest charged until April 21, 2006.
In the Agreement the owners agree to have payment of their charges considered delinquent pursuant to
"unpaid
Rochester Code of Ordinance Chapter 28 and assessed against their property as an charge".
The property owners waive their right to a notice and hearing of the levying of the "unpaid charges" as
an assessment.
This RCA is prepared for the purpose of adopting a Resolution establishing the Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain Connection Charge Rates and the Sewer and Water Service Charge rates for the project,
and to adopt a Resolution levying the "unpaid charges" as assessments.
The rates for the project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge $ 98.66 per foot of frontage
Watermain Connection Charge Rate $ 47.12 per foot of frontage
Sewer and Water Service Connection Charge $1,500.00 per service connection
Concrete Curb & Gutter $ 12.00 per foot of frontage
Unpaid Charges
An amount of $286,985.37 for J9750, an amount of $5,000.00 for project J9603 and an amount of
$3,750.00 for project J9598 remain as "unpaid charges". Notice of Assessment will be mailed by the City
Clerk to each property owner informing them of their payment obligations. The Notices will indicate that
payment can be made with no interest charged if payment is received within 30 days of the date of
Notice. If the owner chooses to have the "unpaid charges" placed on their property taxes or does not
make payment within 30 days of the date of Notice then interest will be charged from April 21, 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution to establish the project Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge rate of
$98.66 per foot of frontage, a Watermain Connection Charge rate of $47.12 per foot of frontage, a
Sewer and Water Service Charge rate at $1,500.00 per service, and the Concrete Curb & Gutter
rate of $12.00 per foot of frontage.
2. Adopt resolution levying the "unpaid charges" for projects J9750, J9603 and J9598 as assessments.
Interest will be charged at 7.5% annually on the "unpaid" balance consistent with the terms and
conditions of the Water Quality Protection Program and the Utility Connection Agreements.
Attachment: Budget Data Sheet
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
8/16/2006
act Manager:
Contractor:
BUDGET DATA SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
James M. Loehr Engineering Firm: City
SJ Louis Project Inspector: Paul Graff
Project No.
M1-06 ILaP11tat
Improvement Information:
Date of Origination
J No.
State Aid No.
J9750
Year:
Type: 58W
JPage No.:
CIP Project NO.:
01 /16/02
Description:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Rose Haven
Project Substantial
Completion Date
COUNCIL ACTION DATE
PROJECT BUDGET
CONTRACT
FINAL
(FEASIBILITY REPORT)
(AWARD)
COST
CONSTRUCT) ON COSTS
161,640.46
Water (150)
225,676.70
Sanitary Sewer (250)
340,226.65
Street (350)
44,546.60
Storm Sewer(450)
36,500.00
Sewer and Water Service Connections
-16,D00.00
Liquidated Damages
SUB -TOTAL
0.00
0.00
792,590.41
0.00
0.00
144,725.09
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
0.00
Land Acquisition
-
S -
5 937,315.50
TOTAL
S
FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
2200
Street Resurfacing
2201
Street Rehabilitation
4844
MSAS Reserves
4946
Bikeways
6501
Storm Water Management
7228
8201
8202
8204
Hadley Valley-TID
WAC/Future Connection Charges
SAC/Future Connection Charges
Assessments (Total Assessment Role)
,69 99
21 , 699..05
286,985.37
owner Advance Payments
88,384.17
8206
Traffic Calming
9209
Pedestrian Facility Charges
8212
SAC/Capacity Relief
8222
Sanitary Sewer Tunnel
8307
Sidewalk Construction
9757
Northwest/Kings Run-TID
9646
Willow Creek-TID
8201
WAC/Previously Collected
129,350.00
8202
SAC/Previously Collected
70,200.00
Water Utility Share
13,364.23
9205
WQPP Sates Tax Revenue
280,635.69
TOTAL
$
F
'Verify availability of funds with Tonya Klees at feasibility.
;ENDA SECTION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING QI
DATE: 08/21/06
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids: (J4946 & J4947)
Bike Path Construction and Recondition Project
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following
Protect:
City No. 7503-16-95 (J4946 & J4947)
Bike Path Construction and Recondition Project
ITEM NO.
BY:
Proiect Background
The city bike path system is constructed in segments using a variety of funding sources and developer
contribution. As the system develops, short gaps between sections of the path system result as the
construction obligation of a developer or the scope of a city project does not connect to another nearby
path section. The city needs to complete short path segments to close these gaps that remain. Four
gaps have been identified:
a. On 55'" Street NW between the park entrance and the path on 550, just west of the Douglas Trail.
b. On 41" Street NW between the North Star Business Center and the path on 41'� Street just east
of the Douglas Trail.
c. On South Broadway between the north end of the path at WalMart and the pedestrian bridge at
Golden Hills School.
d. 2nd Street SW near Grandville housing development.
In addition to the construction of short bike path segments needed to connect sections of bike path,
some segments of path require reconditioning. The segment of path along the north side of 12'" Street
SW (TH 14) and continuing along the east side of 14' Avenue SW needs to be reconditioned. The
Project to construct public sidewalk at various locations was included in the City's 2005 — 2010 Capital
Improvement Program, with a recommended 2005 construction.
This bike path improvement work is identified in the 2006-2011 CIP on page 50, Lines 2 & 3. These
projects will be completed in 2007.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening
on September 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk:
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning August 25, 2006.
Att.rhTcntc' NnfirP of Rid-q
COUNCIL ACTION: mouan
i
Location Map
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
tGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
Consent Agenda Water Reclamation Plai
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Expansion (34390)
ChanEe Order No. 7
MEETING WA
ITEM N06` ,;Ly
PREPARED BY:
Lvle J. Zimmerman
Sheehy Construction Company, the contractor on the 2004 Plant Expansion Project, suffered losses associated
with flooding on the construction site during rain events on June 8, 2005 and August 9, 2005. The contract
documents require that the City carry flood insurance for this project and the Contractor is responsible for
$10,000 deductible for each event. The City did obtain flood insurance with a deductible of $250,000 for each
event. The insurance carrier reviewed documentation regarding the flooding and the losses suffered by the
contractor and determined that these were covered events, but since the two claims were each less than the
$250,000 deductible amount, they had no further responsibility. The contractor claimed damages totaling
$161,456.13 and after evaluation of the claims by the claims adjuster and the engineer, city staff agreed to
approve losses totaling $144,555.84. After subtracting $10,000 deductible for each event which the contractor is
responsible for, the City's responsibility is $124,555.84.
The City has agreed to reimburse the Contractor for these losses through the contract with Change Order No. 7.
Total for Change Order No. 7 $124.555.84
No extension of time will be included with Change Order No. 7
Original Contract Amount
$23,647,578.00
Change Order No. 1
Change Order No. 2
Change Order No. 3
Change Order No. 4
Change Order No. 5
Change Order No. 6
Change Order No. 7
Original Substantial Completion Date
Original Final Completion Date
Revised Substantial Completion Date
Revised Substantial completion date
$ 195,204.00
$ 103,113.00
$ 86,369.00
$ 373,000.00
$ 103,810.00
$ 91,702.00
$ 124555.84
Total Change Orders
Re -wised Contract Amount
$ 1,077,753.84
$24,725,331.84
October 6, 2006
January 4, 2007
December 1, 2006
March 1, 2007
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that Change Order No. 7 for the 2004 Plant Expansion Project be approved to increase
the contract amount by $124,555.84
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 8/21/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
onsent Agenda
FIRE
C) -23
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Approval of Wal-Mart Grant for recruitment initiative
Curt Pronk
The Rochester Fire Department is proceeding with an initiative to recruit firefighters within the community. This
initiative is a marketing plan geared toward minorities and protected class individuals. The goal of this plan is to help
the Fire Department become more diverse and be more reflective of the community. This grant will help fund this
initiative. We are seeking council approval of this $1,000 grant check from Wal-Mart to address this initiative.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
The Rochester Fire Department requests permission to accept this grant money from Wal-Mart.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
SECTION:
rLTBLIC HEARINGS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
PLANNING
DEPT:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-09 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, to be known
as Harvestview Second. The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 6.51 acres
of land into three lots for commercial development, and dedicate right-of-way for three
public roadways (including right-of-way for 55'h Street NW). This Plat included only a
portion of the land area included in the Harvestview Second preliminary plat. The property
is located north of 55u' Street NW, west of 50th Avenue and Harvest Moon Boulevard NW.
The Plat includes a northerly extension of "52nd Avenue NW" and the proposed lots lie east
of said road.
August 15, 2006
MEETING
DATE: 08-21-06
ITEM NO.
r I :
PREPARED BY:
Theresa Fogarty,
Senior Planner
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated August 15, 2006, recommending approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the final plat:
a. The preliminary plans do not indicate water service availability to Lot 3. Final construction plans shall be
reviewed and approved by Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division and conform to Standard City of
Rochester requirements.
b. Public Works has approved with conditions the Grading Plan and Construction Plans. The conditions of
approval must be satisfied.
2. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final
plat, per the August 8, 2006 memorandum from Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department - GIS Division.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of the public infrastructure to serve this
subdivision.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a
resolution with findings supporting their decision.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
on Monday, August 21, 2006 in the Council
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
r
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Su@e Soo • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
co uxT1 Gf
August 21, 2006
W ww.olmste dco a nty. comlplann ing
Rochester City Council
Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
Item E=1, Final Plat for Harvestview Second
This Final Plat includes only a portion of the land included in the approved Land
Subdivision Permit/Preliminary Plat. Additionally, Outlots A and C were identified
as public roads on the approved Preliminary Plat and are not being dedicated as
right-of-way with this Final Plat. The approved Preliminary Plat included 50.29
acres of land; this Final Plat includes 6.51 acres of land. The following condition
should be added:
All land included in the approved Harvestview Second Preliminary Plat
must be platted. Outlot A and Oultot C shall be re -platted and dedicated
as public right-of-way concurrent with the Final Plat for the residual land
included in the Harvestview Second Subdivision Preliminary Plat, and not
included in this Final Plat application.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285.8232 • HOUSINC/HRA 507/285-8224
_ PLANNINGIzONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345
7w FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
--,.. ..,.. ......�.Rn.s mIn-unnu Q1.22 LBZ L09 XVA 99:VT 90/TZ/90
r
N
F
W
N
w
W 7
Q rw N
yt
§ w N J < N M1 U
HU x� N
a uZ
m
0
a �
1. ..
x,x is 'N'N .L332I.L5 H.l SS
X1S5 �
cc PC
a
1.� a q
M. 1a.ne.s . o . A C QN
y = 5
I re
I.y MX e+,v s33rrss a.�ss I
Lill
to r �b+40 ,� MmO a �''-�a• $
mM N®0
t •s�Os` Say � ��
04 mad, �J 3�iF� it
I;� `' \ 00'SZZ=21 aaiE °s
g
Ix
my 4y9�i783 $ Bia
yO g
I ,`M
5
500 ft. Notification Area of proposed plat
to be known as Harvestview Second
located in the SE 1/4 Sec 7 Cascade TWP
Final Plat #06-09
by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises
PIN: 74.07.43,069252
Ward: 3 (Bruce Snyder)
Neighborhood Assoc: None
819106 A
OU
II
H
Olmsted County Is not responsible for ortxnissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map, please notify
._:._ the GIS Division, Rochester -Olmsted County planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
L P Y M T Y Q F www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner
a��nsN�un51!if
w ��aii 3
DATE: August 15, 2006
RE: Final Plat #06-09 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, to be known as
Harvestview Second. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
approximately 6.51 acres of land into three lots for commercial
development, and dedicate right-of-way for three public roadways
(including right-of-way for 55th Street NW). This Plat included only a
portion of the land area included in the Harvestview Second preliminary
plat. The property is located north of 551h Street NW, west of 50th
Avenue and Harvest Moon Boulevard NW. The Plat includes a northerly
extension of "52nd Avenue NW" and the proposed lots lie east of said
road.
City Council Meeting: August 21, 2006
Planning Department Review:
ApplicanVOwner:
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises
3428 Lakeridge Place NW, Suite 200
Rochester, MN 55901
Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department
Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division
Planning Department — GIS/Addressing Staff
Planning Department — Wetlands LGU Representative
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat
2. General Development Plan
3. Location Map
4. Referral Comments (4 letters)
5. Correspondence from Public Works regarding the
Grading and Construction Plans.
Development Review:
Zoning: The property is located within the SD-16 Harvestview II
Special District.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELLSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
l'-I!� .a nnr ins noonorr rurrn ccro�neTrvc eITinN FMPI nYFP
/0
Page 2
Final Plat #06-09
Harvestview Second
August 15, 2006
Roadways:
The plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for two new
public roadways and one existing roadway.
The first roadway dedicates the northern portion of "551"
Street NW" and is designed with a 60' right-of-way.
The second roadway is an extension of "52n° Avenue
NW" is designed with a 66' of right-of-way.
The third roadway identified as "561" Street NW" is
designed with a 60' right-of-way.
Pedestrian Facilities:
A Development Agreement has been executed which
addresses the requirement for pedestrian facilities.
Drainage:
Public Works has approved with the conditions the
Grading Plan and Construction Plans for the
Harvestview Second.
The conditions of approval does not affect the right-of-
way dedication or public easements shown on the plat.
The conditions of approval must be satisfied before the
plat is recorded.
A Development Agreement for this property has been
executed.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands.
A wetland delineation has been completed for the area
and no wetlands exist within the proposed subdivision.
Public Utilities:
The preliminary plans do not indicate water service
availability to Lot 3. Final construction plans have not
yet been reviewed and must conform to Standard City
of Rochester requirements.
Spillover Parking:
Parking for the development of each lot will be
determined at the time of Site Plan Development
Review.
Disposal of Trees & Brush:
As per Section 61.200 of the LDM, any person seeking
approval of a subdivision activity, development activity
or a conditional use permit must indicate whether there
will be burning of brush, trees or debris that will be
cleared as part of the proposed activity. Not applicable.
Parkland Dedication:
The property will not be used for residential
development; therefore, there are no parkland
dedication requirements
Al /
Page 3
Final Plat #06-09
Harvestview Second
August 15, 2006
General Development Plan: This property is included within the approved
Harvestview II GDP (#241).
Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on June 5, 2006. The City Council
also considered a Substantial Land Alteration Permit request which was also approved on June 5,
2006. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to twelve (12) conditions: The conditions
are listed below:
The Plat shall be revised as follows:
a) Roadway names shall be modified as specified by the Planning Department
Addressing Staff in the attached memorandum dated April25, 2006,
b) All intersections shall be perpendicular,•
c) A mid -block pedestrian connection should be provided through Outlot `E, between
Equinox PI NW & Solstice PI NW;
d) Right of way dedication for 5e Street shall include dedication adjacent to the
former Pittenger parcel, consistent with the remainder of the Plat.
2. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via deferred land dedication with land to be
dedicated located adjacent to the proposed elementary school site to be located westerly
of this plat. The land is to be dedicated when the property is accessed via a public road
or when the City wishes to begin development of the property per the April 17, 2006
memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation.
3. The grading and drainage plans and erosion and sedimentation control plans must be
approved by the City prior to commencement of grading activities on this property.
4. The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after
completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of
the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and
Land use Plan and applicable City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to
commencement of grading activities on this property. A separate surety will be required
for the Substantial Land Alteration, unless the restoration cost for said work is included in
the City -Owner Contract Bonds.
5. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water,
Public Roadways, 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 locations and required controlled
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.
Page 4
Final Plat #06-09
Harvestview Second
August 15, 2006
6. Pedestrian Facilities are required along the entire frontages of both sides of all public
streets within the development as well as along the abutting periphery public roads.
Specific obligations will be outlined in the Development Agreement.
7. Ownership & Maintenance of the Outiots must be addressed prior to Final Plat approval
and should be outlined in the Development Agreement,
8. The City has established policies for the maintenance of public alleys. Any public alleys
within this development will be maintained in a manner consistent with alley maintenance
elsewhere in the City. The Owner or subsequent Neighborhood Association may decide
that the City's established policy for the maintenance of public alleys does not meet the
expectations or needs of the Owner or a subsequent Neighborhood Association. In such
case the Owner or subsequent Neighborhood Association may notify the City Engineer
that Owner or a Neighborhood Association intends to take over the maintenance of the
alley at no cost and without any liability to the City. This provision will be addressed in the
Development Agreement for the Property.
9. Access to individual lots lying north of 5e Street NW will be via the proposed public
alleys. Access control must be dedicated along all public roads (except alleys) that abut
the "compact single family" development area. Controlled Access will be required along
the frontages of other public roads within the development, and will be specified prior to or
concurrent with Final Plat review.
10. As noted by the Rochester Fire Department, the intersection design of Solstice Place NW,
Cornucopia Ave NW, and Equinox Place NW does not appear to be designed to
accommodate fire apparatus to negotiate the intersection. The intersection design must
insure allowing fire apparatus to negotiate through. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the
design shall be reviewed with Rochester Public Works and the Rochester Fire
Department to ensure this condition is incorporated into the final design.
11. Additional water main is needed within that portion of the parallel street on either side of
Outlot E, along with an additional utility easement to minimize water service lengths and
provide adequate fire protection. Additional revisions to the water system layout are
required, which include fire hydrant and valve placements and must be accommodated
prior to approval of construction plans and Final Plat application.
12. If Outlot A" is transferred to the applicant or any other private party in the future, the
Outlot must be re -platted, and the re -plat must include dedication of right-of-way for
Harvest Lake Drive consistent with the General Development Plan.
Final Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this final plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The staff recommends approval of this final plat, as
submitted, with the following conditions I modifications:
1. Prior to recording the final plat.,
a. The preliminary plans do not indicate water service availability to Lot 3. Final
construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by Rochester Public Utilities
- Water Division and conform to Standard City of Rochester requirements.
Page 5
Final Plat #06-09
Harvestview Second
August 15, 2006
b. Public Works has approved with conditions the Grading Plan and Construction
Plans. The conditions of approval must be satisfied.
2. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid
prior to recording the final plat, per the August 8, 2006 memorandum from
Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department - GIS Division.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of the public
infrastructure to serve this subdivision.
Ho
ROCHESTER
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 9/11/06
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-267-7800
FAX - 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-09, for
Harvestview Second. The following are Public Works comments on this request:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and al development is
subject to the terms of the Agreement.
2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of the public
infrastructure to serve this subdivision.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are/will be included
in the Development Agreement & City -Owner Contract.
r
C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFOGMLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK257\FP06-09 Harvestview
Second.doc
rpu
we pledje, we deliver
August 9, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-09 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as
Harvestview Second.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow:
The preliminary plans did not indicate water service availability to Lot 3.
Final construction plans have not yet been reviewed and must conform to Standard City of
Rochester Requirements.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
"MA WVW�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Phone: (507) 285-8232
GIS/Addressing Division Fax: (507) 287-2275
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 559044744
FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: August 8, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle
RE: HARVESTVIEW SECOND
FINAL PLAT #06-09
UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE
PAID BEFORE THE PLAT CAN BE ADDRESSED.
E911 ADDRESSING FEE:
GIS IMPACT FEE:
240.00 (3 LOTS/ADDRESSES)
490.00 (6 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 HARVESTVIEW SECOND the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to
bring forth at this time. -
73'
Application Number: FP#06-09Hharvestview Second
No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the
information as part of this application.
A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department.
A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss,
Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department.
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to
the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for
wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands.
® Other or Explanation:
Awetland delineation has been completed for the area and no wetlands exist
within the proposed subdivision.
From John Harford
V./orl�nrlc T.MI Reoresentative
41 Page 1 of 1
Baker Mitzi
From: Freese, Richard [rfreese@ci.rochester.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 4:19 PM
To: Baker Mitzi
Cc: Crawford, Matt; Nelson, Doug; Masterpole, Andy
Subject: FW: Harvestview Second
Public Works has reviewed the Grading Plan and Construction Plans for the Harvestview second and third
Subdivisions.
Public Works has approved with conditions the Grading Plan and Construction Plans for the Harvestview Second
Subdivision. The conditions of approval does not affect the right-of-way dedication or the public easements
shown on the plat. The conditions of approval must be satisfied before the plat is recorded.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING v
DATE: 08-21-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM NO.
E'
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #06-11 by Steve & Danice Mulholland, Terry
PREPARED BY:
Theresa Fogarty,
& Mary Ann Djonne, Bruce & Gretta Buller and John & Bonnie Poterucha. The
applicants are proposing to vacate the 12' wide utility/walkway easement located
Senior Planner
between Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, Wilshire Estates Addition and Lots 13 & 14
Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision located east of 131h Avenue NE, south of City
View Court NE and north of Wilshire Drive NE.
August 15, 2006
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated August 15, 2006.
Planning Staff supports the recommendation by Rochester Public Works to maintain this easement, and
recommends denial of this vacation petition.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed they shall
approve or deny the
vacation request. If the motion is to approve, it should instruct
the City Attorney to
prepare a resolution to approving vacation petition as requested.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated August 15, 2006.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m.
on Monday,
August 21, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second hy: to:
on,
O
N
L
d
L
0
Q
x
w
L
Q
U)
W
E
m
a
0
Z
m
s
m
c
.IN
__
�z
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
1a,,.,1 OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner
�MWiwi
�u�nNii
m
DATE: August 15, 2006
RE: Vacation Petition #06-11 by Steve & Danice Mulholland, Terry & Mary
Ann Dionne, Bruce & Gretta Buller and John & Bonnie Poterucha. The
applicants are proposing to vacate the 12' wide utility/walkway
easement located between Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, Wilshire Estates
Addition and Lots 13 & 14 Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision located
east of 131" Avenue NE, south of City View Court NE and north of
Wilshire Drive NE.
City Council Meeting Date: August 21, 2006
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Steve and Danice Mulholland
1651 Wilshire Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Terry and Mary Dionne
1655 Wilshire Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Bruce and Gretta Buller
1420 City View Court NE
Rochester, MN 55906
John and Bonnie Poterucha
1422 City View Court NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Reason to Vacate: The utility/walkway easement was platted in the
Wilshire Estates Addition and the Wilshire
Estates 3rd Subdivision, but was never developed.
Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works
Report Attachments: Copy of Site / Location Map
Referral Comments (1)
Correspondence from applicants adjacent to
walkway easement, dated received August 4,
2006.
BUILDING CODE 507/2e5-8345 • GIS(ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEP7 C 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
n�n
Page 2
Vacation Request #06-11
Walkway Easement— Wilshire Estates Addition
And Wilshire Third Subdivision
8/1512006
Plannina Staff Review and Recommendation:
Rochester Public Works stated that it is possible based on the existing grades of the
walkway easement area to construct a mid -block pedestrian connection and does not
support the requested vacation.
The Planning Staff supports the recommendation by Rochester Public Works and
recommends denial of this vacation petition as requested vacating the 12' wide
utility/walkway easement located between Lots 10 & 11, Block 2, Wilshire Estates
Addition and Lots 13 & 14 Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision.
ROCHESTER
M;41�
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 8/15/06
N
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street BE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281.6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application requesting
Vacation #06-11 by Mulhollnad Dionne Buller & Poterucha to vacate a Walkway
& Utility Easement abutting Lots 10 & 11 Block 2 Wilshire Estates Addition and
Lots 13 & 14 Block 2 Willshire Estates Third Subdivision. The following are
Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. It is possible based on the existing grades of the walkway easement
area to construct a mid -block pedestrian connection and therefore
Public Works staff does not support the requested vacation.
C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFOGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK267\VAC06-11 Willshire Estates
1.1-11om.♦ =.e .nt l nl
v�V
Property Owners
1. Terry L. and Mary Ann Djonne
2. Bruce W. and Gretta M Buller
3. John J. and Bonnie S. Poterucha
4. 5 'DAh1«E F(OL d Ly
Description of Property to be Vacated
RECEIVED
"AUG 0
RnEETER OLMSED�, , _
Lot 11, Block 2, Wilshire Estates Addition
Lot 13, Block 2, Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision
less a part therof
Lot 14, Block 2, Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision
Lot 10, Block 2, Wilshire Estates Addition and part
of Lot 13, Block 2, Wilshire Estates Third
Subdivision
All of the 12 foot wide walkway located between Lot 10 and Lot 11, Block 2 Wilshire Estates
Addition and between Lot 13 and Lot 14, Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision, Olmsted County,
Minnesota
Facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows:
1. Wilshire Estates Addition was platted in 1960. Wilshire Estates Third Subdivision was
platted in 1975. In the forty-six years that have passed since the creation of Wilshire Estates
Addition, a walkway has not been constructed on the dedicated walkway easement nor has there
been any demand or request for construction of a walkway.
2. In the forty-six years that have passed since the creation of Wilshire Estates Addition the
public has not used the walkway easement as a walkway. The petitioners and their predecessors
in interest have occupied and used the easement area for normal yard and lawn purposes. There
is grass, shrubs, flowers, and sizeable trees growing in the easement area.
3. The walkway easement his no obvious purpose and there is no obvious need for it. It does not
provide access to a recreational or shopping area. It is not a part of a larger trail system nor do
there appear to be any plans for such larger system. The easement merely connects two city
streets which are otherwise connected by the normal city street system.
4. If the walkway is constructed it will significantly impact the petitioners' property values. Not
only will it cause the destruction of long established lawns, trees, and shrubs, but it will
significantly reduce the privacy of the petitioners' homes. There is also a real risk that the
walkway could negatively impact the personal security of the petitioners by increasing the
opportunity and temptation of third parties to loiter and trespass, activities which sometimes lead
to more serious activities.
Hearings
Finance Department
ITEM DESCRIPTION: A public hearing to consider giving host city approval to the refunding
of health facility revenue bonds by the City of Buffalo, Minnesota for the Karrignton
Cottages project located within the City of Rochester.
DATE:
E3
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Representatives of the Wedum Foundation, Inc. have requested the Council hold this hearing for the
purpose of considering giving consent to their plans to refund, or refinance their tax-exempt health facilities
bonds that were issued back in 2003 through the City of Buffalo, Minnesota for a project located in
Rochester. At that time, Wedum formed Central Minnesota Senior Housing, LLC, a limited liability
corporation to own this project. They used a portion of the bond proceeds to purchase and renovate the
147-unit assisted living facility located at 4220 55"' Street NW in Rochester, now known as Sunrise
Cottages. The Wedum Foundation is a 501(c)(3) corporation and also owns the Shorewood Senior Campus
here in Rochester.
Wedum proposes to refinance their outstanding bonds with new bonds of a later maturity date and to have
these bonds also issued by the City of Buffalo, MN. Some of the monies will also refinance bonds issued
for projects in the City of Buffalo and Manato, Minnesota. They are, however, required to obtain consent
by the Rochester City Council under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code since approximately 55%
of the tax-exempt monies would be used within Rochester's city limits.
Approval of the resolution would give host approval of the project and to the issuance of bonds by the
City of Buffalo for this project. It is important to note that should the council choose to provide its host
approval, these bonds will NOT be considered a debt of the City and that in no event shall the obligations
ever be payable from or charged upon any funds of the City.
Council Action Requested
Adopt the attached resolution giving the host approval of the Project for purposes of Section 147(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code and to the issuance of the obligations for the refunding of bonds issued by the City of
Buff, o, Minnesota for a project located in the City of Rochester.
v �
COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: ro:
�Xly
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the Common
Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, was duly held in the Council/Board Chambers in
the Government Center on Monday, August 21, 2006, commencing at 7:00 P.M., C.T.
The following Councilmembers were present:
and the following were absent:
During said meeting introduced the following
Resolution, the written presentation and reading of which were waived by unanimous consent of
the Council, and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING HOST APPROVAL TO THE
ISSUANCE OF HEALTH FACILITIES REVENUE OBLIGATIONS
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 469
FOR A PROJECT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
BY CENTRAL MINNESOTA SENIOR HOUSING, LLC
WHEREAS, Central Minnesota Senior Housing, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (the 'Borrower"), which has represented that its sole member is Wedum Foundation, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, has proposed that the City of
Buffalo, Minnesota refund its $14,847,000 Health Care Revenue Note, Series 2003A and
$4,800,000 Subordinate Health Care Revenue Note, Series 2003C (Central Minnesota Housing
LLC Project) (the "Prior Bonds"), which financed the acquisition of certain assisted living
facilities (the 'Project') including a 147 unit assisted living facility known as Sunrise Cottages of
Rochester (the "Rochester Portion") located at 4220 55th Street NW in the City of Rochester,
Minnesota (the "City"); and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised that a public hearing and Council approval of
refinancing with the obligations to be issued by the City of Buffalo, Minnesota are required
under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code because the Rochester Portion of the Project
financed by the Prior Bonds is located in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted the public hearing on this same date at which hearing all
persons who appeared were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the
Project:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council (the "Council") of
the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
1928459v1
0
1. Project. The Borrower has advised the City that the Project, including the
Rochester Portion, will be refinanced by refunding of the Prior Bonds (the "Refunding") with
refunding bonds to be issued by the City of Buffalo which will have a later maturity than the
maturity of the Prior Bonds.
2. Host Approval. The City hereby gives host approval to the Refunding for
purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code and to the issuance of the obligations
for the Rochester Portion of the Project by the City of Buffalo, Minnesota.
3. Limited Liability. In no event shall the obligations ever be payable from or
charged upon any funds of the City; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no owners of
the obligations shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the City to
pay any of the obligations or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any
property of the City; the obligations shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or
equitable, upon any property of the City; and the obligations do not constitute a general or moral
obligation or an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory, or
charter limitation.
00
2
1928459v1
IN
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 21sT DAY OF AUGUST, 2006.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON
COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved this _ day of August, 2006.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
Councilmember moved the adoption of the foregoing
resolution, which motion was duly seconded by Councilmember >
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following Councilmembers voted in favor thereof:
and the following Councilmembers voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed on adopted.
1929459VI
Q
q�
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of
minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and
complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the Common Council of said City duly called
and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to a resolution adopted on
the date therein indicated giving host approval to a certain bonding project and the issuance of
revenue obligations therefor by the City of Buffalo, Minnesota.
WITNESS my hand this _ day of August, 2006.
City Clerk
Rochester, Minnesota
(SEAL)
!1
1928459vl
Public Hearings
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
of
City Administration
MEETING 1 1
DATE: 8/21/06
ITEM NO.
T. Spaeth
BY:
In 2005, the Rochester Common Council adopted an ordinance creating a Downtown Special Services District for the
years 2006 through 2010. Along with that, the Council adopted a resolution imposing charges within the special
services district for the purpose in enhancing business conditions in accordance with the Operating Plan that was
developed by the Rochester Downtown Alliance.
For the year 2007, the amount of the charges to be collected within the Special Services District is $157,500. The
special service charges are calculated and imposed based upon the net tax capacity of the individual properties within
the district.
Mn. Star. 428A.03 requires that a hearing must be held before the imposition of service charges in a district for each
calendar year. Hearing notices have been mailed to property owners subject to service charges, and the notice has been
published in accordance with Statutes.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt resolution to authorize the imposition of $157,500 in charges within the Special Services District for 2007.
4�
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to:
I
SPECIAL SERVICES DISTRICT CHARGES
INDIVIDUAL PARCEL CALCULATION
Parcel Market Value x
Com. /Ind. Tax Class Rate
= 2007 Net Tax Capacity
x .047699 Multiplier Factor ($157,500 / $393,019974 Total Special
Services District Net Tax Capacity)
= Parcel Special Service District Charge
2 ST SW
-7---
, L-34rS�
'4 ST-W'm
2 ST
lvimL i Lf
,
i* LIM -ST
uj
PILIA-1)
'J 0
0
2.550
0 5io Food
W+E Mnw�-
s atcel
NOTE rheMot I A ----
MEETING ,") l
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 8-21-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.15
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05, initiated by the City
PREPARED BY:
Council on June 26, 2006. The zoning ordinance amendment proposes changes to several
Phil Wheeler, AICP
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual affecting development in
Planning Director
the Decorah Edge area.
August 15, 2006
Background: As the result of research by the USGS and others demonstrating that near -surface groundwater flow over
the Decorah, Platteville, and Glenwood formations results in beneficial reductions in groundwater contamination, the City
Council has initiated ordinance amendments to its Wetland Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual changing the regulations applying to development in the Decorah Edge.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission discussed
this matter on July 12, 2006, and conducted a hearing on this matter on July 26, 2006. Minutes of both meetings are attached.
The Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment as presented at the hearing, with one change,
to approved GDP's from January 1, 2011, to five years from the effective date of the
replacing the extension provided
ordinance.
Following the meeting, it became necessary to clarify the nature of the exemption granted to approved GDP's through a fem
minor changes to the text recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff is of the opinion that these change:
are of a minor nature and do not require returning to the Planning Commission for another public hearing. in the attaches
ordinance amendments, everything that is shaded represents a change from the current ordinance, as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Everything that is shaded AND underlined is a change from the version of the ordinance seen an(
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Committee on Urban Design and Environment Recommendation: As indicated in the attached letter, the CUDE support!
the proposed amendments.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff recommends approval of the attached amendments with the changes recommended following the Planning
Commission meeting. The changes incorporate the change recommended by the Planning Commission.
An amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance must satisfy all of the following criteria. The findings recommended by the
staff and the Planning Commission are presented in italics.
a) whether there is a public need for the amendment: We conclude there is a public need for the amendment in order to
provide for groundwater protection and other purposes while still providing for urban densities of development within the
urban service area.
b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other
adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester: The amendment will further the orderly growth of the community and
protect the drinking water supply, thereby promoting the Comprehensive Plan goal of orderly development.
C) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful: We have been advised that adoption would be lawful.
Council Action Needed:
f. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance th
can be adopted. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Pochest
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
ON
70) Page 2
RCA
August 16, 2006
Attachments:
1. Ordinance amendment text.
2. PZC Minutes of July 12 and July 26, 2006.
3. Letter from CUDE
4. Letter from the Zumbro Land Conservancy
5. Presentation slides on the status of approved GDP's.
6. Staff memorandum of July 21, 2006.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2, City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
i
ORDINANCE NO._
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING
SECTIONS 60.338, 61.211, 61.214, 61.215, 61.216. 61.531,
61.532, 51.533, 62.1105 AND APPENDIX B OF
ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT MANUAL, ALL PARTS OF THE
ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO
DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING ON OR NEAR THE
DECORAH-PLATTEVILLE-GLENWOOD GEOLOGICAL
FORMATIONS.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 60.338 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
60.338 Policy for Rezoning: Subdivision 1. The Commission shall
recommend for approval, and the Council shall approve, a request
to amend the zoning map or the text of the zoning ordinance if the
amendment satisfies the criteria provided in this section:
a
Subd. 2. 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;
D. The area has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as
103
LDM Etlae
Au ust 9 2006 Page 2 —of' 7
\4
Y'
to encourage development or redevelopment of the
area; or
Subd. 3. 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
B. the proposed amendment does not involve spot
zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the classification 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 proposes set forth in
this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the
decisions of courts in this state.)
Section 2 Section 61.211 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
61.211 When a General Development Plan is Required:
Approval of a General Development Plan shall be required for any
site where the eventual platting of the property involves approval of
a Type III land subdivision permit. A General Development Plan
also shall be required for land use plan amendments and for any
upzoning to the R-Ix, R2, R3, R4, M1, M2, B1, and B4 zoning
districts and for the division of any land zoned as such. No Type III
land subdivision permit shall be approved until a General
Development Plan for the property has been approved. A General
Development Plan is not required for Type I and II applications for
which no TIR is required pursuant to Section 61.520 and no new
street connections are necessary.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal
Formatted: Highlight
�D
AucluSt 9. 2005 Pane 3 of 17
A. €xcept"within the Decomlf j dge as defing �
Chapter 59, a General Development Plan shall not be
required for any portion of an area for which a general
development plan has previously been approved by
the Council, or where the zoning administrator
determines that new proposed streets need not
r mfinue hevond the land to be subdivided in order to
B. The Council shall have the authority to initiate a
General Development Plan for an area for which
there is no proposal for subdivision, providing the
general development plan is given consideration
under the Type III procedure.
Formatter: FOM: tDefau� uw i J
Formatted: Font. (Default) Mal I
Formattdl: Highlight
to
I Formatted: Hi Wight
, Dleleted: iemaln in dteautdd
i Iartual3'.1i Z01'1;
I Formatted: Highlight
t Fornuttad: Hlghbgh
Formatted: Highlight i
Formatted Highlight ---i
Formatted'Highlight
Fermattetl: Highight I
Foanotted: Font color: Nark Blue
Fomtatted: indent Left. T I
LDM Edae
Huanst 9 200e Paae 4 of 17
C. Except as provided in Section 61.211(2), a General
\ Development Plan application may be initiated by the
owner of property subject to the General
Development Plan.
Section 3. Section 61.214 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
61.214 Subdivision 1. Appendix B outlines the information that must be submitted with
an application of a General Development Plan. The plan must show the density,
intensity, land uses, pedestrian and bicycle ways, trail thoroughfares, pa
hrks, open
space and pattern of future streets within the development, and possible off -site
drainage situations affecting other tracts within 500 feet surrounding and adjacent to
the proposed land subdivision. The City Engineer may reduce the distance subject to
a drainage analysis to 200 feet where sormwater is channeled into an existing
drainage facility that is designed to carry projected runoff and is located within 200
feet of the site, or where the drainage plan is found to be consistent with the
Stormwater Management Plan, or adopted drainage and stormwater policies.
Subd. 2. In addition to the information required in subdivision 1 of this
section, every application for a General Development Plan must show one of the
following:
A. The proposed development is bounded on all sides by arterial or
higher level streets, streams or other topographic constraints , existing
development, land already included in an approved General
Development Plan, or permanent open space that limits the inclusion of
other abutting lands;
B. The proposed development consists of at least 80 acres in land area
regardless of ownership or interest, and consists of all lands for which
the applicant has ownership or interest.
Subd' 3,: If applicable, the applicant must provfde the inf'6- tion required
by Chapter 59.
Section 4. Section 61.215 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
61.215 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan
In approving a general development plan, the Council must make
each of the following findings:
Formatted: Font (Default) Anal /
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal —I
'' Formatted: Highlight_ _ ..
M
ADCT 1st 9 Edge 2000" Paae 5 of 17
X 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 general development plan may be
processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan
amendment request.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes,
density, access and circulation, is compatible with the
existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted land
use and housing plans.
D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned
capital improvements and streets reflected in the City
of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement
Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG
Long -Range Transportation Plan, official maps, and
any other public facilities plans adopted by the City.
Street system improvements required to
accommodate proposed land uses and projected
background traffic must be compatible with the
existing uses and uses shown in the adopted land
use plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will
be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve
the properties under consideration and will provide
access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow
development of those adjoining lands in accord with
this ordinance.
Street system adequacy must be based on the
street system's ability to safely accommodate
trips from existing and planned land uses on
the existing and proposed street system
without creating safety hazards, generating
auto stacking that blocks driveways or
intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any
street, as identified in the traffic impact report,
if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity
from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-
year CIP must be included in the assessment
of adequacy.
Formatted: Font (Default) Arial J
Formatted: FonC: (Default) Arlal
kI0
' ' Etlge
H aost 9 2006 Page 6 of 17
--^^1
�V
Utilities are now available to directly serve the
area of the proposed land use, or that the City
of Rochester is planning for the extension of
utilities to serve the area of the proposed
development and such utilities are in the first
three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital
improvements Program, or that other
arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have
been made to ensure that adequate utilities will
be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent
with the proposed development, the applicant
for the development approval must stipulate to
a condition that no development will occur and
no further development permit will be issued
until concurrency has been evidenced.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities must be
based on the level of service standards in
Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan
for development.
The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area
can be handled through normal engineering and
construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these
matters will be provided to solve unusual problems
that have been identified.
G.
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.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal
Formatted: Font (Default) Arta[
Formatted: Font: Anal, 12 pt, No
I underline, Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
ptJ Edae
4ua� Est 9 °DQ6 Page 7 of 17
If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a
Type III Land Subdivision Permit, the proposed development
must satisfy one of the following categories of development:
1. A development bounded on all sides by arterial or higher
level streets, streams or other topographic constraints,
existing development, land already included in an
approved General Development Plan, or permanent
open space that limits the inclusion of other abutting
lands;
2. A development with adequate public facilities and
constituting the entire remaining service area of a major
public facility improvement (such as a trunk sewer or
water tower) that has been identified as a project in the
Capital Improvement Program;
3. A development that consists of at least 80 acres in land
area regardless of ownership or interest, and consists of
all lands for which the applicant has ownership or
interest; or
4. A development for which a development agreement has
been executed by the owner and the city for the entire
property included in the proposed general development
plan. The development agreement must have been
drafted based on the development of the property
occurring as proposed in the general development plan.
Section 5. Section 61.216 of the Rochester Code of ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
Fa matW: Font: (Default) Anal
Formatted: Font (Default) Anal
_ `oq.
LDN Edge
August R. 20M Pace B Of 17
61.216 Approval and Filing of a General Development Plan:
\� Except as proovided in Section 61 2'1'1 for'properties a iaeted by
provisions , of ' Ghap�er' 59 Veining#fl L the Dec o ate Edge;
g1'of?ndwater atlpprnted_',w@ ands;;; or, Edgs.:Sl�pPr?i1, Ateas, the
approval shall be valid so long as the applicant receives a valid
subsequent development permit within two years of the General
Development Plan approval. Except as provided through a
subsequent development approval, development agreement, or
action by the Council, the General Development Plan shall expire if
no construction activity or subsequent development approval
occurs for any two-year period. Upon final approval, a General
Development Plan shall be made a matter of record as follows:
A. The criteria for approval by the City Council shall be
noted in their official minutes;
B. The approved plan shall be indexed and filed by the
zoning administrator in the office of the Rochester -
Olmsted Planning Department.
Section 6. Section 61.531 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
61.531 Site Capacity Calculation Required:
The site capacity calculation shall be completed for every type of
development involving the erection of or addition to a building to
determine the allowable amount of dwelling unit density (for
residential use) or square footage of floor area (for all other uses).
Except within, the Decorah. Edge,. wh,pre , it is, required for all
development; the calculation need not be completed for any
residential use type controlled by a lot size standard. Site capacity
calculations shall be based on the vegetation and topography of
the site in 1991, as determined from 1991 USGS digital elevation
model data and 1991 aerial photography or an equivalent or better
source.
Section 7. Section 61.532 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
61.532 Site Capacity Calculation Procedure: The following procedure is
used to calculate the site capacity.
Formatted Font: (Default) Arai_
Formatted. Font (Default) Anal
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted. Highlight __
D, M Edge
August 9 2003 Pace 9 of 17
A. Determine the Base Site Area:
Base site area is calculated by subtracting the
following areas from the gross site area, as
determined by an on -site survey.
(a) Site area devoted to planned or existing
right-of-way of arterials or higher order streets
and required easements of access.
(b) Land that is not contiguous, including:
(1) Separate parcels that do not abut,
adjoin, or share common boundaries
with the rest of the development; and
(2) Land that is cut off from the main parcel
by features such as a railroad, other
existing land uses, or a major stream,
such that common use is hindered.
(c) Land that is reserved to satisfy requirements
for storm water detention, usable recreation
space or other open space use in a previously
approved subdivision that has been partially or
completely developed.
(d) Whenever a site contains land that is
designated in more than two zoning districts,
and the proposed development does not
propose the integrated development of the site
under the mixed -use provisions of the
ordinance, the area zoned for non-residential
purposes must be subtracted to determine the
area available for residential use. (In the case
of determining the area available for
non-residential use, subtract the area devoted
to residential uses.)
B. Determine the Amount of Resource Protection Land (All
Land Uses):
All land area consisting of the natural resources or natural
features listed below must be measured. The total acreage
of each resource must be multiplied by its respective open
space ratio to determine the amount of resource protection
'.. pormatMl: Font (Defau Q An j
Formatted: Font: (Default) Mal
t1 k
LDM Edge
Auaust 9.2005 Page 10o=+.7
'Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal /
Formatted: Font: (Default)Anal
_ / land. The resource protection ratio for lands exhibiting more
than one characteristic must be the highest single ratio
applicable and not the sum of the ratios. The sum total of all
resource protection land on the site equals TOTAL
RESOURCE PROTECTION LAND.
C. Determination of Site Capacity/Permitted Amount of
Building:
1. The site capacity for residential density is determined
by calculating the NET BUILDABLE AREA and
Formatted: Left, Right: D"
Formatted: No underline, Highlight j
'. Formatted: Highlight
�.DMEdge
Ae��ist 9 2006 Page 11 0=17
multiplying this number by the density factor permitted
in the applicable zoning district. The calculation is as
follows:
2. The permitted floor area for other uses is determined
by calculating the NET BUILDABLE AREA, (adjusted
to a square footage figure) and then multiplying this
number by the floor area ratio permitted in the
applicable zoning district. The calculation is as
follows:
Section 8. Section 61.533 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
61.533 Density/Floor Area Bonuses: The net density or floor area
achieved through the site capacity calculations may be increased
through the preservation of certain natural features in the
development. The approving authority must make a finding during
the review process that the design features justifying the proposed
intensity increase have been provided in the development plan.
A. Preservation of Natural Features: In the case of
undisturbed slopes, woodland preservation, or preservation
or restoration of other native habitats offered to achieve a
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal /
Formatted: Fool (Default) Anal
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial /
�DtJ Edoe Formatted: Font (Default) Arlal
A- �a-� 5 9 2005 Paae t 2& S 7 - —
density or floor area bonus, the development agreement
must provide that the subject areas are protected from
diswor,ce as a condition of approval of the permit
authorizing the development. The area to be left
undisturbed on the site must be specifically identified on the
plan and permit documents. The area to be undisturbed on
the site must be clearly marked and identified in the field
prior to any development activity to insure that persons
involved in the construction phase of the development do
not disturb the subject area. Protection from disturbance
may be provided for through conservation easements, deed
restrictions, or other mechanisms and shall provide for
monitoring by a land trust or public agency, Died 1cation cit
suchTars as �cidrtior�al parkland beyond minimal, required
parkland dedicafion, where accepted may b aPPlied in
derisity$onua caleulat%ns
B. Maximum Bonus: The maximum achievable intensity must
not exceed the density or floor area ratio factor for
the
applicable zoning district and the applicable approval
process.
C. Steep Slopes (slopes greater than 30 percent): The net
density or floor area may be increased by multiplying the net
amount by the percentage listed in the table below where
steep slopes are left undisturbed.
D. Moderate Slopes (Slopes of 18-30%): The net density or
floor area may be increased by multiplying the net amount
Deleted: protected, pmserve#?n
plat,i6i peTetuh
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
j Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Right 0"
pLMEL 17
A q,tr q 2000 Pape 13 f
by the percentage listed in the table below where moderate
slopes are left undisturbed.
Section 9. Section 62.1105 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
62.1105 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:
A. The activity will not result in a danger to life or
property due to (1) steep or unstable lopes, (2)
unsafe access to the property, (3)excessive
(4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas,
parks and roadways;
B. Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site
environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and
i ftr mu.— ed: Faft (Deft*) Aria) /
I � etted; Fart (Derault) Aria/
Fmms`. mad` Righ—t ° —
{ Pprmattad: Highlight
{ ppnaamW: Highlight
LDM Ef
' alst 9 2006 Paoe 14 0='-7
residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the
Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the
`_\\4 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;
C. 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;
D. The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality
or ground water or surface water quality;
E. 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;
F. 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;
G. The activity will not unduly affect the use and
enjoyment of adjacent properties;
H. The site plan provides for adequate buffers and
screening year-round from unsightly features of the
excavation operation;
The reclamation plan provides for adequate and
appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill
areas;
J. The excavation activity will not result in negative
impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater
management facilities;
Formatted: Font. (Default) Anal
Formatted:, Font: (Default) Anal_
' DM Etlge
Huq Ist 9 m5 Page 15 of ^-T
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal
Formatted: Font. (Default) Anal
K. The proposed activity will minimize impacts on
sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features
affecting ground water or surface water quality;
L. The intensity and the anticipated duration of the
proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the
size and location of the activity;
M. Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control
plans have been approved by the City;
N. 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.
O. The proposed activity complies with the requirements
of the adopted building code.
Formatted: Highlight -_
P.';
...... .....
For any `areas in whicfl °=groundwater flaws may be
intercepted by excavation;
prdvision is made to direct
such flows to managed wetlands for treatment and re-
infiltration, if feasible.
Section 10. Appendix B Section E of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as
follows:
E) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
general development plan
following information:
PLANS: An application for a
shall be accompanied by the
1) Ten (10) copies of a plan on black or blue line prints,
drawn at a scale not greater than one inch equals 200
feet, containing the following information:
LDM Edae
Aug- st 5 20Do Paae 16 u' �7
Formattetl: Font: {Default) Adal
Formatted: Font (Default) Anal
a) Proposed street pattern and street
classification for the area under consideration;
b) General pattern of land use proposed and a
comparison to that shown on the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan;
c) Topography, with contour intervals of not more
than 5 feet on land having slopes less than 15
percent, and 10 feet on lands with slopes
greater than 15 percent;
d) Identification of floodplain lands, including 100
year flood elevations, if known;
e) Identification of soils with particular
characteristics that could create difficulties for
development; i.e., wet soils, highly erodible
soils;
f) Identification of major drainage corridors on the
property;
identification of wetlands Deleted:
g) pre)lItle WFCaaon
mmary Formatted Highlight
Jdisfinguishinggrour
, llwater..; upporte
sd r
weilandsj and Edge Support Areal based on Fa mattes n gnl,ghc
the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (Minn.
Laws 1991, (Minn. Laws 1991 chapter 354, as
amended by Laws 1993, chapter 175, and as
thereafter amended), the accompanying rules
of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (Minn. Rules chapter 8420, as pu mattee Hlgnugnt
amended), and Chapter 69 of £hfs Code: -- -
Section 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance will be effective from and after its
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2D06.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
n
Fomatted: Font (getault)ArNI
A irn ist C„ 2DD"o Page 17 of 17 �Fmnatted, Font: (oefautt) AnaIGJ
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2DO6'
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City Of
Rochester, Minnesota)
0d0sroe0Z5lWQ3)
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, July 12, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government
Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Jay Burke, Chair; Ms. Leslie Rivas, Vice Chair; Mr. Paul Ohly; Mr.
Vince Barry; Mr. John McGuine; and Mr. Gerald Pestka
Members Absent: Mr. Robert Hasussinger; Ms. Lisa Wiesner and Mr. Jesse Wallace
Staff Present: Mr. Phil Wheeler, Ms. Mitzi Baker, and Ms. Stephanie Foster
Other Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney; and Mr. Terry Lee, Environmental
Resource Services
SET ORDER OF AGENDA:
Mr. McGuine moved to approve the agenda, with adding discussion of the TIF
under other business #2. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr. Ohly made a motion to approve the following consent items. Mr. McGuine
seconded the motion.
June 28, 2006 minutes
The motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Decorah Edge Amendments
Mr. Phil Wheeler presented the staff report dated July 5, 2006. to the Commission. A copy of
the report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Wheeler gave a Power -Point Presentation of the Decorah Edge Land Development
Regulations and handed out the Zoning and Wetland Ordinance amendments to the
Commission for review and discussion.
Mr. Burke asked if there would be a series of rules and regulations for procedures that would
need to be done for development in areas where Decorah Edge would be present. What would
happen if there are exemptions, would there be procedures and requirements in relation to the
areas.
Page 2
city Planning and Zoning commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July Q, 2006
Mr. Wheeler replied that the recommendations and requirements would be handled at the
general development plan stage.
Mr. Burke asked if the rules would be drafted at the same time with the Ordinance.
Mr. Wheeler replied that the engineering standards that apply to the area being approved would
be through the Public Works department. He is not sure what stage they are at, however, he is
sure that they have a clear idea of what they would require, but it may not be documented yet.
Mr. Burke asked if the language would be up for review or just drafted and adopted.
Mr. Wheeler replied that he does not know at this time.
Mr. Wheeler stated that all city staff involved with parkland would be meeting next week
regarding parkland dedication policies.
Mr. Burke stated that Rochester Public Utilities has been very quiet with the issues at hand.
Mr. Wheeler replied that RPU would be involved in the upcoming meeting with the city and park
officials.
Ms. Rivas asked if managed wetlands are created wetlands.
Mr. Wheeler replied yes. If you would be intercepting groundwater flows, you would have
already disrupted the natural flow, creating a restored wetland.
Ms. Rivas asked if there is a definition in the ordinance of a managed wetland, because the
language seems rather vague. Also, would there need to be a replacement value for the
wetland.
Mr. Burke asked about the value of creating an artificial wetland.
Mr. Wheeler replied that they would be creating the plant community and it would be new.
Ms. Rivas asked if it would be possible to re-create a wetland.
Mr. Wheeler replied yes, it is already being done in Minnesota.
Discussion ensued regarding issues of destroying and re-creating a wetland and substantial
land alterations.
Mr. Wheeler asked the Commission if they would be ready to move forward with a public
hearing on the Decorah Edge Amendments for the July 26, 2006 meeting.
With regard to the 5-year grace period, Mr. Burke asked how the ordinance would take Into
account such differences among the GDPs as whether or not they are active, how they are
affected by TIN and other charges, and the extent to which they depend on collector street
extensions through Decorah Edge areas. He also asked what property owners are likely to do
with the lands between now and the time the ordinance takes effect.
Mr. Wheeler replied that in this draft, the ordinance does not distinguish among GDPs and the
Commission would need to make a recommendation on these matters.
12`
II
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 12, 2006
Ms. Rivas made a motion to hold i public hearing on July 26, 2006 regarding the Decorah
Edge Amendments. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
2. Tax Increment Financing District #34-1
Ms. Baker stated that the TIF District for the KTTC redevelopment project is consistent with the
Land Use Plan.
Mr. McGuine made a motion to initiate Development District #34 and Tax Increment
Financing District #34 1 Mr. Ohly seconded the motion The motion carried 6-0.
2. As may be brought up with members
No one came forward.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Mr. McGuine to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Ohly. Mr. Burke, Chair,
adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP Mr. Jay Burke, Chair
slf
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, July 26, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government
Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Jay Burke, Chair; Ms. Leslie Rivas, Vice Chair; Mr. Jesse Wallace; Ms.
Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Robert Haeussinger; Mr. John McGuine; and Mr. Gerald Pestka
Members Absent: Mr. Vince Barry and Mr. Paul Only
Staff Present: Mr. Phil Wheeler and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney
SET ORDER OF AGENDA:
Ms. Rivas moved to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr. McGuine made a motion to approve the following consent items. Mr. Haeussinger
seconded the motion.
• July 12, 2006 minutes
• Annexation Petition #06-04 by Greg Wencl
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
�nw
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 26, 2006
an nmPnrimPnt to the Chapter 59. the Wetland Ordinance under separate consideration,
Support Areas.
Mr. Phil Wheeler presented the staff reports dated July 21, 2006, to the Commission. The staff
reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Wheeler showed
Commission on July
Department.
the PowerPoint presentation that he previously presented to the
12, 2006. This presentation is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
Mr. Burke asked if the amount of Decorah Edge area would automatically grant property to the
R-1x zoning district.
Mr. Wheeler responded that the Ordinance does not make it mandatory, it remains a legislative
decision, so for example if an area has a trivial amount of Decorah Edge impact the Council
might decide against rezoning.
Mr. Wheeler stated that City Staff met and agreed with the proposal in the draft ordinance to
accommodate Decorah Edge sites meeting contiguity and access standards as parkland, and
that some other sites, for example a spring and drainageway identified as edge support area,
could be handled as a storm water easement issue.
Mr. Wheeler stated that there are 38 general development plans located in the edge:
• 25 have been eliminated from consideration for grandfathering:
0 7 expired due to inactivity
0 11 have preliminary plat, final plat, or lot split
o 2 have extensions in GDP resolution
o 4 have undergone substantial grading
o 1 other
5 do not appear to have soils associated with elevated groundwater or other edge
features
8 have lots that are potentially affected
Ms. Wiesner asked what would happen if someone lived on the edge area and wanted to add
on to their homes.
Mr. Wheeler responded that the existing provisions regarding non -conforming lots would apply.
In addition, the Wetland Ordinance already makes provision for disturbed sites and very small
wetlands and the draft ties exemptions for edge support areas to those exemption standards.
Mr. Wheeler handed out the summary of affected general development plans and status of
existing general development plans in the Decorah Edge to the Commissioners and audience.
These are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Cotntnission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 26, 2006
Mr. Haeussinger stated that it appeared from the maps Mr. Wheeler presented that the
developers had been doing a good job of avoiding the Decorah Edge.
Mr. Wheeler stated that some areas that did not show up on the presentation maps were not
shown as they have already been graded and developed.
Ms. Rivas asked if staff has reviewed the existing development agreements.
Mr. Wheeler stated that they have looked at the development agreements and have not found
anything that would go beyond a two year extension period.
Ms. Rivas stated that coming into compliance with Chapter 59 does not mean that the GDP has
to be completely redrawn. The areas affected just needs to be amended. Also, the applicant
could plat fewer lots rather than amending the GDP.
Mr. Wheeler responded she was correct, as long as consistent with GDP.
Discussion ensued regarding changes that would trigger an amendment to the GDP. Mr.
Wheeler read what a minor and major amendment was according to the City of Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Mr. Haeussinger stated that most GDPs don't last five years. Mr. Wheeler agreed, but pointed
out exceptions on the table. He explained that Century Hills is a very large area of land that
was planned and not expected to be built out in five years.
Mr. Burke stated that the Ordinance adopted by the County had all the GDPs specified. He
questioned whether the City Ordinance shouldn't also be specific.
Mr. Wheeler responded that the County had four GDPs. There may be other aspects of this
ordinance that change over the next five years. Therefore, he does not want to automatically
create grandfathering across the board. The County Ordinance probably should have been
listed as five years instead of specifying them.
Mr. Jim Mosser (residing at 3716 Arlington Lane SE, Rochester MN 55904), from the Zumbro
Land Conservancy, addressed the Commission. He stated that Zumbro Land Conservancy is in
favor of the proposed amendments that would prevent the disturbance of groundwater
supported wetlands and areas of near -surface groundwater flow associated with these wetlands
(edge support areas). He presented a letter dated July 26, 2006 to the secretary stating this
which will be on -file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-
05, initiated by the City Council as presented, except to have the grandfathering period
for GDPs end five years after the ordinance effective date instead of January 1, 2011. Ms.
Rivas seconded the motion The motion carried 7-0
Discussion ensued regarding scheduling this item for the City Council tentatively to August 21,
2006.
IJ
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: July 26, 2006
Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of the Amendment to Chapter 59 of the
Riv
Code of Ordinances, the Wetland Ordinance. Ms. as seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. 2007 Commission Budget
Discussion ensued regarding retaining the American Planning Association (APA) membership
for the Commissioners. It was agreed that all Commissioners, with the exception of Lisa
Wiesner, would like to maintain membership and have materials emailed to them.
2. As may be brought up with members
No discussion items were brought forward.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Mr. Wallace to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Haeussinger. Mr. Burke,
Chair, adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
jig
Mr. Jay Burke, Chair
Committee on
Urban Design &
Environment
Leslie Rheas, Chair
Jim Judi9ch, Vice -Chair
Diane 7lougan, Secretary
Chris Colby
Kris Douglas
Gail Eadie
Sandi Goslee
Bob Haeussinger
Carol Jech
John Klopp
-'Jay Maier
City of Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
Rochester City Council
Honorable Mayor Ardeil Brede
FROM: Rochester's Committee on Urban Design &Environment UG4r
DATE: July 26, 2006
RE: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments relating to the
Decorah Edge
The Committee on Urban Design and Environment (CODE) would
like to express support of the Text Amendments to the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and to the Wetland Ordinance as proposed
by Staff. These amendments are necessary to ensure the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Rochester by protecting the
aquifer which supplies the community with clean drinking water.
It is exciting to note that by including these amendments, a
significant natural resource will be preserved and the scenic
beauty of these sensitive areas will be maintained for future
generations.
It is essential that these amendments are made within the
reasonable time period as proposed. As there are currently a
limited amount of development proposals which would be
impacted by the text amendments, it is logical that there would
be greater detriment to the Rochester population at large who
could be impacted by pollution and contamination of the
ground water supplied within the Decorah Edge aquifer without
a development time limit in place.
Therefore, CUDE endorses the Zoning Text Amendments relating
to the Decorah Edge as initiated by the Rochester City Council.
by
ZUMBR
Land Consi
July 26, 2006
Rochester City Planning and Zoning Commission
Mr. Jay Burke, Chair
151 4th Street SE
Rochester MN 55904-3710
Mr. Chairman and Commission members,
The Zumbro Land Conservancy (ZLC) is a local grassroots citizens group whose mission is
preservation of natural areas and open space in Olmsted County. Preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas is an important `win -win" opportunity for the mission of the ZLC.
ZLC favors adoptions of the amendments that would prevent disturbance of Groundwater -
Supported Wetlands and areas of near -surface groundwater flow associated with these wetlands
(Edge Support Areas). These amendments would provide a very important step in protecting the
groundwater pollution reduction processes that occur at Groundwater Supported Wetlands.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
' 1?"be-
ia�--
9k
Mi a Schlasner,
R xanne Schlasner,
Jim Mosser
ZLC Board
Page 1 of 1
38 GDP's Located in the Edge
• 25 eliminated:
— 6 have already expired due to inactivity
— 11 have preliminary plat, final plat or lot split
— 4 have undergone substantial grading
— 3 have extensions in GDP resolution
— 1 other
• 5 do not appear to have soils associated with
elevated groundwater or other edge features
• 8 have lots potentially affected
1
�Mq
, RIDGE �
PfYE RID6E 8SU
_���_ � •— x x x e pevRnrEx
Needed for
secondary
access.
s
2
�)y
a
s
ary�$9t 'try a �
�JOE n
aze�a�yiilvrc+ao
r.
0
9
µ '� lit_ . 1 1 �• I yS �.
1 1 Y Y .p -
GENERAL Y8 LWPIQNS PLAN
PQIE11D00 3UIOPI
OHM
i
I
1
�
'•
1 1' � •,� I
CEI LD
@tl�tl �iR�E-Ytl•
_
��tt uweu
w<A:Le�
11 �
R
IJ
�lq
93
�9
M$
[ ,e l Edge and a WW6 Sob
10
0�
SO
mop.
hK YL
4A V�, yW
it`
on
R'
11
II
Summary of Affected GDP's
Approval
Single
Family
Total
Units per
Lots
GOP t
Date Detached
Units
Acres
Pore
Affected•
GDP Name
234
W2004
140
140
99.71
1,40
7
Bakken
CartserJForest Knoll
169
2/42002
173,
365
495
60,61
266.4
6.02
1,72
0
unknown
Century Hills
122
112004
495
76
76
37.9
2.00
2
Echo Ridge
256
197
62012005
2/19=3
219
219
125.2
1.75
3
Fieldstone226
Graham'Hundred AM Woods
171
1 OMMIS
226
144.0
6.4
1,58
0.59
10
0
Heim Property
252
1M12005
5
146
5
1�
Hunter Pointe
263
101172005
82
57�0
1�44
0
PAKS Properties IV
260
B/I W005
63
63
302
2.09
13
Pine Ridge Estates
107
258
2/4/1991
W1812005
-
258
900
282.0
3,19
unknown
Rochester Towne Club
139
717/1999
125
125
96.9
129
0
Shannon Oaks
0
186
- 15.4
5.59
4
The Gardens Phase III
261
2/62006
2,010
'930
1,330D
2.20
39
wetlands. Feld investigation
results and
altered SLA
requirements are
• Based or soils maps and delineated
not reflected,
23
12
f
luk
ROCHESTER - OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE, SUITE 100, ROCHESTER, MN, 55904-4744
PH: (507) 285-8232 FAX: (507) 287-2275
To: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Phil Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director
Date: July 21. 2006
Re: Text Amendments Related to Decorah Edge Development
Background: As the result of research by the USGS and others demonstrating that near -
surface groundwater flow over the Decorah, Platteville, and Glenwood formations results in
beneficial reductions in groundwater contamination, the City Council has initiated ordinance
amendments to its Wetland Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual changing the regulations applying to development in the Decorah Edge. The
attachments provide the current draft amendments. Also attached is an updated summary of
the existing GDP's that have any of their area within the Decorah Edge along with the total
number of lots potentially affected (based on soils).
issues: As discussed at the July 12, 2006 PZC meeting, there are at least two issues that
should be resolved in the review process. These are discussed below.
o Parkland — City staff met to discuss the proposed text language with regard to
acceptance of Decorah Edge sites as parkland. With some minor modification, as
shown in the attachment, the proposed draft reviewed by the PZC on July 12 was
accepted. In many cases, Decorah Edge features may also be managed by the City as
part of its stormwater management program, further reducing reliance on conservation
easements, deed restrictions, and other private mechanisms for site protection.
o Grandfathering of GDP's — Mitzi Baker has reviewed all of the GDP's with regard to their
Decorah Edge Impact. The number of affected GDP's is reduced from 30 to 7, based on
several factors, including advancement to platting stages, extensive grading having
taken place already, expiration due to limits now in effect having expired, and special
approval circumstances. The last of these applies to a few GDP's in the Hadley Valley
area, for which the Council resolution approving the GDP extends the effective approval
to two years following extension of water and sewer facilities.
Staff lreview
hat the GDP's wothe seven uld meet the criteria the
of the draftthe
ordinances n the basis of
. In some cases,
it appears
needed collector roads or secondary access.
Review with Regard to Criteria: An amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance must
satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) whether there is a public need for the amendment: We conclude there is a public need for
the amendment in order to provide for groundwater protection and other purposes while still
providing for urban densities of development within the urban service area.
b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester: The
amendment will
further
�romotitn eorderly the Comprehenowth sive Plan goal of orderly deve! pm nt e community and protect the drinking water
supply, YA g
c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful: We have been advised that adoption
would be lawful.
�r
07�21i06
Requested Action: If the Planning Commission agrees that this amendment Is desirable, you
should recommend its adoption by the Common Council.
Wetland Ordinance: Although the PZC is not directed by statute to make recommendations on
the Wetland Ordinance, the close tie between the two ordinances warrants your
recommendation in this case. Staff recommends that you recommend the ordinance
amendment be approved by the Council.
Page 2 of 2
FEQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING A3
DATE: 8-21-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM NO.
C
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Ordinance Text Amendment #06-01, initiated by the City
PREPARED BY:
Council on June 26, 2006. The amendment proposes changes to several sections of
Phil Wheeler, AICP
Chapter 59 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances affecting the Decorah Edge area and
Planning Director
groundwater supported wetlands.
August 15, 2006
Background: As the result of research by the LISGS and others demonstrating that near -surface groundwater flow over
beneficial in groundwater contamination, the City
the Decorah, Platteville, and Glenwood formations results in reductions
Council has initiated ordinance amendments to its Wetland Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual changing the regulations applying to development in the Decorah Edge.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission discussed
a hearing on this matter on July 26, 2006. Minutes of both meetings are attached.
this matter on July 12, 2006, and conducted
The Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment as presented at the hearing, with one change,
1, 2011, to five from the effective date of the
replacing the extension provided to approved GDP's from January years
ordinance.
Following the meeting, it became necessary to clarify the nature of the exemption granted to approved GDP's through a fe'A
Staff is of the opinion that these changes
minor changes to the text recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
a minor nature and do not require returning to the Planning Commission. In the attached ordinance amendments
are of
everything that is shaded represents a change from the current ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission
of the ordinance seen and recommended by the
Everything that is shaded AND underlined is a change from the version
Planning Commission.
Committee on Urban Design and Environment Recommendation: As indicated in the attached letter, the CUDE support!
the proposed amendments.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff recommends approval of the attached amendments with the changes recommended following the Planning
Commission meeting. The changes incorporate the change recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance amendment text.
2. PZC Minutes of July 12 and July 26, 2006 (see previous item).
3. Letter from CUDE (see previous item)
4. Letter from the Zumbro Land Conservancy (see previous item)
5. Staff memorandum of July 21, 2006. (see previous item)
Distribution:`
1. City Administrator /
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
Counci! Action Needed:
2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance th
can be adopted.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING
SECTIONS 59.15 AND 59.16, AND AMENDING AND
REENACTING SECTIONS 59.01, 59.02, 59.05, 59.06,
59.07. 59.08, 59.09, 59.10, 59.11, 59.12, 59.13, AND
59,14 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO WETLAND
CONSERVATION AND REGULATION.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 59.15 to the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
59.15. High Priority Areas. The City of Rochester is designated a
high priority area under Minnesota Rules. Decisions regarding sequencing,
replacement plans, and banking shall particularly favor preservation, restoration,
and creation of wetlands in high priority areas as identified in water management
plans pursuant to Minn. Rules part 8420.0350.
Section 2. Section 59.16 to the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
59.16. Delegation. The City of Rochester may by joint powers
agreement delegate to the soil and water conservation district under Minn. Stat. H
471.59 and 103C.331, subdivision 19, the authority to administer all or any part of
this ordinance.
Section 3. Section 59.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.01. Purpose. This ordinance is adopted to implement the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, (Minn. Laws 1991 chapter 354, as amended
by Laws 1993, chapter 175, and as hereafter amended ("WCA")), and the
accompanying rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (Minn.
Rules chapter 8420, as amended); acid t°Iii ptxfW thh bua og�cat dit+ersity and wa
Section 2. Section 59.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.02. Definitions and Map. Subdivision 1. Incorporation by
RCO 59 Auaust 9, 2006 version
Page 2 of 10
Reference. This ordinance incorporates by reference the WCA and Minnesota
Rules Chapter 8420. Except as provided in Subdivisions 2 through 6, terms used
in this ordinance which are defined in the Act or the Rules have the meanings
given there.
Suhd, Zx, Decoreia Edge ;the., fern,„"Decoradge shad, incluele,the
A }averhilt:tdT46j, Root (t71J,ar�d palrps t528B) sprts
D Areas within 50 feet of springs;
RCO 59 August , 2006 version
Page 3 of 0
E _ Areas within 5Qf of seeps
Section 3. Section 59.05 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.05. Scope. Subdivision 1. This ordinance regulates the excavating,
j yd ic,ate- J draining and filling of wetlands, parts of wetlands 464, f90
Support Ares within the City of Rochester.
Subd.2. In the event that an inconsistency exists between the
provisions of state law, the Rules and this chapter, the provision that provides the
most wetiand protection shall apply.
RCA 59 August 9, 2005 version
Page 4 of 10
Subd.3. Wetlands in General. Except as provided in the exemption
and no -loss determination sections hereinafter described, wetlands within the City
of Rochester may not be excavated, drained or filled wholly or partially unless
replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value.
Section 4. Section 59.06 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
A 7he,-development acffvity;involves the construction'of,loca
coi�ectors' or 'her ighorder streets, where , the; Council has
found ui its approvel,of a general development 0 ii than
(1) The trafc service standardp gi Seci�on 61 528 canna
,k1
Formatted: Holight
Formatted:
ifFormatted: Underline
Formatted: Underline,
Formauea: onmr„ ,,,y.,y...
Formatted: Numbered + lead: 1 +
Numbering Style: A, 0, C, ._ + Start
at 1 + Alignment Left + Aligned at•
1' + Tab after. 1.25" + Indent at
1.25"
Formatted: Underline
Underline,
l rormatmo: uneermm __
i Formatted: Indent left: 0.5"
..I Farmattad: Underline
RCO 59 August 9, 2006 version
Page 5 of 10
e pt13t wdt out pfovjd ng for' .6 sheet hi question;
Section 5. Section 59.07 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
RCO 59 Auoust y, 2006 version
Page 6 of 10
59 07 Exemptions A landowner may claim
provisions of the WCA and this Chapter if the property
rr-e ravatl meets the exemption
exemption from the
to be drained, filled,
—A,-" mtninad In
Minn Rules pan
aoaa v+ltif .art $xnap
ridvva I si?plp ia6d`F`*9d@!I . II s a so a
Exemption determinations under Minn. Rules part 8420.0210 shall be
made by the zoning administrator. A landowner intending to §xcavatet
�cal1Y s1ta drain or fill a wetland without replacement, claiming etixematiol3,
shall make application to the zoning administrator before beginning
draining or filling activities for determination whether or not the activity is exempt.
The zoning administrator may seek the advice of the technical evaluation panel on
questions of wetland size and type. The administrator's decision is final unless
appealed to the common council within 30 days after written
exeice of the certifzoning
administrator's determination is mailed to the app
icate
shall be provided the landowner upon the zoning administrator's or common
council's determination that the activity qualifies for exemption. ThePend pending
thority
granted by the certificate shall be stayed during the time an appeal
s
before the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Section 6. Section 59.08 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.08. No -Loss. Subdivision 1. A landowner unsure if proposed
work will result in a loss of wetlands may, apply for a no -loss determination. No -
loss determinations under Minn. Rules part 8420.0220 shall be made by the
zoning administrator. The zoning administrator should seek the advice of the
technical evaluation panel on questions of wetland delineation and type. The
administrator's decision is final unless appealed to the common council within 30
days after written notice of the zoning administrator's determination is mailed to the
applicant.
Subd. 2. A no -loss certificate shall be provided the landowner upon the
zoning administrator's or common council's determination that:
A. The work will not drain or fill a wetland;
B. Water level management activities will not result in the conversion of
a wetland to another land use;
C. The activities are in a surface impoundment for containment of fossil
fuel combustion waste or water retention and are not part of a
compensatory wetland mitigation program; or
D. The activity is being conducted as part of an approved replacement
plan or is conducted or authorized by public agencies for the purpose
of wetland restoration and the activity is restricted to placing fill in a
RCO 59 August 9, 2006 version /
Page 7 of 10 1
previously excavated drainage system to restore a wetland to its
original condition.
Subd.3. The landowner applying for a no -loss determination is
responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualification for this
determination. The authority granted by the certificate shall be stayed during the
time an appeal is pending before the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Section 7. Section 59.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.09. Seauencinp and Replacement Plan Decisions. Subdivision 1.
A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland who does not qualify for an
exemption or no -loss determination shall obtain approval of a replacement plan
from the common council except that if the amount of wetland to be drained or
filled is less than one -tenth of an acre, the sequencing determination under Minn.
Rules part 8420.0520 shall be made by the zoning administrator. Replacement
plans intended to mitigate activities within the City of Rochester must involve the
replacement or rehabilitation of properties located within Olmsted County.
Subd. 2. Sequencing and replacemeniplan decisions under Minn Rules
parts B420.0230 and 8420.0520 - .0550 §b 4 ? O ng xcc9:::: s gndef
5§t _ rpG`gtfbdivigton shall be made pursuant to the following procedures.
A. Application for wetland replacement plans must be submitted to the
zoning administrator.
B. The zoning administrator shall, within ten days, transmit a copy of
the application and invitation to comment to the following: Board of
Water and Soil Resources for publication in the Environmental
Quality Report; members of the public who have requested a co
the soil and water conservation district; the watershed district or
water management organization, if one; the county board; mayors of
cities within the watershed; and the commissioners of agriculture and
natural resources. The planning staff shall also publish notice of the
application in a local general circulation newspaper in the city within
the same 10 day period.
C. The zoning administrator shall, within 20 days of receipt of the
application, schedule a public hearing before the common council to
consider the application. The hearing shall be established not earlier
than 30 days after the later of the giving of notice, publication of the
notice of application in the Environmental Quality Report, or
publication in the local general circulation newspaper. Prior to said
hearing the appprovalator shall prepre a with conditions, ordisapprovalort
of
recommending approval,approval
RCO 59 Augusi 9, 2006 version �1
Page B of 10
the proposed replacement plan. The report shall contain all referrapplicant
l
comments and any additional information provided by the
D. The common council shall act upon the application not earlier than
30 days, nor later than 50 days, after the later of the giving of notice,
publication of the notice of application in the Environmental Quality
Report, or publication in the local
general
circulation
nnewspaper.
The common council may appapprove
disapprove the replacement plan application.
E. The common council must base its decisions on the replacement
standards in Minn. Rules parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630, and on the
technical determinations of the technical evaluation
n panel etconcerning
nd being
the public values, location, size, and type
altered.
F. The decision of the common council shall be mailed to all parties
listed in subpart 2 above and to the applicant. The mailing to the
applicant shall be by registered mail and must advise that the
decision is not effective for 30 days, and is stayed if appeal is made
to the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Section 8. Section 59.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.% Monitoring. The zoning administrator shall assure that the
replacement plan monitoring and enforcement requirements of Minn. Rules parts
8420.06D0 - .0630 and B420.0750, subp. 2A are fulfilled. The zoning administrator
may request the technical review panel to assist in answering technical questions
concerning the replacement plan and to assist in monitoring the replacement
wetland.
Section 9. Section 59.11 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.11. Wetland Banking. Subdivision 1. Wetlands may be restored
or created within the City of Rochester for purposes of deposit in the wetland bank
in accordance with Minn. Rules parts 8420.0700 - .0760. The zoning administrator
is responsible for approving bank plans, certifying deposits, and the monitoring of
banked wetlands and enforcement under the rules
Subd. 2. Only wetland credits from wetlands restored or created within
Olmsted County may be used when the draining or filling of a wetland within the
City is to be done without replacement. An application to the City Council must be
made for a sequencing determination pursuant to Minn. Rules part B420.0520 prior
to use of the wetland credits maintained in the wetland bank. The city council shall
RCO 59 AuquS" 9, 2D06 version
A / Page 9 of 10
' V seek assistance from the Technical Evaluation Panel and the zoning administrator
prior to approval.
Section 10. Section 59.12 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.12. Fees. The common council shall by resolution adopt a
schedule of fees applicable to no -net loss determinations, exemption
determinations, replacement plan determinations, and banking plan
determinations. The amount of the fees shall not exceed the reasonable value of
the functions undertaken by the LGU.
Section 11. Section 59.13 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.13. Appeals and Exceptions. Decisions made under this
ordinance by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Common Council.
sf6tts�adgerk,:Area decisions of the Common
....--I-a + +tip Rnard of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)
Section 12. Section 59.14 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
59.14. Limitations. Decisions under this ordinance must not be
made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel
regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the decision -maker,
the landowner, or a member of the technical panel asks for such determinations.
This requirement does not apply to wetlands for which such data is included in an
approved comprehensive wetland management plan per Minn. Rules part
8420.0240.
Section 13. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RCO 59 August 9. 2006 version
Page 10 of 10
OCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2006.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2006.
OR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
0i 2DDD159.01 e1SW
10
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING (j
DATE: 8/21/06 `7) ��
A SECTION:
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR
OTA
IT oescRtPTION MINNES
BUSINESS-CENTER PARKING RAMP
PROJECT - APPROVAL OF STATE GRANT AGREEMENT
ITEM NO.
F- f
PREPARED BY:
G. NEUMANN
The City was successful in receiving $8 million in a State bonding bill appropriation for parking improvements, land
acquisition, and other infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed construction of the Minnesota Bio
Business Center. The MBBC would be constructed by the City Economic Development Authority, which is comprised of
the City Council operating under authorized Economic Development Authority statutes of the State. The first major step in
this process is to enter into an agreement with the State Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
that spells out the requirements for the receipt of the State bonding funds. The staff has worked with DEED on an
agreement that has been approved by that department of grant agreement beat g signed ao approved.nd 9 have sent separately
that draft agreement and am requesting approval
The State agrees to provide up to $8 million to predesign, design, construct, furnish, and equip publicly owned
infrastructure required to support bioscience development (the parking ramp costs).
The grant funds are required to be encumbered within four years after the award date and construction completed by
12131/10 or the grant is cancelled (we are anticipating a much quicker encumbering of funds and completion of the
project).
- If the cost of the infrastructure is less than $8 million, for example if ramp construction costs are less than that, than the
grant amount will be that lesser amount.
- To receive the grant the City is required to const uct an "eligible project" at a cost exceeding the grant costs and will
secure a bioscience based business to occupy the project within five years after the date of the last grant payment and
occupy the project for a minimum of 5 years. This requirement will be met if the City EDA constructs the MBBC and Mayo
Clinic (Mayo Medical Ventures) is a tenant in the building as proposed. Our proposed construction will not occur, and
grant funds will not be expended, if we cannot secure a lease with Mayo that ensures that the City can meet these
requirements. The agreement species that a lease for a fiveyear or There are ore provisionst term
withat if the Mayo will
were ato,t requirement. for example tear
- The City agrees to operate the facility as a parking ramp.
down or sell the parking ramp in the future, the amount of the grant funds would have to be repaid unless waived by the
State.
- The City is required to pay the prevailing wage requirements of the State for the ramp construction.
We are obtaining information on alternative designs for the ramp. If any buildings need to be acquired for it, those offers
will be made at a later time and will include relocation assistance for owners and tenants. The potential buildings involved
in the ramp site are not affected by the recommended approvals for the grant agreement or the offers on the MBBC
building site.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED.
1. Approval of a grant agreement conforming to the description provided above.
2. Authorize the staff to submit offers to Mayo and Sunstone for acquisition of the MBBC site, with a 6 month period tc
determine if a closing will occur based on contingencies such as lease discussions with Mayo.
3. Authorize funding from the Parking Enterprise fund for the site acquisition costs and a future transfer or lease of the
site to the EDA for the MBBC construction.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Semnd by: tD.
MEETING IS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: _ 08/21/06
ORIGINA I IN" ucr I
ENDA SECTION: CITY CLERK
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PREPARED BY:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS Bethany Gerber
The following SOUND ANIRLIFICATION 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.
Alzheimer's Association Memory Walk
1001 14'h Street NW #800
Rochester, MN 55901 08/26/06 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Held at the Elk's Lodge
Century High School Homecoming Parade
2525 Viola Road NE 09/15/06 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Rochester, MN 55904
DFL Fundraiser
1865 Tiffany Cove Lane SW
Rochester, MN 55902 09/12/06 5:00 PM to 8:30 PM
Held at Soldier's Field
Westfire Grille
1201 19`s Avenue SW 0 t l
Rochester, MN 55902 09/01/06 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Westfue Grille DJ Outside
Mayo Civic Center
30 Civic Center Dr
Rochester, MN 55902 09/07/06 6:30 PM to 11:00 PM
Bob Dylan Concert at Mayo Field
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second bv:_.---- to:
\PSOUND AMPLIFICATION REQUESTS
PAGE 2
August 21TH9 2006
Rochester Coalition
4150 Willoughby Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901 08/23/06
Rally at the Peace Plaza
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the sound amplification permits as presented
v
11:00 AM to 2:00 PM
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR ITEM
F-2
AUGUST 21, 2006 AGENDA
Mayor & Council
Stevan Kvenvold
Gary Neumann
Terry Spaeth
Terry Adkins
Richard Freese
APPLICATION # a
PERMIT # _
COUNCIL DATE: 'A -
DATE RECEIVED S� 9 /D (p
RECEIPT NUMBS 0-AMOUNT PAID • o 0
APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION: e 9 -06
APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 41" ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLICANTIRESPONSIBLE PARTY:
HOME ADDRESS:
DATE OF BIRTH:
HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER:
NAME OF ORGANIZATION:
0003oI."
TELEPHONE NUMBER:. )
CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT:
HOME ADDRESS:
DATE OF
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
PURPOSE OF EVENT:
DATE(S) OF EVENT:
LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT:
CELL PHONE NUMBER:
L^O
CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION
! I SE' /;7
(FAT)
(&ez
(MIDDLE)
CELL PHONE NUMBER:
EVENT INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED:
DAY(S) OF WEEK: 6t 4
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED 3 ��
TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY
HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED
START TINM:
9o,-m
END TIME: I � D/Y 2
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 IS SOUGHT
INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS.
4. PROVIDE THE MEANS AND METHODS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO PREVENT NOISE FROM THE
EVENT FROM UNREASONABLY DISTURBING THOSE PERSONS WHO LIVE OR WORK IN THE VICINITY OF
THE EVENT. (Use Additional Sheet If Necessary)
5. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SOUND LIMITATION (Check One)
MA30MUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT
THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY.
WAIVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUUtE THE AMPLIFIED
SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN I0:30 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.
7
L 11u)
Signature of Applicant
PERMIT FEE: $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:
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY
(SIGNATURE)
POLICE DEPARTMENT: �� ��j t) A L G-�-s ' f 1 L- L t� c
COMMENTS: mco ,c,
ntil5 r &- IA S 4 / � C � i-C Q k 4zc' oOn "-7 CSC , eCJ<"A n1 J r- ism d
L,.(1 4-C-101 a� e ,� o%
IRA
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
(SIGNATURE)
TURF)
CITY CLERSAPPROVAL: DATE:
APPLICATION #
PERMIT #
COUNCIL DATE: 712110to
DATE RECEIVED S -01'
RECEIPT NUMBER
AMOUNT PAID fAn
APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION: 2 D
APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4T" ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION:
ADDRESS:
Z'5- �1111
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 5 O 7- 2`i 7— 2 /,S C) CELL PHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION
CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER: -Zg 7 — 7 / Sy CELL PHONE NUMBER: S� % - Z S9- D (a 3 0
EVENT INFORMATION
PURPOSE OF EVENT: o ' t Or'n "r 'A re-,
DATE(S) OF EVENT: C Ot • DAY(S) OF WEEK:
LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: e-Y1 O h �s �FcU J1YC'
DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED:
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED
TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY u—n �{
HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED A
ja
START TIME:
END TIME:
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))
Cnx �C' PS tJf ��f i 1 c!JC�I i C1 -S
C '+
S eFe IldL2l
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.
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)
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL NO MORE THAN 85 DECIBELS MEASURED AT
THE PROPERTY LINE OR VENUE BOUNDARY.
WAIVE THE MA)MYIUM 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.
ee v Signature Applicant
PERMIT FEE: S25.00
YOU WILL NEED AT
-6160 TO OBTAIN
RFQUIRED
DEPARTMEN PETO CHECK vaTH RMITS IF YODU ARE THE PARK
DING YOUR VEN DEPARTMENT ON PARK DEPARTMENT PP 1ROPERT'Y- PARK
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY
PARK DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
7'
(SIGNATURE)
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
FIRE DEPARTMENT. -
COMMENTS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
CITY CLER%APPROVAL: DATE:
L�'rlr! _N 1Frl� 1f lRFl(',;
I�Ir( a �/y 1��,
PARADE ROUTE
September 15, 2006
Century's Homecoming Parade will start lining up at 3:15pm on Friday,
September 15. The parade will start at 4:00 m from Kellogg Middle
School. The route will take us WEST on 17` ST, SOUTH on 3`d AVE,
EAST on 14`h ST, and SOUTH on 81h AVE - ending at the Jefferson
Elementary School parking lot. Thank you for participating in Century's
2005 Homecoming Parade. If you have questions or concerns, please call
Kurt Verdoorn at 287-7940.
GO PANTHERS!
APPLICATION #�-
PERMIT # -7
COUNCIL DATE: gdria
DATE RECEIVED 4 RECEIPT NUMBER
AMOUNTPAID $ j��5
APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION: O
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:
(MIDDLE) (LAS1)
UC /--# -S'' ki ,
DATE OF BIRTH: ,// v-S /
HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: 5C -0 CELL
PHONE NUMBER: / CP - % lI G
NAME OF ORGANIZATION:— " /`F L-yNC ; a-l�&C4
ADDRESS: %/FFli ly Y Ga't L. m S
TELEPHONE NUMBER: �2 5� / -,f -x (-
CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT:
HOME ADDRESS:
DATE OF BIRTH:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
�
L
PURPOSE OF EVENT: 7 u
DATE(S) OF EVENT:
CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION
Sit
(FIRST)
(MIDDLE)
CELL PHONE NUMBER:
EVENT INFORMATION
A -I S'- r/L fir, 9 A. L
91/sA / DAY(S) OF WE]
,l G s :�-' '
LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT:
DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED:
L-'
/tij /�'/
3G
1N4 C 74 �jY S Ace� 0 N IA/'hE % ) Alt) fLG!�%
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 j F 1 S
START TIME: S" �?A1
END TIME: F,, -3 Q f / 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 If Necessary))
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.
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)
40 u3 A Lr-- `f L A A/ ie-
5. APPLIC T 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.
WANE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND REQUIRE THE AMPLIFIED
SOUND TO TERMINATE NO LATER THAN 10:30 P.M.
The Applicant hereby agrees that a copy of Rochester Code of Ordinances 117 has been provided with the application and
that the Applicant has read and does understand the regulations found within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply
with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any conditions of approval imposed upon the permit that might be
granted in response to his application.
gnature of Applicant
PERMIT FEE: $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.
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY
PARK DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
to
(SIGNATURE)
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
v
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
(SIGNATURE)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
CITY CLER%APPROVAL: DATE:
APPLICATION #
PERMIT #
COUNCIL DATE:
DATE RECEIVED 1 1 I I TOLD
RECEIPT NUMBER - (o R O CJ
AMOUNT PAID V
APPLICATION FOR SO UND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION: 8 - i f -UG
APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904
NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATIOr
ADDRESS: I a c i I9-�bAua &
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (GO-7 )Sal —V 3ig CELL PHONE NUMBER: (St^7 7�C�S� fcf 35
CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION
CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: Z-AJ i p
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (so-7) 43a 33�'lG CELL PHONE NUMBER:
(1�-) EVENT INFORMATION
PURPOSE OF EVENT: SP P�KS r hZATI � 1 Z'bi'��(N Awg-T V- W j CPi. is t r Ka .
DATE(S) OF EVENT: F { SWT i s� = i �� DAY(S) OF WEEK:
Ff-iDA"
LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: ° LJ `sT Si C C Cis I � ��''� 6r Pl I 6 LE' c v.THE-
DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: rL -a • k-tL i L C IDE7 � �� C °
Qi i !h7'�N� U' �t61�� SPA12K i� L_i_ taPa� k; 'OPT'w Fbp,
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED
TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY Ickc
HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LMTED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED
i GKa`j5 Li- R. Zt F-ic fT2-Y
START TIME: /; C(D f'ij,A`
END TIME: 11: cc �1 �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 ARRANGEMENT'S 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))
ijd W i Lti L Se9--'0 Q Sy—'l3lPC . :� (D
h cc. L Cw� 3crd
A ZE F .C-ASS p Fc Cx� i� 12 i�-fkSi t P(LO' ' i p -M . EV CN-r
Cam_ WiL.L v3E C: i C ilI TI t�tQ� � t �l?iT ,
�i1iC'Y" IN A.17DI'j'1C>!"s TC) C. ti42— � IJS✓� �ll�i, l � ���'i=
1ZlL 1•'lii2C ULU� .
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.
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)
THE SC�L�t�D i�CHNC'iRN �1�� N-� -A.i_ o-X-� THE Sit CEO
.-.,, r_-rr� -, ,� nnax� nn�.,� �n� A.Li...c7.,JA(3f_..� SO�.Vy (> �Q-��C�l✓
APPLICAANT 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 N
granted in response to his application.
Signature of Applicant
PERMIT FEE: S25.00
YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 2BI-6160 TO OBTAIN 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
(SIGNATURE)
TURE)
(SIGNATURE)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
TURE)
DATE:
CITY CLERK APPROVAL:
ti
i
LLk V�
i �t irFl QE e7�-iLLC cu oi�-, BEN i
APPLICATION # 3 -7 -7 �
PERMIT #
COUNCIL DATE: S -
DATE RECEIVED $ l t D(0
RECEIPT NUMBER
AMOUNT PAID
APPLICATION FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION: l k l lb IP
APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4TH ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLICANT/RESPONSIBLE PARTY: M0.Y D Cc V iC C CM �jC�Q f T (� PdycL4G f 1co
HOME ADDRESS:
DATE OF BIRTH:
HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER:
NAME OF ORGANIZA
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT:
CELL PHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION
(MIDDLE)
Wt?(- lrin ,/ -----
I#9AdE ADDRESS: MaU U C i O t C.
DATE OF BIR
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CELL PHONE NUMBER:
EVENT INFORMATION
PURPOSE OF EVENT: 1;06 b4 Io-4n CU�Ce�
DATE(S) OF EVENT: 9 1-71O (o DAY(S) OF WEEK: 1 vu pia
n
LOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENT:
DESCRIPTION OF ENTERTAINMENT TO BE PROVIDED: II lI�x- S 7-5
Ir c (,Va4.iv-v Vlrc of l[t/ w Oy L`
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PERMITTED SG�
TO BE IN ATTENDANCE ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY
HOW WILL ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INDICATED i 1 t K e
START TIME:
END TIME: (( " 00 PIS
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 �, aa TnnHE�_DIRCTION THE S UNj) WILIyTRAVEL M�D F-etd ` slc' 'e-
sek--'p t Vl' C P T u� CTtc [ Vl� �-k-a 5 'fo-Av CN w� .
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))
boct— NA o (eu(c Ce-n 's CcJ✓LCfSSfc3v�oi✓�
A'-- ca - &-Vfk Cdvs s ovN-st-i-e .
Sae",,fo*r- - �C ✓ G k f6t (L f 3
Rey ho+ rftresW
(�LC.r 6c �P - G �fa-F�ly� G✓�l�S �n-� d � - �15�OS� i vt, ✓c�L aC
3, ATTACH A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE CHIEF'S DESIGNEE STATING
THAT, IN THE CHIEFS OPINION, APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS RAVE BEEN MADE TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE SECURITY AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE EVENT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS SOUGHT
INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL, TRAFFIIC CONTROL AND ^POLICE PROTECTION FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS. �v<<Cf G�I� ItW� « 4 _ ��—Qnlit't ' VO(,L°SS
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 Iffecessary)
_ � O-irA -WA -e- f i ve4- Q�vl G I4
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.
Gam, Kn�,k4
7 Sigdature of Applicant
PERMIT FEE: $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.
PARR DEPARTMENT. -
COMMENTS:
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY
(SIGNATURE)
TIIRFI
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
(SIGNATURE)
(SIGNATURE)
CITY CLERKAPPROVAL: DATE:
APPLICATION #
PERMIT # .
COUNCIL DATE. $ -r�) —(7Co
DATE RECEIVED 0 - 1 / - D(o
RECEIPT NUMBER
AMOUNT PAID
APPLICATION FOR SO UND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION: ( � %
t•
APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF EVENT TO:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, 201 4'H ST. SE, ROCHESTER, MN. 55904
NAME OF APPLICANTRESPONTSIBLE PARTY:
HOME ADDRESS:
DATE OF BIRTH:�-
HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER[,XU / /�- X/ -
NAME OF ORGANIZATION:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
L
A ST%
CELL PHONE NU1vIBER: ��
CONTACT PERSON INFORMATION
CONTACT PERSON DURING EVENT: L
HOME ADDRESS:
DATE OF BIRTH: L
TELEPHONE NUMBER: - 3 LL PHONE NUMB C73 --3 L%
PURPOSE OF EVENT
DATE(S) OF EVENT:
LOCATION OF SPEC?
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
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 COOL#AND TJLAFFTC CONTROL (Use Additional Sheet IfNecessary))
---
AA ( ?�
i F
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.
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... 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
I ` 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 regulatiQns.Lzurid within the Ordinance, and does intend to comply
with the regulations found within the Ordinance and any j nditions approval im o ed upon the permit that might be
granted in response to his application. R
of Applicant
PERMIT FEE: S25.00
YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AT 281-6160 TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PARK
DEPARTMENT PERMITS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOUR VENUE ON PARK DEPARTMENT PROPERTY.
PARK DER.4RTME1VT.
COMMENTS:
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
FOR,4DMrrNYSTRATrON USE ONLY
(SIGAATURE)
L4ZTl7NATTIRFI
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS:
PLAnING DEPARTMENT.
COMMENTS:
(SIGNATURE)
(SIGNATURE)
CITY CLEAKAPPRO VAL: DATE:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
MEETING I /
DATE: 8/21/06
ITEM NO.
G
PREPARED BY:
TERRY L. ADKINS
} t) An Ordinance Rezoning 47.67 Acres Of Land From The R-1 Zoning District To The B-4 Zoning District,
4i And Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known As The Zoning Ordinance And Land Development Manual Of
The City Of Rochester, Minnesota. Said property is located South of 75"' Street NW and on the East side
of Highway 52.
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: