HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS lU O�J
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4TH STREET SE
MEETING NO. 26
REGULAR
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
7:00 P.M.
PAGE
1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
3-6 1) Recognition of Rochester as a Bicycle Friendly Community
7-8 D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
9-12
2)
Request to Purchase Pandemic Flu Supplies
13-16
3)
Request to Reallocate CIP Funds/Rochester Civic Theatre
17-22
4)
RCTC Sports Field and Inflatable Dome Project —Agreements
23-24
5)
Housing Code Violations 224 — 224'/z 19th Avenue Southwest
25-26
6)
Change Order #3 and #4 with Century Fence Company for the Perimeter
Fencing Project
27-28
7)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous City Activities
29-30
8)
On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Licenses — Cuzihavto LLC dba
Paradise Petes
31-32
9)
On -Sale Wine License — El Carambas LLC dba El Carambas
33-34
10)
Approval of Accounts Payable
35-38
11)
PAC Meeting Approval—10/24/06 — Modified Pay Plan
39-42
12)
Promotional Appointment — Fire Captain — Rochester Fire Department
43-46
13)
Promotional Appointment — Motor Operator — Rochester Fire Department
47-48
14)
Request City Council Support for Active Communities Planning and
pursuit of BlueCross BlueShield Grant to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and identify Ordinance Sections to be amended to integrate active living
principles
49-50
15)
Initiate Zoning Map Amendment from the R-1 to the MRD District for
properties related to the University Center Rochester campus and zoning
text amendments explicitly providing revised standards for advanced
education uses and related facilities in the MRD District
51-52 16)
Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOJ, Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Federal Medical Center, Rochester, MN, and the City of
Rochester Police Department (Use of Canine Units)
53-54 17)
Contracting with Prope rtyRoom.com Inc., to provide on-line Auction
Services for Disposable Property from the Evidence and Property Unit.
55-58 18)
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
59-60 19)
Owner Contract — Stonehedge Townhomes 5th to Century High School
Bike Trail Extension — J5258
61-62 20)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club
Villas — J5250
63-64 21)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club
Village — J5251
65-66 22)
Supplemental Agreement for Stonehedge Development
67-68 23)
Revocable Permit— Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vision Real Estate Replat
69-70 24)
Revocable Permit — Parts of Lots 1 and 8, Block 3, North Orchard Park
Subdivision
71-72 25)
Revocable Permit — 5193 Southern Ridge Lane SW — Retaining Wall and
Concrete Driveway
73-74 26)
Revocable Permit: BP Products North America, Inc., Monitoring Wells on
City Property
75-76 27)
Revocable Permit: BP Products North America, Inc., Monitoring Wells on
City Right of Way
77-78 28)
Award of Contract: Quarry Hill Ravine and Stream Stabilization Project
(J6512) and Parkwood Hills Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J7754)
79-80 29)
Release of Controlled Access for Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, all in
Lincolnshire North First Subdivision
81-82 30)
City/County Cost Sharing Agreement — Marion Road Drainage Area
J6505
83-84 31)
Special Parking for 2009 National Dalmatian Club Show at Civic Center
85-86 32)
Assessment Agreements — (J4609) Construction of Sidewalk at Various
Locations
87-88 33)
Assessment Agreements — (J7743) Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from
13th Ave NW to the Cascade Bridge
89-90 34)
Assessment Agreement: (J9712) Reconstruction of 7`h Street NW from
Cascade Creek Bridge #55529 to North Broadway (TH 63)
91-92 35)
Supplemental Agreement #1 Project 9501 (J2574) Civic Center North
Parking Lot Expansion
93-94 36)
Supplemental Agreement #3 Project MO-74 (J9708) Overland Drive N.W.
from 18`h Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
95-96 37)
Supplemental Agreement #4 Project MO-74 (J9708) Overland Drive N.W.,
from 18`h Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
97-98 38)
Supplemental Agreement #3 Project M1-50-2-04 (J7731) Bandel Road
N.W., from Bandel Drive to 65th St. N.W.
99-100 39)
Assessment of "Unpaid Charges". Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve Crystal Springs, J9787
101-102 40) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges'. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve Kahouns, J9786
103-104 41)
Assessment of "Unpaid Charges." Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve Oslo Court NE, J7707
105-106 42)
Assessment of "Unpaid Charges". Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve Cedar Park, J9790
107-108 43)
Supplemental Agreement #1 Hadley Valley Trunkline Sanitary Sewer
Phase 2, J7744
109-110 44)
Award of Contract: (J2261) Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of
Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 71h Street NW
111-112 45)
Engineering Service Agreement: (J9856), (J7226) & (J6007) Preliminary
Analysis and Design Services for 415t Ave NW and Members Parkway
113-114 46)
Contract Award Engine Generator No. 2 Replacement (Project J4399)
115-116 47)
LCMR Calcareous Fen Grant Application
48)
Orderly Annexation #06-07 by Gary Vandal.
49)
Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Badger Hills Third
Subdivision — J5227
50)
Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous City Activities
51)
Resolution for Assessment Projects
E) HEARINGS
117-118 1)
Consider the Issuance of a Revenue Note by the City of Plainview, Minnesota
to Finance a Project on Behalf of the YMCA of Rochester, Inc. in the City of
Rochester, Minnesota
119-128 2)
Consider the Evidence Relating to Disorderly Use Violations at 113 Tenth
Street N.W. and Owned by Roger Engholm.
129-158 3)
Continued Hearing on Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 by Weis
Development Corporation to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan from medium density residential to commercial on property located
between 3`d and 41h Avenue SE and between 51h and 61h Street SE.
159-170 4)
Continued Hearing on Zoning District Amendment #06-06 by Weis Corporation
to amend the Zoning Map from R-3 Medium Density Residential to CDC
Fringe on property located between 3rd and 4'h Avenue SE and between 5'h
and 6'h Street SE.
171-192 5)
Continued Hearing on General Development Plan #271 and Variance #06-16
by Weis Development Corporation to be known as Village on 3`d
193- 6)
Consider the Establishment of Development District No. 34, Adopt the
Development District Tax Increment Financing District No. 34-1 and Adopt the
Related Tax Increment Financing Plan.
7)
Consider the Establishment of Development District No. 35, Adopt the
Development District Tax Increment Financing District No. 35-1 and Adopt the
Related Tax Increment Financing Plan.
8)
General Development Plan #272 by Williams Family Partnership to be known
as Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods
9)
Preliminary Plat #06-19 by Williams Family Partnership to be known as
Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods
10
Final Plat #06-26 to be known as Century Hills Tenth Subdivision, by Payne
Company
11) Text Amendment #06-07, initiated by the Rochester City Council, to amend the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify the
zoning certificate issuance process, when part of a Sound Amplification Permit
application.
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Development Assistance Agreement with VOT, LP
2) Development Assistance Agreement Castleview Apartments (Salvation
Army)
G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
1) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05 clarification
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING / Z
DATE: 11
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
EM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR A
PREPARED BY:
S.KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ,3
DATE: 11/6/06
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
Administration
t t EM DESCRIPTION: Rocog ition of Rochester as a Bicycle Friendly Community
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
Phil Wheeler will present an honorable mention designation that the City of Rochester has received
as a Bicycle Friendly Community.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507)285-8232
To: Mayor and Common Council
From: Phil Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director
Date: November 1, 2006
Re: Recognition of the City of Rochester as a Bicycle Friendly Community
As part of the efforts related to organizing the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC) for ROCOG, Muhammad Khan of our staff put together an application for
recognition as a Bicycle Friendly Community, a designation awarded by the League of
American Bicyclists as a means of supporting community efforts to promote bicycling.
Mn/DOT Central Office staff, who have been impressed with our community's work in this
area, encouraged ROCOG to apply.
We received word this past summer that Rochester is one of eleven cities in the US that
have been awarded "honorable mention" status, awarded to those "on the cusp of
earning a bicycle friendly community award." We are among a very few cities that have
merited this recognition; nearly all of the others are university towns or smaller parts of
larger metropolitan areas.
We are working with the BPAC and related city departments to address further
improvements in the bicycle system to enhance bicycling in the community. As we
complete these efforts, we will update our application and seek further recognition.
The award represents recognition of the efforts of past Councils and a number of City
departments, including City Administration, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation, all
of whom have supported aspects of this effort.
i.eweue ar u4en�r+elcrcusls
1612 K St- NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006-2850
WF2snE ..brydetri *community.vg
EFWL bikeleague®ttikeleague.org
iw,� 202.822.1333
Six 202B22.1334
June 8, 2006
Muhammad Khan
Transportation Planner
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive, SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Dear Muhammad
Thank you again for your Bicycle Friendly Community application. While Rochester,
MN did not receive a Bicycle Friendly Community award this time, the League of
American Bicyclists is pleased to present you with an honorable mention.
The honorable mention designation is presented only to communities on the cusp of
earning a Bicycle Friendly Community award. You should be proud of this
accomplishment. Enclosed is your certificate as well as an analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses we saw in your application.
The League will promote your honorable mention status on our website for one year. We
will gladly review an updated application next year, so we urge you to make as many
improvements as possible in the meantime!
Once again, congratulations on your progress in creating a bicycle -friendly community.
Sincerely,
Bill Nesper
Program Manager
League of American Bicyclists
MEETING /
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
DATE: 11/06/06
D-1-47
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) Request to Purchase Pandemic Flu Supplies
3) Request to Reallocate CIP Funds/Rochester Civic Theatre
4) RCTC Sports Field and Inflatable Dome Project —Agreements
5) Housing Code Violations 224 — 224'/2 19'h Avenue Southwest
6) Change Order #3 and #4 with Century Fence Company for the Perimeter Fencing
Project
7) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous City Activities
8) On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Licenses — Cuzihavto LLC dba Paradise Fetes
9) On -Sale Wine License — El Carambas LLC dba El Carambas
10) Approval of Accounts Payable
11) PAC Meeting Approval—10/24/06 — Modified Pay Plan
12) Promotional Appointment — Fire Captain — Rochester Fire Department
13) Promotional Appointment — Motor Operator — Rochester Fire Department
14) Request City Council Support for Active Communities Planning and pursuit of
BlueCross BlueShield Grant to amend the Comprehensive Plan and identify Ordinance
Sections to be amended to integrate active living principles
15) Initiate Zoning Map Amendment from the R-1 to the MRD District for properties related
to the University Center Rochester campus and zoning text amendments explicitly
providing revised standards for advanced education uses and related facilities in the
MRD District
16) Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Federal Medical Center, Rochester, MN, and the City of Rochester Police Department
(Use of Canine Units)
17) Contracting with PropertyRoom.com Inc., to provide on-line Auction Services for
Disposable Property from the Evidence and Property Unit.
18) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
19) Owner Contract — Stonehedge Townhomes 5'h to Century High School Bike Trail
Extension — J5258
-20) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Villas — J5250
`21) Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Village —
J5251
22) Supplemental Agreement for Stonehedge Development
23) Revocable Permit — Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vision Real Estate Replat
24) Revocable Permit — Parts of Lots 1 and 8, Block 3, North Orchard Park Subdivision
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:
to:
a
25) Revocable Permit — 5193 Southern Ridge Lane SW — Retaining Wall and Concrete
Driveway
26) Revocable Permit: BP Products North America, Inc., Monitoring Wells on City Property
27) Revocable Permit: BP Products North America, Inc., Monitoring Wells on City Right of
Way
28) Award of Contract: Quarry Hill Ravine and Stream Stabilization Project (J6512) and
Parkwood Hills Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J7754)
29) Release of Controlled Access for Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, all in Lincolnshire
North First Subdivision
30) City/County Cost Sharing Agreement — Marion Road Drainage Area J6505
31) Special Parking for 2009 National Dalmatian Club Show at Civic Center
32) Assessment Agreements — (J4609) Construction of Sidewalk at Various Locations
33) Assessment Agreements — (J7743) Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from 13`h Ave NW
to the Cascade Bridge
34) Assessment Agreement: (J9712) Reconstruction of 71h Street NW from Cascade Creek
Bridge #55529 to North Broadway (TH 63)
35) Supplemental Agreement #1 Project 9501 (J2574) Civic Center North Parking Lot
Expansion
36) Supplemental Agreement #3 Project MO-74 (J9708) Overland Drive N.W. from 18'h
Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
37) Supplemental Agreement #4 Project MO-74 (J9708) Overland Drive N.W., from 18'
Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
38) Supplemental Agreement #3 Project M1-50-2-04 (J7731) Bandel Road N.W., from
Bandel Drive to 65`h St, N.W.
39) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges". Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Crystal
Springs, J9787
40) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges". Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Kahouns,
J9786
41) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges." Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Oslo Court
NE, J7707
42) Assessment of "Unpaid Charges". Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Cedar
Park, J9790
43) Supplemental Agreement #1 Hadley Valley Trunkline Sanitary Sewer Phase 2, J7744
44) Award of Contract: (J2261) Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of Buildings located at
1330 & 1332 7`h Street NW
45) Engineering Service Agreement: (J9856), (J7226) & (J6007) Preliminary Analysis and
Design Services for 41 s` Ave NW and Members Parkway
46) Contract Award Engine Generator No. 2 Replacement (Project J4399)
47) LCMR Calcareous Fen Grant Application
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING, f
DATE: 11/6/06
n aEN
CONSENT
ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO
Administration
PANDEMIC FLU SUPPLIES
-a
S.KVENVOLD
The Fire Department is requesting $30,000 to purchase supplies which would be used if a pandemic
flu situation would occur (see attached).
The department was requesting the $30,000 as part of their 2007 budget request.
It is my recommendation that, if the Mayor/Council agreed that these supplies be purchased, the
necessary funding should be appropriated from the 2006 Contingency Account.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion appropriating $30,000 from the 2006 Contingency Account to purchase supplies for
aj possible pandemic flu outbreak.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motlon by: send by: to:
E-J
Page i of 1
Kvenvold, Steve
From: Kapler, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Kvenvold, Steve
Cc: Slavin, Dan; Lovett, Rick; Felsch, Lyle
Subject: Pandemic Flu supplies
Attachments: pandemic budget.doc
Steve,
As part of the Fire Department's pandemic flu plan, we believe it is imperative that we purchase an adequate
supply of consumable and disposable supplies before a pandemic situation occurs. Due to the planning of other
first responder and medical service agencies, we are already experiencing backlogs on routine orders.
Attached is a list of supplies we would like to order. These supplies do not have a shelf life and if not used for a
pandemic situation, will eventually be used in the normal rotation of our consumable supplies. The total amount
for these supplies is $29,890.
Since this was not included in the Fire Department's 2006 operating budget, I am requesting a contingency
transfer to cover this expense so that the purchase can be made as soon as possible this year.
Thank you.
Chief Kepler
The Hand to reach For
Kapler, David Rochester Fire Department
Fire Cnief 201 4th St SE, Rm 10
Rochester, MN 55904
tel: 507 285-8072
fax: 507 280-4721
dkaplenaci.rcchester.mn.us mobile: 507 208-6033
u.dd mP m vaur address book... Want a signature like this?
10/25/2006
J
2007 Budget Request
Business Unit: 42220 Person Completing this Form: 10647
Expense
Code
ITEM/JUSTIFICATION
AMOUNT
83651
Pandemic Supplies: N95 Masks (10,000), Avagard D (17 cases),
Thermometers (20), Tyvek Gowns (1000), Gloves (112 cases),Glasses
(100), Surgical Masks (3650), Bio Hazard Bags (4000), Tyvek Boots
(2000), Biozide Disinfectant (20 Spray Bottles and 20 gallon refill),
Wypall Clean -Up Wipes (30 boxes)
The above list contains the supplies needed to handle an estimated ten
pandemic related calls per day for a one year period. These numbers
are in addition to our normal budgeted medical supplies for normal daily
o erations.
$29,890
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: I I
13
CONSENT AGENDA
ADMINISTRATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Reallocate CIP Funds / Rochester Civic Theatre
ITEM NO.
r
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
The Rochester Civic Theatre is requesting to reallocate $33,928 of their approved Capital
Improvements appropriation to allow for the purchase and installation of a digital message sign (see
attached).
The balance in the Civic Theatre's CIP account is $56,895.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion approving the reallocation of the Civic Theatre's CIP funds as requested.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to:
H
Page 1 of 1
Kvenvold, Steve
From: Todd Cordes [Todd@rochestercivictheatre.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:13 AM
To: Kvenvold, Steve
Subject: Rochester Civic Theatre
Attachments: CIP Requestform_Digital Sign.doc
Hello Stevan,
I hope all is well for you. I am attaching a CIP change request for your consideration. This would reallocate the
funds from our digital environment controls and cement/curb work to a digital message sign. Please let me know
if I need to provide you with copies of the bids for this project.
Thanks for your continued support!
Todd
Todd R. Cordes
Executive Director
Rochester Civic Theatre
20 Civic Center Dr. SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Phone: (507) 282-8481. ext. 23
Fax: (507) 282-0608
i4,iviv. rochestw-ciriciheatre. org
CITY OF ROCHESTER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REQUEST
2003-2008
Department
Division
Account Code
Rochester Civic Theatre
Park and Rec.
Program Title
Project Start & Completion
Digital Message Sign
Project Location and Description
We are proposing placing a 5' x 11' digital color message sign on the west wall, the very NW comer of our facility.
The sign would face the intersection of Civic Center Drive and Center St. It will be on the same side of the building
as our new cabinet sign but on the lower level of the facility (the cabinet sign is on the raised fly -loft).
Cost:
Sign: $36,578
Permit: S560
Electrical: $3,210.00
Justification and Benefits
We see two primary benefits from this sign:
1. One thing our Theatre is lacking is visibility and recognition. This sign will provide us with an exciting
way to advertise current shows, make people aware of our organization (in conjunction with our new
cabinet sign) and do other neat theatrical things during events such as Rochesterfest. This intersection is
high -traffic and this sign will get people's attention and let them know we are here and educate them as to
what is happening at the Theatre. We would take care to make sure our displays are tasteful and not overly
distracting for motorists in this area.
2. We see ourselves as the north anchor for the Avenue of the Arts. We feel this sign, with it's changing
displays and vivid colors, will add to the excitement of the entertainment district and will even be a tool in
generating excitement -not unlike Times Square in New York.
New
If Revised or Continued
Priority:
Project J#
Project ranks
Revised X
CIP Map #
Of requested
Continuation
(from previous CIP)
Relation to Other Projects (including timing)
This will be for a reallocation of existing CIP monies. These monies were initially allocated for new digital
request
environmental controls (which are now being done under the Johnson Control project) and for curb/cement work
along Center St. Based on anticipated street/sidewalk work, we have decided to delay or discontinue our cement
work projects.
Conforms to the Following Comprehensive Plans (City, County, State):
Project Alternatives
Environmental impact Statement Required: YES NO X
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING to /
DATE: 11 /6/06
CONSENT
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: RCTC SPORTS FIELD AND INFLATABLE DOME PROJECT - PKhIJAKtu nT:
AGREEMENTS I
G. NEUMANN
At the February 6, 2006 meeting, the Council authorized $3.61 million in sales tax funding for the RCTC Sports
Field and Inflatable Dome Project. Sales tax funding for capital improvements at the UCR were authorized the
by the Legislature and the voters in 1998 and 2005. At the June 21, 2006 Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities Board of Trustees meeting, the Board authorized RCTC to undertake a designibuild project to
construct Phase One of the Sports Field and Inflatable Dome project. It is estimated by RCTC that the City
contribution of $3.61 million should enable them to complete Phase One which includes: artificial playing
surface; field lighting for evening events; winter dome (bubble) with interior lights; paved and lighted parking
area; minimum press box; permanent restrooms; fencing around the field and, if sufficient funds are available,
initial stadium seating for 1,500.
Several agreements need to be entered into to allow RCTC to commence the project. Similar agreements were
entered into for the Regional Fieldhouse project. The agreements (sent separately) are as follows:
1. Escrow agreement. The City deposits the $3.61 million in an escrow account to allow RCTC to draw upon
the funds as needed for design and construction. The City earns interest on the deposit. RCTC plans to
commence design of the project this fall and start construction next spring. The agreement includes a clause
whereby if the project does not commence by December 31, 2007, the City retains the funds and the
agreement is cancelled.
2. Letter Of Understanding. This document describes the basics of the project: that the City provides $3.61
million in an escrow account; the State is to construct the Phase One improvements with the funds; those
improvements are briefly described; and that a Joint Powers Agreement and Joint Use Agreement will be
entered into.
3. Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Provides for City involvement in reviewing design and construction;
requires a Joint Use Agreement; provides for the President of RCTC and the City Administrator to be
designated as the governing body for the JPA and the Joint Use Agreement.
4. Joint Use Agreement. Provides for the RCTC President and the City Admin. to each appoint three to the
Facility Use and Operations Management Committee. That committee will determine a budget, policies and
priorities for use and rates for use. RCTC is solely responsible for any operating profit or loss and capital
replacement. The agreement provides for priority use for RCTC for both the indoor and outdoor season, but
makes provision that the facilities are available for rental to groups in the community for any times that they
are not in use by RCTC. When the dome is in place for the Indoor season, all usage, including that of RCTC
is on a rental/lease basis. The City's equal involvement on the Management Committee will ensure that the
community will have access and benefit from usage of the facility. This agreement is similar to the present
agreement for the UCR Fieldhouse that has worked very well, except that in the Fieldhouse agreement the
City had a designated amount of usage and a designated financial responsibility for part of the operating
deficit or profit. As with the Fieldhouse agreement, Park and Rec. staff and RCTC facility staff will be the
Committee members.
Council Action Requested. Approve the four agreements as described above, subject to City Attorney review
for form and consistency.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
y
I BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
BOARD ACTION
Rochester Community and Technical College
Capital Project
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to seek Board of Trustees approval to construct an artificial turf
football/soccer field, stadium with a winter "bubble" fabric roof on the campus of Rochester
Community and Technical College as a joint project between the College and the City of
Rochester. The authorization to undertake such development is contained in Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 136F.60, Subdivision 2 (b.3) which states, in part:
The board may accept gifts for capital projects not authorized by the legislature
if the board first certifies that project revenues, other gifts or grants, or other
sources of capital funds are available for project costs and that no tuition
revenues or state or federal appropriations are used for the capital or operating
costs, including all program costs, salaries, and benefits, of the facility. For
purposes of this paragraph, 'facility " includes student unions, and recreational
and athletic centers.
In addition to the above statute requirements, Board approval is necessary because it is a major
capital project outside the capital budget cycle with a construction contract over $2 million.
The City of Rochester has already funded a predesign and feasibility study of the project.
Design and construction of the project will be funded using $3.61 million of City sales tax
revenues as authorized by the legislature several years ago and additional funds up to $3.0
million raised by the Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation through a capital
campaign to be launched this summer and fall. The City's sales tax revenues are sufficient to
complete phase 1 of the project. Capital campaign monies raised by the Foundation will be used
to complete additional phases of the project. No state funds will be used for the construction.
The project, including design, construction, inspection and testing, furnishings and equipment
will be executed by the College in accordance with Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
design and construction standards. The City and Foundation will transfer capital campaign funds
to the College to allow design, construction, and related contract awards to meet the following
schedule:
RFP for D-B team - July 2006
D-B team selected - Sep 2006
Begin Construction - March 2007
Final Completion - August 2007
The facility will be located at the intersection of County Road 9 and County Road 22 on the
northeast corner of the campus. The football/soccer field will be an artificial playing surface
El
Fi
4.
Y
�ii-Q54
s
a0Rochester Community and Technical College Capital Project 2 /
allowing for year-round use. A stadium adjacent to the field with bleachers for 3000 spectators
will be used for College athletic programs and regional sporting events. A winter bubble will be
constructed to allow use of the field during the winter months. See Attachment A.
Phase one of the project includes:
• Artificial playing surface
• Field lighting for evening events
■ Winter bubble with interior lights
• Initial stadium seating for 1,500
• Paved and lighted parking
■ Minimum press box/film deck
■ Restrooms
• Fencing around the field
Phase two includes: (to be constructed as funds are raised)
• Additional stadium seating
• Expanded press box/film deck
• Locker/changing rooms
■ Concession stand
• Banquet room/office space
The College will operate the facility as an Enterprise fund. No College operating funds will be
used for construction or operations except to the extent that College athletic programs use the
facility and pay their respective use fees. Ballard and King Consultants performed a market and
operation analysis of this project. From their report, "the operations analysis represents a
conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best
information available and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this
study were based on a philosophy of market driven rates charged by other recreation facilities in
the area." The table below illustrates the results of their operational analysis. See also
Attachment B.
Years
Revenue
Expense
Revenue over
Expense
Cumulative
Base
5232,950
$230,431
$2,519
$2,519
Year
$245,597
$237,343
$8,254
$10,773
Year
$255,604
$244,464
$11,140
$21,913
Year
$265,828
$251,798
$14,030
1535,943
Years
$275,131
$259,352
$15,779
$51,722
RECOMMENDED COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Facilities/Finance Policy Committee recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt the
following motion.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Board of Trustees approves the capital project to construct an artificial turf football/soccer
field, stadium and winter bubble on the campus of Rochester Community and Technical College
Date Presented to the Board: June 21, 2006
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
^�-ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
b 5-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS 224-224'/z 19 Avenue SW
PREPARED BY:
T.SPAETH
On 9/6/06 the Council held a public hearing relating to the property located at the above mentioned address, related to
housing code violations. After the conclusion of the hearing the Council ordered the owner (Emanuel Feleke) be
placed on probation for a period of 6 months, in which time the owner must comply with all federal, state and local
laws and ordinances, and also no later than October 23, 2006, the owner was to have satisfied all correction orders
issued from Building Safety and have obtained a rental registration certificate.
Building Safety has indicated that the owners has NOT scheduled the required re -inspection on the correction orders
and does not have a valid rental certificate. Based upon that, the City Attorney has recommended that this item be
brought back before the Council as a public hearing.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to schedule this item for a public hearing before the Council at their November 20, 2006 meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
Consent Rochester International Airport
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #3 and #4 with Century Fence Company for the
Perimeter Fencing Project.
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
MEETING
DATE: I 1
D-6
a�
Steven W. Legve
Accept Change Order #3 with Century Fence Company for the Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades
Project at the Rochester International Airport. This change order involves gate signage to identify the
various gate numbers for emergency response. Due to reduced quantities on the project, we will still be
under the original contract amount even with this change order. (6972) (FAA AIP 3-27-0084-2-06)
MaDot 5501-148)
Changer Order 43 $845.25
2. Accept Change Order #4 with Century Fence Company for the Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades
Project at the Rochester International Airport. This change order involves adding more existing security
doors to the new access control software system, the purchase of equipment to complete a communication
bridge for CCTV/access control, the purchase of a backup printed circuit board that is essential to the access
control software, and one additional security camera in the Terminal Building. Due to reduced quantities on
the project, we will still be under the original contract amount even with this change order. (6972) (FAA
AIP 3-27-0084-2-06) (MnDot 5501-148)
Change Order #4 $40,561.00
New Total Project Cost: $1,157,837.62
Funding: 95% Federal
5% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
2esolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Change Order #3 and #4 with Century Fence
ompany.
:OUNCIL ACTION: Motfon by:
Second bv._
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/06/07
GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D _ C
ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PREPARE
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
Downtown Business Association & Alliance
P.O. Box 416
Rochester, MN 55903
Santa Arriving Downtown/Carriage Rides
SINGLE GAMBLING
Rochester Host Lions Club
P.O. Box 134
Rochester, MN 55906
Held at Holiday Inn South
Rochester Area Disabled Athletics and Rec Inc.
539 North Broadway
Rochester, MN 55901
Radisson Plaza Hotel
Rochester Area Disabled Athletics Rec Inc.
TEMPORARY LIQUOR LICENSE
Academy of Our Lady of Lourdes
1001 14' Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Held at St. Francis of Assisi Heights
11/24/06
12/23/06
01/28/07
05/17/07
5:00 PM to 8:30 PM
12/31/06-01/01/07
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
!9
LICENSE, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE 2
November 6th, 2006
PREMISE PERMIT —ANNUAL GAMBLING
Rochester Amateur Sports Commission
1605 Civic Center Drive NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Mickey's Irish Saloon
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds, and miscellaneous city activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING���
" PENDASECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Clerk
DATE: 11/6/06
U — G
ITEM DESCRIPTION: On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Licenses - Cuzihavto LLC PREPARED BY:
dba Paradise Petes Judy Scherr
Michael Barthel, owner of Cuzihavto LLC dba Paradise Peres, 14 17"' Avenue N.W. (Miracle
Mile Shopping Center). Mr. Barthel currently owns and operates Pizza Man at the same location.
He is expanding his business into a full restaurant with a full menu offering. The expansion will
allow for the adding of 12 new positions bringing his total number of employees to 29.
Mr. Barthel is planning on opening the business between December 15, 2006, and January 1,
2007.
Approval is pending departmental approvals, receipt of insurance certificates and payment of fees.
A confidential investigative report on the applicant has been returned satisfactorily from the
Police Department.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Licenses for Cuzihavto LLC
dba Paradise Petes, 14 17th Avenue N.W., pending departmental approvals, receipt of insurance
certificates and payment of fees.
COUNCIL ACTION: Moton bv: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Consent Agenda I City Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION: On -Sale Wine License - El Carambas LLC dba El Carambas
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
ITEM NO.
Judy Scherr
An application has been received from Heriberto C. Galindo, owner of El Carambas Mexican
Restaurant, at 1503 Highway 14 East (Eastwood Plaza). The restaurant currently has a 3.2
percent beer license in place. Mr. Galindo wishes to obtain the wine license to allow him to serve
wine and ethnic beers in excess of 3.2 percent alcohol content with his Mexican food entrees. The
restaurant is open from 10:30 AM to 10:00 PM seven days per week.
A confidential investigation of the applicant has been successfully returned from the Police
Department.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve an On -Sale Wine License for El Carambas LLC dba El Carambas at 1503
Highway 14 East.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Finance Department
f." .
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED By.
Approval of Accounts Payable
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements:
Investment purchases of $14,739,452.84
Accounts payable of $11,384,683.69
Total disbursements $26,124,136.53
(Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Consent
PAC Meeting Approval-10-24-06 - Modified Pay Plan
MEETING
DATE 11/6/06
Personnel Advisory Co. and tt
Human Resources k
Linda
The Personnel Advisory Comonittes met on October 24 to review a
recommendation regarding a modification of 2006 pay ranges for the City
Administrator, Assistant City Administrator, 12 Department Heads, and 5
RPU Directors (see attached). The recommendation was prepared recently
following successful negotiations last year with the professional
employees, association to reduce 37 pay ranges to 9 broader pay ranges for
competitiveness and ease of administration.
The recommendation reviewed and approved by the Personnel Advisory
Committee correlates the ranges of those listed above with the top two
City professional employee (RPEA) ranges to create a calculated pay
progression of pay ranges for progressively more responsible City
positions.
The recommendation:
• allows the opportunity to continue to reward long term, high
performing City Directors by creating more competitive ranges
• is based on required continued compliance with the Minnesota Pay
Equity Act
• allows for competitive ranges for recruitment when top level
vacancies occur
• creates continuity and consistency among ranges for Department Heads,
RPU Directors and top level professional employee pay ranges (Ranges
8 and 9 )
• reduces seven ranges to six ranges for Department Heads for reasons
of competitiveness, pay equity, and ease of administration
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion approving the modified 2006 compensation plan for the
City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator, Department Heads, and
RPU Directors
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
\�
3
■
o
E
}
�CD \ = r = = m
\§
(
N
v
IT
It
2
(
-
k)
\
_
_
_
_
OCOMCD
\
e
\
s
\
2
R
\
�ft
\
e
\
s
\
2
R
\
�ft
CD
\
co co m co
a.
_____
CD
CD
cc
Mn
/
cm
>
I & /
)
)
C)
k �
E
\
\ `LLJ
a)
-0
\
)
D �k
ƒ f ( r
R
)
\
)■}co
\)
�ca
£c0
-!!4!l2w7
\ �
& _--------
j\)\\}\\}\
x
\■«2!r!■E
,
§5ek!$!@!E
,
kkjkkki§}
\\\$k}\k
2 #5l5oIli ##
!�■§a&;a;a
2Jk[2ikkk
Organizational / Consent
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Human Resources
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointment - Fire Captain -
Rochester Fire Department
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
Linda Ggsrmu
The retirement of Michael Toogood, Fire Captain, effective November 30, 2006 creates a
vacancy for the position of Fire Captain.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the list of eligible candidates for the
position of Fire Captain from the established eligibility roster and recommends the
appointment of one of the three candidates to the position of Fire Captain.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Promotional appointment of Motor Operator Matt Mueller to the position of Fire Captain in
the Rochester Fire Department effective November 9, 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: seoond by: to:
-.
hood
ALIrA WCACITY ROCHESTER
V,o
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
JOE POWERS JOHN WITHERS ROGER FIELD
November 1, 2006
Honorable Council Members
City Council
City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Council Members:
Rp CNLSTL9 11111p.
5J
B.lie p�..\CGGbt�
The retirement of Michael Toogood, Fire Captain, effective November 30, 2006 creates a
vacancy for the position of Fire Captain.
We respectfully request that you make one {1) appointment to the position of
Fire Captain from the following list of qualified candidates
1.
Matt Mueller
2.
Dave Worstman
3.
Joe Farrell
Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have the appointment effective November 9, 2006.
Respectfully Submitted,
a -I hlAetyj�_
John Withers
Secretary
Fire Civil Service Commission
Aa EquafOpport ,uiy Employer
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 27, 2006
TO: Fire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PROMOTE
Due to the upcoming retirement of Captain Michael Toogood, there will be a
vacancy in the position of Captain. I am requesting that you approve the
promotion of Matthew Mueller, who is the neat person on the Captain Eligibility
Roster.
I would like to request that this promotion be effective on November 9, 2006.
Thank you for your consideration.
Organizational i Consent
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Human Resources
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointment - Motor Operator -
Rochester Fire Department
MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
ITEM NO.
r-i
PREPARED BY:
Linda Gilsrud ,,
The retirement of Michael Toogood, Fire Captain, effective November 30, 2006 and the
resulting promotion of Matt Mueller, Motor Operator, effective November 9, 2006, creates a
vacancy for the position of Motor Operator.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the list of eligible candidates for the
position of Motor Operator from the established eligibility roster and recommends the
appointment of one of the three candidates to the position of Motor Operator.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Promotional appointment of Firefighter Steve Swanson to the position of Motor Operator in
the Rochester Fire Department effective November 9, 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION: notion by: second by: to:
IAA
AL4AWMCAC`TY ROCHESTER
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
JOE POWERS JOHN WITHERS ROGER FIELD
November 1, 2006
Honorable Council Members
City Council
City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Council Members:
r�k j '' \ •' J
1f1RiTC D.{Lf LCS .>.
The promotion of Matt Mueller, Motor Operator, effective November 9, 2006, creates a
vacancy for the position of Motor Operator.
We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of
Motor Operator from the following list of qualified candidates
1. Steve Swanson
2. James "Casey" Jones
3. Earl Robinson
Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have the appointment effective November 9, 2006.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Withers
Secretary
Fire Civil Service Commission
111
An Equa[Op➢ortunity Employer
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 2, 2006
TO: Fire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PROMOTE
Due to the upcoming retirement of Captain Michael Toogood, and the appointment
of Matthew Mueller to Captain, there will be a vacancy in the position of Motor
Operator. I am requesting that you approve the promotion of Steve Swanson, who
is the next person on the Motor Operator Eligibility Roster.
I would like to request that this promotion be effective on November 9, 2006.
Thank you for your consideration.
,123
AW
a\
Pu; anre+,, w/
r
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 11-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
PLANNING,1-
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Request City Council support for Active Communities Planning and
Mitzi A. Baker,
pursuit of BlueCross BlueShield Grant to amend the Comprehensive
Senior Planner
Plan and Identify Ordinance Sections to be amended to integrate active
living principles.
October 31, 2006
BlueCross BlueShield of Minnesota, through the "Prevention Minnesota" program, seeks to improve the health of
all Minnesotans. This program is a long-term commitment to tackle preventable heart disease and cancer by
addressing their root causes — tobacco use, physical inactivity, and unhealthy eating.
BlueCross BlueShield of Minnesota is currently requesting proposals from municipal and county government
entities to integrate active living principles into their communities. Specifically, this funding opportunity is
designed to support communities in preparing/revising comprehensive development, pedestrian or bicycle plans,
and in identifying relevant ordinance subsections for modification in keeping with the new plans. Select
Applicants will receive funding on a contractual basis to conduct planning that focuses on developing
environments that support physically active lifestyles, with the overarching goal to reduce preventable heart
disease and cancer.
Contracts will range from $5,000 to $75,000. Contract amounts will be determined, in part, in consideration of
the geographic scope/population size of the Applicant.
Communities awarded a grant will be expected to:
o Attend training sessions and presentations on how to incorporate active living into planning;
o Identify and examine community needs and opportunities for plan revisions an additions supportive of
active living;
o Conduct a health impact assessment;
o Produce a draft plan that incorporates the principles of the active living movement through ordinances,
zoning, maintenance and infrastructure, and new projects and to develop and enact policies and projects
resulting from the planning process;
o Develop a strategy for revising the relevant local ordinances, if applicable.
"Active living' denotes a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines. Communities can influence
the choices their residents make about physical activity in several ways, including land -use policies, the
availability of walking paths or greenways, and transportation systems.
The Planning Department proposes to seek grant dollars to do active communities planning, to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and to identify amendments to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual to include active living principles. If awarded the grant, it is anticipated that this project would be
completed by Department staff, in cooperation with other local agencies and initiatives promoting healthy and
active living, as well as the Planning Commission and City Council.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: 10:
i
C Page 2
RCA
November 2, 2006
Council Action Needed:
1. A motion to approve an application for the Active Communities Planning grant
through BlueCross BlueShield of Minnesota to seek funds to integrate active living
principles into the community.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
MEETING
,GENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
DATE: 11/06/06
ING DEPT: I ITEM NO. '
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Initiate zoning map amendment from the R-1 to the MRD District for properties PREPARED BY:
related to the University Center Rochester campus and zoning text amendments explicitly providim revised Phil Wheeler, Alt,
'__'_ v__ ....ems —i .ol ntnA forilitiPe in the MRD District Planning Director
October 26, 2006
Background:
The practice dome at the UCR Campus will be located in an area now zoned R-1. In order to reflect the future use
of the property and to provide consistency between the long term intended use of the Campus property and the
zoning ordinance, staff recommends that the Council initiate an amendment to the Land Development Manual
rezoning the UCR property currently zoned R-1 to the MRD District. Accompanying this change will be text
changes updating the MRD district with standards appropriate to the intended uses.
Recommendation:
The staff recommendation is to for the Council to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance map and Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual text accomplishing these changes. The Zoning Ordinance map change is
consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendments, it should instruct the Planning
Department to proceed.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2, City Clerk
1 City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second
iENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Police
DEPT:
ESCRIPTION Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOJ, Federal Bureau
Prisons, Federal Medical Center, Rochester, Mn and the City of Rochester Police
Department (Use of Canine Units)
MEETING `5-
DATE: 11/6/06
ITEM NOAB
PREPARoger P
The Rochester Police Department seeks permission to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
USDOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center, Rochester, Mn to provide assistance to FMC
Rochester in detecting illegal drugs on institutional grounds.
The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to establish the responsibilities of each party when Canine
Units are provided to assist FMC Rochester in detecting and eliminating illegal drugs in the federal institution.
In accordance with the city's financial management policy at the time of the emergency, the party requesting
assistance shall reimburse the party providing assistance for un-funded costs of resources expended and /or
damaged during a request for assistance.
The MOU will remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement or by either party upon 60 days advanced
written notice to the other party.
The MOU has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Police Department requests approval to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the United States
Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center, Rochester, Mn. It is requested that
the council authorize the Mayor, City Clerk and /or Chief of Police to sign the Memorandum of Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
MEETING
Consent Agenda
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Police
DATE: November 6
2006
NO.
ESCRIPTION: Contracting with PropertyRoom.Com, Inc to provide on-line Auction PREPARED BY:
Service for Disposable Property from the Evidence and Property Unit Roger Peterson
The Property and Evidence Unit clears cases from the property room on a routine basis which results in property
that is to be disposed of Currently we rely on PropertyBureau.com., Inc to provide our on-line Auction Service
for Disposable property. The contract is due for renewal and there have been two changes to the agreement.
The company has re -incorporated in Delaware and changed it's corporate name from Property Bureau, Inc. to
PropertyRoom.Com, Inc. All other terms of the agreement are the same. It is therefore necessary to sign a new
agreement with PropertyRoom.Com, Inc.
The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Police Department request approval to enter into an agreement with PropertyRoom.Com, Inc to use their
services. We also request approval for the Mayor and City clerk to sign the agreement with
PropertyRoom.Com,Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date. 111D6/06
AGENDA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITE[�I NO.
i s 1..
Rochester Public Utilities
Consent Agenda
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Kathy Wilson
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on October 31, 2006 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
- to approve a resolution to approve an increase to the joint use pole attachment rental agreement
effective January 1, 2007.
- to approve a resolution to approve Amendment 3 to Schedule A of the Power Sales Contract with
the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA), and authorize the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute the Amendment.
- to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with the Minnesota Municipal Power
Agency (MMPA) for the sale of energy from the Cascade Creek gas turbines effective November 1,
2006 through October 30, 2007, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
agreement.
MANAGER: aI,7 xodg"L
GENERAL
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # 7 Meeting Date: 10131/06
SUBJECT:
rqfqw• 1 0
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Joint Use Pole Attachment Rental Rate
Neil Stiller, Sr. Electrical Engineer
RPU has individual agreements with five communications utilities for the joint use of RPU poles. These
entities attach TV and telephone cables to RPU poles and pay an annual rental fee. The agreements expire
December 31, 2006. RPU can continue the existing agreements on a year -by -year basis provided neither
party gives notice to terminate. Staff recommends the existing agreements continue as such.
The rate consultant R.W. Beck was asked to review and update RPU's pole attachment rates. The existing
rates have not been revised since 2001. Pole attachment rent calculations are based on an industry model
formula established by the FCC. Although municipal utilities are not bound to the FCC formula, RPU
chooses to comply in order to be comparable with the industry. Rate calculations are segregated into
distribution poles and transmission poles due to the significant cost difference between these two classes of
poles. R.W. Beck's analysis and report are attached. Staff recommends updating RPU's pole attachment
rental rates as follows. Rents are on a sliding scale based on the number of communication entities
(attachers) on the pole. The rates are stated as annual rates and are collected once per year. Pole
attachment rental rates can be updated or increased pending a 60 day notice.
Distribution Poles
Type of Attachment One Attacher
Cable $22.00
Equipment $17.00
Anchor System $17.00
Two Attachers Three Attachers
$17.00 $12.00
$17.00 $17.00
$17.00 $17.00
Transmission Poles (applicable to attachments made after January 23, 2007):
Type of Attachment
One Attacher
Two Attachers
Three Attachers
Cable
$150.00
$80.00
$50.00
Equipment
$80.00
$80.00
$80.00
Anchor System
$80.00
$80.00
$80.00
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Approve and recommend to the City Council a pole attachment rental rate increase as noted applicable 1
all affected communications utilities.
2. Authorize staff to provide notice to the affected utilities of a proposed rate adjustment effective January 1,
2007.
GeWeral Manager Date
Agenda Item # 8.
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
FOR BOARD ACTION J
Meeting Date: 10131106
Amendment 3 to Schedule A to the Power Sales Contract Between SMMPA and
the City of Rochester
Walt Lorber, Director of Core Services
Schedule A to the Power Sales Contract between SMMPA and the City has been updated to reflect the
current points of delivery and points of measurement for power and energy delivered under the contract.
The updates reflect changes in metering associated with the new IBM genets and in the schematic
representation of OWEF metering. No other provisions of the Power Sales Contract are changed.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board request the City Council to approve the Amendment to Schedule A of the
Power Sales Contract Between Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and the City of Rochester,
dated October 31, 2006, and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to execute the Amendment.
Djtw . k�4-4
Ge ral Manager
Date
l
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # 11.a. Meeting Date: 10/31106
SUBJECT: Energy Sales Agreement for Cascade Creek Gas Turbines between the City of
Rochester and Minnesota Municipal Power Agency
PREPARED BY:
Wally Schlink, Director of Power Resources
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
In October, 2005 the City and the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA) entered into an
agreement for MMPA to provide Market Participant services for the SLP units in the Midwest
Independent System Operator (MISO) market. These services have allowed RPU to sell energy into the
wholesale market and to maximize the revenue from the SLP facilities.
Beginning April 1, 2006 due to SMMPA becoming a member of MISO, RPU entered into an
agreement with MMPA to market the 2 Cascade Creek gas turbines, in MISO and participate in the
wholesale energy market through that entity. That agreement expires October 31, 2006.
Staff has been pleased with the results of the marketing services that MMPA has provided for both the
SLP units and the Cascade Creek units and believes that this is the most effective way of maximizing
returns on the infrastructure investment we have at Cascade Creek.
Our recommendation is to execute a new agreement for marketing the Cascade Creek units and
continue the partnership with MMPA, who are experienced wholesale energy traders, are Market
Participants in the MISO and who have agreements giving them access to transmission to the market.
Staff recommends executing a new Cascade Creek Gas Turbine Energy Sales Agreement for the period
of November 1, 2006 through October 30, 2007 that defines the terms of this marketing relationship
which mirrors our original agreement to provide the identical services for the SLP units and we feel that
RPU should choose to participate in this joint venture.
Attached is a copy of the agreement.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution requesting the Common Council to approve
the Cascade Creek Gas Turbine Energy Sales Agreement between the City of Rochester and the
Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, and that the Mayor and the City Clerk execute the agreement.
GerVral Manager
!6 v
ate
UTILITIES
GENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %
DATE: 11 /6/06
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Stonehedge Townehomes 5' to Century High
School Bike Trail Extension — J5258
47JI:[9a
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
BARED BY:
M. Baker
Stonehedge Development LLC (Owner) & Friedrich Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City
/ Owner Contract J5258 consisting of construction of the "Stonehedge Townehomes 5th to Century High
School Bike Trail Extension"
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5258,
"Stonehedge Townehomes 5th to Century High School Bike Trail Extension".
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
kGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `Z-4 �
DATE: 11 /06/06
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne PREPARED BY:
Club Villas — J5250 M. Baker rid
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Platinum Development Group, Inc. (Owner) & Griffin Construction Co, LLP (Contractor) are requesting
a City -Owner Contract J5250 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club
Villas'.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5250,
"Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Villas", conditioned on no work commencing
until the final Grading Plan has been approved for this subdivision.
U
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/06/06
1GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. I
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ^ i
b
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne PRFARED BY:
Club Village — J5251 M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Platinum Development Group, Inc. (Owner) & Griffin Construction Co, LLP (Contractor) are requesting
a City -Owner Contract J5251 consisting of "Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club
Village".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5251,
L"Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Village", conditioned on no work commencing
until the final Grading Plan has been approved for this subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
11/6/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Public Works
—
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement for Stonehedge Development
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigburn=2t
The Owner, Stonehedge Development LLC, previously executed an existing Development Agreement
(including supplemental agreements) for the development.
The Owner desires to amend the Development Agreement for Stonehedge Development to construct the path
along East Circle Drive including the proposed portion on Independent School District 535 (ISD 535) property
in exchange for a part of the cost of traffic signalization of Stonehedge Drive NE and East Circle Drive (CSAH
22). Replacement of portion 6b of the original Development Agreement would read as follows:
1. Section 6b of Owner's Obligation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:
Owner agrees to pay a proportional share of a future traffic signal, if warranted by City and County standards, at the
intersection of Stonehedge Drive NE and CSAH 22. Owner agrees to pay to the City an amount equal to 12.5% of the
total cost, but not more than $25,000 (as adjusted for ENR from the August 1, 2001), for the design and construction of
the traffic control signal. For the purposes of this agreement, the Owner will not be responsible for other costs
associated with the design, construction and operation of the traffic signals. Owner shall receive an equal credit against
Owner's cost for the traffic signal in exchange for the design and construction expenses related to construction of a
Pedestrian Path on the ISD 535 Property connecting the Stonehedge Property to the Pedestrian Bridge on the ISD 535
Property. In other words, if Owner constructs the Pedestrian Path on the ISD 535 Property per City approved Plans,
Owner will be completely relieved of any obligations to pay a cost share for the future traffic signal at the intersection
of Stonehedge Drive NE and CSAH 22.
Owner agrees to construct said path pursuant to the design approved by the City within 60 days of execution of this
agreement, weather and construction materials availability permitting.
35th Street NE
Property
F�4 Plateau Drive/Rocky Creek Drive
<eon Intersection
t
� East Circle Drive NE
16th Avenue NE
Rim R1
Staff recommends the Council approve the Fifth Supplemental Amendment to the Development
Agreement for Stonehedge Development.
Council Action Requested.
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Fifth Supplemental Amendment to the Development
A reement for Stonehedge Development with Stonehedge Development, LLC.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
,GENDASECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit — Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vision Real Estate
Replat
MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
The City of Rochester previously issued a revocable permit to Vision Real Estate Investments LLC, for
the placement of a wooden "deck" on the building located at 3269 191" Street NW over and in an existing
utility and drainage easement. The easement and subject improvements are located on a part of Lot 1,
Block 1, Vision Real Estate Replat. The Owner is now asking the City to revise the issued revocable
permit to reflect the following changes/additions.
• The deck platform shall not extend more than 14 feet from the building structure.
• Steps for access to said deck
• Four 4' x 4' air conditioning units
• Two retaining walls, one to create a landing for said stairs and the other for placement of said air
conditioning units
• A dumpster enclosure — 8' x 16'
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of revising the existing Revocable Permit.
The Owner has executed a revised 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 Revised Revocable Permit with Vision Real Estate
Investments LLC to allow the placement of a wooden "deck", steps, two retaining walls, four air
conditioning units and a dumpster enclosure over and in the utility and drainage easement located on part
of Lot 1, Block 1, Vision Real Estate Replat.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
/P 7 l
11 /6/06
GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
0"
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit — Parts of Lots 1 and 8, Block 3, North Orchard
PREPARED BY:
Park Subdivision
M. Ni bur
Compass Point LLC, the Owner, has requested the City issue a revocable permit for the placement of
landscaping and a sidewalk in an existing 15-foot public utility easement. The easement and subject
improvements are located on parts of Lots 1 and 8, Block 3, North Orchard Park Subdivision. The Owner
will install and maintain the landscaping and sidewalk at their own expense. The landscaping and
sidewalk will be installed as shown on the exhibit.
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.
------------------
r
1:2
t
��w>.r
\VVT
- wRez
—""
\ �w\
la �
xt
',
i� ✓—�. ..
_ it '.1
I �I
cog x
I
=
-� r5
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit with Compass Point LLC to allow the
placement of landscaping and a sidewalk in the public utility and easement located on parts of Lots 1 and
8, Block 3, North Orchard Park Subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to:
tGENDA SECTION:
CONSEN'
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
Revocable Permit - 5193 Sc
Wall and Concrete Driveway
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Worl
1 Ridae Lane SW - I
/7i
11 /06106
ITEM NO.
L " -1
PREPARED BY:
Steven & Molly Nierman (Owners) have requested the City issue a revocable permit for the placement
of a retaining wall and a concrete driveway in the public utility easement across the northeasterly 10
feet of their property described as Lot 24, Block 1, Southern Woods Fourth Addition. The elevation for
the house to be built at this location was set 2 feet higher by the excavation contractor than shown on
the grading plan. This created a situation where the driveway would have a grade of 12.5% to 25% if
connected to Southern Ridge Lane SW. To remedy this situation, the Owners will need to move their
driveway to connect with Southern View Land SW and construct a retaining wall to create the 2% slope
needed to maneuver in front of their garage. The retaining wall and concrete drive will be located one
foot off of the property line resulting in a 9-foot encroachment of said utility easement. The Owners will
install and maintain the new retaining wall and concrete driveway at their own expense.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The
Owners have executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and
liability protection for the City.
1173
,,Cgv
�•. I1736B %
U Oa 02 x \
p� 1174, ai n �
z9 3 A 19.50'
�6
2 o�
tJ
5.00, ^. ^ _
0 C��q` 11 ` 10
6
B9 Ita '
5425'.
y — p
'L 6
J5.J
Bea o
24.
c
72.11'
- `-- v SOUTHERN VIEW LANE SW
/
i]1a6 � �2100
STA 1 Ot01.
W �v'�fTq_ enu "�g
�OAUJINC
NIERMAN HOUSE SITE PLAN
^I^
P6"1in
LOT 24, BLOCK I
xe .. . xx fifiRo,
SOUTHERN WOODS FOURTH ADDITION
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit with Steven & Maureen (Molly)
Nierman to allow the placement a retaining wall and a concrete driveway in the public utility easement
along the northwest 10 feet of their property located at 5193 Southern Ridge Lane SW.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %
DATE: 1116/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
—
�")
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: BP Products North America, Inc. Monitoring
PREPARED BY:
Wells on City Property
M. Nigbur n;l�
lid
BP Products North America Inc. (BPPNA) previously maintained a gas/service station, including underground storage
tanks that held gasoline and other oil based products at Lots 1 and 2, Block 51, Original Plat to the City of Rochester
(now owned by Senior Citizens Services, Inc. as a parking lot). BPPNA currently maintains monitoring wells on the
parking lot owned by the City directly north of their site (part of Lots 3-6, Block 51, Original Plat) to observe the quality
of the groundwater and that no contamination from the existing underground storage tanks has taken place. BPPNA
would like to place two additional monitoring wells within the City -owned parking lot. BPPNA shall perform all work and
bear all costs associated with the installation maintenance and repair of said facilities as well as any damage that may
occur.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit for the placement of two
additional monitoring wells. BPPNA has executed the Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for
revocation and liability protection for the City.
4�r�, 7 I ,N 'Moog 1 sr
;, r,
� u'y� L ,y 4 � e' rt � k � } � ��' � , WF,}g �� h.� F P fl ✓ Y
Proposedgm
Proposed
Well
C F w'i U Y
h 'y
kr
Ix d 1
r�y"+.xC£
a
t+y`4J,?, st '� �cP,,}SP+�h4rt'i4',A"�1",j' ^ ��54i•
+ P
Y a }7Q"F}..
f`itia a +' senior Citizens
a 1,
Services hic, r v`
H
i e %S i au' Property VJ
r
as
•. _�,'�'"` senior Centel +
w 4,s
+
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit to allow BPPNA to place two additional monitoring
wells in the City -owned parking lot located at part of Lots 3-6, Block 51, Original Plat to the City of Rochester
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
V)— K
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: BP Products North America, Inc. Monitoring
PREPARED BY:
Wells on City Right of Way
M. Nigbur, j„
BP Products North America Inc. (BPPNA) maintains a gas/service station at this site, including underground storage
tanks that held gasoline and other oil based products at the southwest corner of the intersection of 215'Avenue NW
(East Frontage Road) and 37'h Street NW. BPPNA would like to place a monitoring will in public right of way to
observe the quality of the groundwater and that no contamination from the existing underground storage tanks has
taken place. The monitoring well would be located in the public right of way of 215t Avenue NW westerly and
adjacent to Lot 35, Block 5, Rolling Greens Subdivision. BPPNA shall perform all work and bear all costs associated
with the installation maintenance and repair of said facilities as well as any damage that may occur.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit for the placement the
monitoring well. BPPNA has executed the Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation
and liability protection for the City.
im it
v=,
*
IANA zS�44
k"`{ii•'
e
Vl i �f Ar i nl.
3�ASS 1 g4
Fi
ProposedMonitoring Well Location
i
r
Mi
L
py ems' i
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit to allow BPPNA to place a monitoring well in the
public right of way of 21" Avenue NW westerly and adjacent to Lot 35, Block 5, Rolling Greens Subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ? , /
DATE: 11 /6/06
,GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: PREPARED BY:
Quarry Hill Ravine and Stream Stabilization Project (J6512) and "� B. Huberty
Parkwood Hills Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J7754) i(�`
Bids were received and opened after 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 31, 2006 for the following local
improvement projects: City Projects: J6512, Quarry Hill Ravine and Stream Stabilization Project and
J7754, Parkwood Hills Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer.
ProiectBackground
The purpose of this project is to eliminate erosion problems by stabilizing several ravines and drainage
ways within Quarry Hill Park. The first construction phase of this project will be to stabilize the West
Ravine, Northwest Ravine, and North Fork of Quarry Hill Creek. This will involve installation of two
storm sewers, a filtration basin, a wet pond, an infiltration basin, and bank stabilization. Additionally, a
portion of a sanitary sewer line will be installed along the North Fork of Quarry Hill Creek alignment to
eventually serve Parkwood Hills and properties abutting Viola Road. These projects are being bid
together as the work for each project affects the other project.
This project, listed as item 39 in the 2006 — 2011 Capital Improvement Projects budget, will be funded
by the Storm Water Utility. The Parkwood Hills sanitary sewer project, included in the proposed 2007 —
2012 Capital Improvements Projects budget, will be funded by sewer revenue bonds (to be repaid by
user rates) and SAC revenue bonds (to be repaid by future SAC charges to new development).
a,
r
195TNE Z
20 AVE NE
=F, FAR,,,OCX S�NfW
v
r s>
`O ig ST NE hE
w
C lqS �E
CT NE
w
Re�ea Loca�on '.
The following bids were received:
1. Park Construction
2. Elcor Construction
3. Landwehr Construction
4. McHugh Excavating
5. Minger Construction
Engineers Estimate
Total Bid
$ 1,128,765.45
$ 1,138,075.00
$1,156,172.10
$1,161,600.14
$1,479, 754.30
$1,086,485.00
Proiect Recommendation:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder,
Park Construction.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, City Project No. (J6512) Quarry Hill Ravine and Stream
Stabilization Project and (J7754) Parkwood Hills Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Park Construction.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
RWROJECTSV-PROJJ6512 Quarry Hill\Plans-Spec5iRCA Award Bid doe
GENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Release of Controlled Access for Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block PRf PARED BY:
2, all in Lincolnshire North First Subdivision it M. Nigbur7 '%
Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 of Lincolnshire North First Subdivision are platted granting controlled
access to 48th Street NW. The driveways on both lots were permitted and constructed allowing access to
the properties from 481h Street NW, which is in direct violation of previously granted controlled access. To
remedy this situation and clear the title of each of the two subject lots, the City is willing to release
controlled access through an agreement for the area of the property occupied by the driveway on each lot
(the East 25 feet of the West 43 feet of Lot 5, Block 1 and the West 25 feet of the East 32 feet of Lot 1,
Block 2). The City has created a Release of Controlled Access document outlining the conditions of the
controlled access release:
• Owner will not enlarge or move the driveways on 48th Street NW serving the property.
• Owner agrees no access to 35th Avenue NW will be allowed.
Staff recommends the Council approve the release of controlled access of Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2
of Lincolnshire North First Subdivision for the area of each property occupied by the existing driveway on
each lot upon the condition the Owner signs the Release of Controlled Access document for their property
accepting the terms outlined above.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the release of controlled access of Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 of Lincolnshire North First
Subdivision for the area of each property occupied by the existing driveway on each lot upon the condition
the Owner signs the Release of Controlled Access document for their property.
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Release of Controlled Access document upon signature
by the Owner of each of the subject lots
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
,GENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: City/County Cost Sharing Agreement - Marion Road Drainage
Area J6505
MEETING
Y '
DATE: 1116/06
ITEM NO.
DARED BY:
M. NigburAV1
On October 3, 2005 the City authorized the execution of a Settlement agreement for the acquisition of the Dunford
Property (property along Marion Road affected adversely due to significant drainage issues). As part of the
Request for Council Action staff provided the background for cost sharing between the City and the County for
various costs associated with this property.
The City Attorney's staff and the County Attorney's Staff have crafted a Cost Sharing Agreement which formalizes
the cost share participation not only for the acquisition, but also for the demolition/removal of the structures, the
operations of ownership for the property, and design/construction of the drainage mitigation solution in this area.
This City will be the ultimate owner of the property.
The City Attorney, City Public Works, City Administration, County Attorney, and County Public Works staffs have
all reviewed the document and have found it acceptable. The Agreement has already been executed by Olmsted
County. Therefore Staff would recommend the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Cost Sharing Agreement to resolve historical drainage problems
in the Dunford Property area.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '53 ,-
DATE: 11 /06/06
GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works J '
ITEM DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL PARKING FOR 2009 NATIONAL DALMATIAN CLUB PREPARED BY:
SHOW AT CIVIC CENTER A KNAUER
The Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau (RCVB) has requested special overnight parking for
approximately 30 RVs near the Civic Center for 5 nights in April, 2009 for attendees at the National
Dalmatian Club Show. Most attendees will be staying in local lodging. However, some members prefer
to use RV s to have a place to groom and stay with their dogs. They have requested an area close to the
show which will be held at the Civic Center. Staff is looking at the new a portion of the Civic North lot
along the river.
The overnight parking rate would be subject to the rates at the time of the event and based on the number
of spaces needed plus any other amenities. Restrictions would include no generators after 10:00 p.m. or
before 7:00 a.m. per local noise ordinance. Also refuse clean up and removal would be the responsibility
of RCVB including animal waste.
The parking ordinance gives authority to the Police and Public Works to waive restrictions of such
overnight parking as being requested. Staff recommends approval. However, considering the uniqueness
of the request the recommendation is being forwarded to Council.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving overnight parking of RVs in municipal lots for attendees at
the 2009 National Dalmatian Club Show subject to conditions and rates determined by the Public
Works Department.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
MEETING
,GENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment Agreements — (J4609) Construction of Sidewalk at
Various Locations.
DATE: I11 /06/06
ITEM NO.
DARED BY:
M. Nigbur;
The City initiated public improvement project J-4609 "Construction of Sidewalk at Various Locations'. An
assessment roll for this project has been adopted. The Dewan Properties, Joshua Littman, Beissel Properties,
Abbas Tabatabai and David Boyd own property that is included on said assessment roll. The properties are
located at:
Owner Dewan Properties. PIN# 73.30.21.067946 Lot 7, Blk. 1 Century Hills Commercial Park, Olmsted County,
Minnesota
Owner Joshua Littman of 1121 Putters PI SE. PIN# 63.05.44.057543 Lot 7, Blk. 4, Eastwood Hills 2ntl
Subdivision , Olmsted County, Minnesota
Owner Beissel Properties of 4609 Birdie Ln NW. PIN# 74.17.21.051278 Lot 11, Bilk. 2, Golfview Estates, Olmsted
County, Minnesota
Owner Abbas Tabatabai of 3110 Northern Valley Dr NE. PIN# 74.24.42.047982 Lot 2, Blk. 1, Northern Slopes 6'h
Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota
Owner Abbas Tabatabai of 3024 Northern Valley Dr NE. PIN# 74.24.42.047983 Lot 3, Blk. 1, Northern Slopes 6"
Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota
Owner David Boyd. PIN# 74.32.11,072327 Lot 2, Blk. 1, Radichel 3rtl Replat, Olmsted County, Minnesota
The construction of sidewalk was completed at these properties by others. Therefore, the assessment shall be
removed from the assessment roll.
An Assessment Agreement has been prepared with the Property Owners. The City will need to amend the
adopted special assessment roll to remove the charges of said properties.
Staff recommends the Council execute the Assessment Agreements for amendment of the special assessment
roll of project J-4609 for said properties.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the Assessment Roll by removing the charges for the properties
owned by said property owners.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the assessment agreement for J-4609 for said property
owned by Dewan Properties, Joshua Littman, Beissel Properties, Abbas Tabatabai, and David Boyd.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
`
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /
DATE: 1 11 /06/06
AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works P,-- LL
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment Agreements — (J7743) Reconstruction of 7 th St NW PRPPARED BY:
from 13 Av NW to the Cascade Bridge. LJr M. Nigbur--";?l
The City initiated public improvement project J-7743 "Reconstruction of 71" Street NW from Cascade Bridge to 13
Av NW". An assessment roll for this project has been adopted. The Prow Company, Joseph & Cindy L. Bowman,
and M & H Holding Company own property that is included on said assessment roll. The properties are located
at:
Owner The Prow Company of 1112 7tn Street NW. PIN# 74.34.14.000581 Lot 1, Arend Dalsbo Addition, Olmsted
County, Minnesota
Owner Joseph & Cindy L. Bowman of 1219 7in Street NW. PIN# 74.34.14.008601 Lot 10, Bilk. 4, Replat 4 & 10
Gooding's Addition , Olmsted County, Minnesota
Owner M&H Holding Company of 1305 7" Street NW. PIN# 74.34.14.008602 Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 10. Replat 4 & 10
Gooding's Addition, Olmsted County, Minnesota
Owner M&H Holding Company of 1103 7'" Street NW. PIN# 74.34.14.008591 Lot 1, Blk. 4, Replat 4 & 10
Gooding's Addition, Olmsted County, Minnesota
These properties are corner lots and the frontage along the avenue side will not be assessed until the avenue side
is reconstructed.
An Assessment Agreement has been prepared with the Property Owners. The City will need to amend the
adopted special assessment roll to remove the charges on the avenue side associated with said properties. Also,
Pin #8601 and 8591 had frontage along 9 St NW side added to assessment.
Staff recommends the Council execute the Assessment Agreements for amendment of the special assessment
roll of project J-7743 for said properties.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the Assessment Roll by deleting the avenue side charges for the properties
owned by said property owners and adding frontage from 9 St NW.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the assessment agreement for J-7743 for said property
owned by The Prow Company Joseph & Cindy L. Bowman and M&H Holding Company.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by.
Second by: to:
GENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
11/06/06
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: (J9712) I PREPARED BY:
Reconstruction of 7th Street NW from Cascade Creek Bridge # 55529 to M. Nigbur/J�i /� t
North Broadway (TH 63) �1_
The City initiated public improvement project J-9712 'Reconstruction of 71h Street NW from Cascade
Bridge to North Broadway Avenue". An assessment roll for this project has been adopted. The
following own property that is included on said assessment roll:
Owner Larry Woods & Troy Buhr Pin# 74.35.14.15803, Northern Addition.
Speedway Super America LLC. Pin# 74.35.14.75684, Northern Addition. Note that the old pin number
was 15827 and 15828.
The Assessment Roll includes 176.9 feet of property frontage for the Larry Woods & Troy Buhr property,
and 214 feet of property frontage for the Speedway Super America LLC. property. These properties are
corner lots and the frontage along Broadway side will not be assessed until the avenue side is
reconstructed. The agreement reduces Larry Woods & Troy Buhr assessment to 87.5 feet, and
Speedway Super America LLC to 125 feet of assessable frontage.
An Assessment Agreement has been prepared with the Property Owners. The City will need to amend
the special assessment roll to exclude a portion of the costs associated with said properties.
City staff recommends the Council execute the Assessment Agreement for amendment of the
assessment roll of project J9712 for both properties.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution amending the Assessment Roll by deleting the corner lot charges for both properties.
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the assessment agreements for J9712 for said property
owned by Larry Woods & Troy Buhr, and Speedway Super America LLC.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /6106
tGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO. ^�
CONSENT AGENDA
I
Public Works
D
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1 Project 9501 (J2574)
PR PARED BY:
Civic Center North Parking Lot Expansion
M. Easley c,
The plans provide for construction to expand the Civic Center North Parking Lot. The plans further
provide that, after the lot is surfaced, that epoxy pavement markings be painted marking the parking
stalls. The painting contractor advised, that in low volume installations epoxy pavement markings have
not performed equal to their cost, and recommends the lot be painted with Standard traffic paint.
The Engineer concurs with this recommendation and has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1;
Project 9501 (J2574) in the amount of $1,588.21 to cover the cost of:
1. 4" Solid Line White Paint for parking stalls.
2. 4" Solid Line Yellow Paint for bus stalls.
3. 6 Handicapped Parking Symbols.
4. Repainting of the remainder of the existing stalls in the adjacent Civic Center North Lot.
Cost associated with this work have been reviewed and are typical to work of this nature. The cost of
this Supplemental Agreement does not constitute an overrun of project cost. The value of the Epoxy
Markings deleted by this agreement is in excess of the requested amount.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1, In the amount of $1,588.21
Project 9501 (J2574) Civic Center North Parking Lot Expansion.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
9--;,
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 11 /6/06
GENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
rE - =,
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #3 Project MO-74 (J9708)
PREPARED BY:
Overland Drive N.W., from 18t" Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
F M. Easley �c
The plans provided for the construction of Overland Drive N.W. from 181" Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
The plans further provide for the construction of storm sewer and drainage facilities throughout the
project. During storm sewer construction a formation of solid sandstone was encountered that required
blasting for it to be excavated for the installation of the storm sewer mains. Rock excavation was not
provided for in the contract and therefore constitutes extra work.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #3; Project MO-74 (J9708) in the amount of
$9,570.00 to cover the cost of:
1. 580.0 Cubic yards of Rock Excavation in the storm sewer trenches.
Cost associated with this work have been reviewed and approved by MNDOT Estimating. MNDOT has
further determined these cost to be eligible for both Federal and State Aid participation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #3, In the amount of $9,570.00
Project MO-74 (J9708) Overland Drive N.W.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
t1 , 'VI
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #4 Project MO-74 (J9708)
PREPARED BY:
Overland Drive N.W., from 181h Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
M. Easley k..
The plans provided for the construction of Overland Drive N.W. from 18`h Ave. to Bandel Road N.W.
The plans further provide for the construction of storm sewer and drainage facilities throughout the
project.
After storm sewer construction had been completed, and while roadway grading was in progress, it
became apparent that the tops of numerous storm sewer structures sat very high in the road grade.
Investigation determined that an apparent survey error had occurred in the storm sewer staking and that
the storm structures needed to be lowered to complete the project to the roadway elevations. This
condition was further complicated, in part, by a revision to the final planned road grade, at the west
project limits, by the lowering of the planned road grade by one foot, to match elevations prescribed by
the new construction on HWY 52 at 65`h St. N.W.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #4; Project MO-74 (J9708) in the amount of
$14,876.00 to cover the cost of:
A. Lower Nine Storm Sewer Manholes.
1. Removal of the storm sewer manhole slab tops.
2. The sawing of storm sewer manholes
3. Replacement of manhole slab tops.
B. Lower fourteen catch basin structures.
1. Sawing off the tops of the concrete catch basin structures.
Cost associated with this work have been reviewed and approved by MNDOT Estimating. MNDOT has
further determined these cost to be eligible for both Federal and State Aid participation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #4, In the amount of $14,876.00
Project MO-74 (J9708) Overland Drive N.W.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %
DATE: 11 /6/06
GENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA Public WorksABY
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #3 Project M1-50-2-04 (J7731)
jPRrARED
Bandel Road N.W., from Bandel Drive to 65" St. N.W.
The plans provide for the construction of Bandel Road from Bandel Drive to 65" St. N.W. The plans
further provide that the security fence around the adjacent City water reservoir be removed to facilitate
roadway and retaining wall construction. The plans however, did not provide for the reinstallation of the
security fence around the facility. Both the Department of Public Works and Rochester Public Utilities -
Water Division feel it is necessary to reinstall the fence to maintain a secure facility and for safety of
those working at the site near the top of the retaining wall.
The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #3; Project M1-50-2-04 (J7731) in the amount of
$7,146.70 to cover the cost of:
1. Reinstallation of the 6' high security fence.
2. Reinstallation of a 14' swing gate.
MNDOT has approved the costs of this agreement and has determined them eligible for State Aid
participation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #3, In the amount of $7,146.70
Project M1-50-2-04 (J7731) Bandel Road N.W.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
ENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment of "Unpaid Charge,
to Serve Crystal Springs, J9787
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
NO.
11 /6/06
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain P/J,EPARED BY:
Loehr 1
The final projects quantities and costs for the following local improvement project have been
determined:
Project No. M1-26, J9787
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Crystal Springs 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 May 5, 2006.
In the Agreement the owners agree to have payment of their charges considered delinquent pursuant to
Rochester Code of Ordinance Chapter 28 and assessed against their property as an "unpaid 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 $ 106.86 per foot of frontage
Sewer and Water Service Connection Charge $1,500.00 per service connection
Unpaid Charges
An amount of $342,095.32 for project J9787, an amount of $4,050,00 for J9598 (SAC) and an amount
of $5,400.00 for J9603 (WAC) 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 May 5, 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution to establish the project Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge rate of
$106.86 per foot of frontage, and a Sewer and Water Service Charge rate at $1,500.00 per service.
2. Adopt resolution levying the "unpaid charges" for projects J9787, J9598 and J9603 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
ENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING )::
DATE: 11 /6/06
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment of "Unpaid Charges": Sanitary Sewer a
to Serve Kahouns, J9786
ITEM NO.
1
in P� EPARED BY:
11AA. Loehr ,
The final projects quantities and costs for the following local improvement projecfhave been
determined:
Project No. M1-25, J9786
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Kahouns 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 May 5, 2006,
In the Agreement the owners agree to have payment of their charges considered delinquent pursuant to
Rochester Code of Ordinance Chapter 28 and assessed against their property as an "unpaid 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 aroiect are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge $ 106.79 per foot of frontage
Sewer and Water Service Connection Charge $1,500.00 per service connection
Unpaid Charges
An amount of $322,053.46 for project J9786, an amount of $7,125,00 for J9598 (SAC) and an amount
of $9,500.00 for J9603 (WAC) 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 May 5, 2006,
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution to establish the project Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge rate of
$106.79 per foot of frontage, and a Sewer and Water Service Charge rate at $1,500.00 per service.
2. Adopt resolution levying the "unpaid charges' for projects J9786, J9598 and J9603 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:
ENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works {
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment of "Unpaid Charges": Sanitary Sewer a
to Serve Oslo Court NE, J7707
r
11 /6/06
PREPARED BY:
11Aa J. Loehr n,
The final projects quantities and costs for the following local improvement project have been
determined:
Project No. M2-33. J7707
"Sanitary Sewer to Serve Lots 1-3 and Lots 11-13 in Osjor Estates 3'd Subdivision Located on
Oslo Court NE."
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 June 16, 2006.
In the Agreement the owners agree to have payment of their charges considered delinquent pursuant to
Rochester Code of Ordinance Chapter 28 and assessed against their properi"s an "unpaid 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 Connection Charge
Sewer Service Connection Charge
$15,219.27 per connection
$ 750.00 per service connection
Unpaid Charges
An amount of $50,000.00 for project J7707 remains 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
June 16, 2006.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution to establish the project Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge rate of $15,219.27,
and a Sewer Service Connection Charge rate at $750.00 per service.
2. Adopt resolution levying the "unpaid charges" for projects J7707 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
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
1116/06
ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works
L
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment of "Unpaid Charges": Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
P EPARED BY: f
r
to Serve Cedar Park, J9790
J. Loehr
The final projects quantities and costs for the following local improvement project have been
determined:
Project No. M1-29, J9790
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Cedar Park 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 May 5, 2006.
In the Agreement the owners agree to have payment of their charges considered delinquent pursuant to
Rochester Code of Ordinance Chapter 28 and assessed against their property as an "unpaid 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 $ 105.40 per foot of frontage
Sewer and Water Service Connection Charge $1,500.00 per service connection
Unpaid Charges
An amount of $31,850.16 for project J9790 remains 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
May 5, 2006,
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution to establish the project Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge rate of
$105.40 per foot of frontage, and a Sewer and Water Service Charge rate at $1,500.00 per service.
2. Adopt resolution levying the "unpaid charges" for projects J9790 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:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
. —ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1 Hadley Valley Trunkline Sanitary
Sewer Phase 2, J7744
PREPARED BY:
J. Loehr
The City previously entered into a contract with A-1 Excavating for the construction of trunkline sanitary
sewer in a project described as follows:
City Project No: M2-42-2-05 J7744
"Hadley Valley Trunk Sanitary Sewer to Serve Sewer Service Area 29A Phase 2."
SA #1: The plan and specification provide for the construction of 42" trunkline sanitary sewer 70 feet
east of the centerline of East River Road from the south line of RPU property to a location approximately
3400 feet north to serve development in Hadley Valley. The alignment was chosen as a future East
River Road improvement project is anticipated and Public Works did not desire that the City incur the
cost of restoring the roadway at this time. Future development along East River Road will be located on
the east side of the roadway (Foster Arends Park and Mathy quarry are located on the west side of the
road). A 40+ acre parcel of property located directly north of RPU property will be developed in the near
future. The installation of watermain along East River Road to serve the 40+ acre parcel at a future date
will require the excavation and restoration of the area. The Engineer deems it appropriate to install
watermain across the frontage of the 40+ acre parcel in conjunction with the trunkline sanitary sewer
project.
The Department of Public Works negotiated an amount of $75,801.00 as compensation to A-1
Excavating for the watermain work.
The cost to construct the watermain will be funded by RPU for oversize watermain costs and the cost to
construct watermain across approximately 340 feet of RPU property frontage. The remainder of the
watermain cost will be recovered from the 40+ acre parcel as a watermain connection charge when the
property is developed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1 in the amount of
$75,801.00.
Attachment: Supplemental Agreement #1
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
/ f..
MEETING f
DATE: 11 /06/06
"GENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
b --c/
ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J2261)
PREPARED BY:
Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of Buildings located at 1330
R. Kelm
& 1332 7tn Street NW
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., October 25, 2006 for the following local improvement.
Project:
City Project No: J2261
Demolition of Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 7t" Street NW, Lot 1 Auditor's Plat D
Project Background
The roadway connection of 16tn Ave NW from Civic Center Drive to 7tt' Street NW project was included
in the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program (item 13, page 32). The City purchased the property,
land and associated buildings, in anticipation of the roadway project.
The final scope of the roadway project was eventually reduced to constructing only the southerly half in
2004. The northerly half of the project has remained unfinished and the existing property has
deteriorated overtime. These buildings located at 1330 & 1332 71n Street NW have been scheduled for
demolition.
The City authorized McGhie & Betts to complete an environmental Asbestos and Hazardous Material
report on May 01, 2006. The report completed on Aug 30, 2006, states that the removal of asbestos
containing building materials will be required prior to demolition.
The demolition project is to be funded from J2261.
The following bids were received:12 =W
Total Bid ;
1. Blue Earth Environmental $ 73,331.00 1 I
,
2. Fraser Construction Co. $ 79,938.00
3. Bob Braaten Constr. $ 92,525.04
4.. Landwehr Construction Inc $ 96,180.40
5..MJ Nelson Asphalt $104,908.00
It 6gJ1 ]I�Slf tNWl
Engineers Estimate $ 88,291.00 6
Project Recommendation:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, (J2261) Demolition of Buildings located at 1330 & 1332 71h
Street NW, Lot 1 Auditor's Plat D to Blue Earth Environmental.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /// el
DATE: 11/06/06
GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works_-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Agreement: (J9856), (J7226), & (J6007)
PREPARED BY:
Preliminary Analysis and Design Services for 41 st Ave NW and
F3 (Celm
Members Parkway
NI�N�
0
This is a proposal by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc (S.E.H.) to provide professional engineering services
for Preliminary Analysis and Design for the following local improvement project:
Project Name & Numbers:
Main Proiect:
City Project No: M1-88 (J9856)
Construct 4151 Ave NW connection between Members Parkway & 55th St NW at West Circle Drive
And related subprojects:
City Project No: M4-22 (J7226)
Construct connection from Members Parkway to NW Plaza.
City Project No: (J6007)
Relocate Traffic Signal on CSAH 22 from 551n St NW to 41 s' Ave NW.
Proiect Background
The projects above will be contracted as a combined bid for construction and staging.
The Street project is included in the 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program category for Major Streets
(item 19, page 36).
The Signal project is included in the 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program category for Traffic
Signals (item 19, page 44).
SEH is familiar with the City's requirements for the preparation of Preliminary Analysis and Design
required to design the roadway and signal relocation project. Therefore, the Department of Public works
recommends that Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc be retained by the City to provide Preliminary Project
Analysis and Design for the project.
Compensation for the Preliminary Analysis and Design is based on an actual cost and expense fee
structure. SEH estimates that this phase of the project analysis $194,400.00.
Final Design plan and specification preparation will be determined later after conceptual layout plans are
reviewed and approved. Compensation for the Final Design services is proposed at a "Lump Sum"
amount as negotiated for the project. The "Lump Sum' amount will be based on the extent of
engineering services required for the project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to execute the Engineering Service Agreement
for project J9856 to Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc to provide Preliminary Analysis and Design engineering
services as follows:
1. Preliminary Analysis and Design (actual cost and expense fee structure).
2. Final Design Services ("Lump Sum" as negotiated by the Department of Public
Works and approved by the City Administrator).
Attachment: Location Map
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc Letter of Proposal
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
0
Project Location Map
For Combined Projects
City Project No: M1-88 (J9856)
Construct 4V' Ave NW connection between Members Parkway & 55th St NW at West Circle Drive
City Project No: (J6007)
Relocate Traffic Signal on CSAH 22 from 551' St NW to 41s` Ave NW.
C
City Project No: M4-22 (J7226)
Construct connection from Members Parkway to NW Plaza.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETTNG
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Water Reclamation Plant
,.TEM DESCRIPTION. Contract Award
Generator No. 2
ITEM NO:
J—
41,
PREPARED BY: {
Lvle J. Zimmermah
The Water Reclamation Plant has two engine generators that utilize methane gas produced as a
byproduct in the treatment process. The units use digester gas to generate power, thus reducing the
plant's electrical costs. Waste heat is also recovered from the engines to heat the anaerobic digesters and
for building heat in the winter. Two 400 KW units were installed as part of the major expansion project
in the early 1980's. One of the units failed in 2002 and was replaced with a 1000 KW unit in 2003. The
second unit is nearing its useful life and is in need of a major overhaul.
During the design process it was discovered that a gas scrubbing system will be required for both
generators. Changes in the manufacturing of many consumer products has resulted during the last decade
in a large increase in a compounds called siloxanes that end up in the gas produced in anaerobic digesters.
The engineers researched removal systems and have included the installation of one of these systems with
the design of this project.
Bids were received on October 24, 2006 for the replacement of Generator No. 2 and for the installation
of a Siloxane Scrubbing system and were as follows:
Foster Electric Co. Rochester, MN $2,300,000.00
Shank Constructors, Inc. Brooklyn Park, MN $1,891,100.00
Shank Constructors, Inc. is one of the primary mechanical subcontractors on the 2004 Plant Expansion
and Upgrade projects and they were the general contractor on another previous WRP project that
involved mainly mechanical work. Shank Constructors, Inc. is qualified to do this work and it is
recommended that they be awarded a contract for the Engine Generator No. 2 Replacement Project.
The replacement of Engine Generator No. 2 was planned for in the Capital Improvements Programs for
2005 and 2006.
Council Action Requested:
It is requested that Shank Constructors, Inc. of Brooklyn Park, MN be award a contract for the Engine
Generator No.2 Replacement Project for their bid amount of $ 1891,100.00 (Project J4399)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM jNO.
CONSENT Public Works ►i/ ,'
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources PREPARED BY:
Calcareous Fen Grant Application k)lr B. Huberty
In 2004, the Council authorized the submittal of a grant to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources to develop cost-effective and timely methods to predict the locations of calcareous fens
and significant groundwater discharge sites in rapidly urbanizing areas. This is needed to prevent
unwitting development and infrastructure design decisions that could negatively impact both the
development and the protected natural resources, while facilitating a more timely development
process. At that time, the Cityand its partners did not receive a grant.
Applications are now due for a new round of grant applications. In the 2007 grant guidelines, LCCMR
has specifically noted fens as a grant topic of interest. Therefore, City staff again recommend seeking
funding from the LCCMR to develop cost-effective and timely methods to predict the locations of
calcareous fens and significant groundwater discharge sites in rapidly urbanizing areas. This grant
source does not require an in -kind or monetary matching contribution, and as a result, is highly
competitive.
The rare occurrence of calcareous fens and the unique character of their plant and animal
communities has led to state lawthat classifies them as an Outstanding Resource Value Water that
must receive special protection under the Wetland Conservation Act and MPCA MS4 storm water
permits (required of Olmsted County, the City of Rochester, and Marion, Cascade, Haverhill, and
Rochester Townships). Current information regarding the location of these specially protected
wetlands is sparse and therefore can lead to difficulties in administering the Wetland Conservation
Act. When fens are identified late in the process, they can create delays in infrastructure expansions
or developments. Similarly, insufficient location information can result in the inadvertent and
unintentional loss of these unique resources.
The objectives of the project are to:
• Create maps that address locations of fen probability and ground water discharge.
• Develop technical guidelines to stimulate environmentally sensitive development choices that
sustain ground water quality and fens.
• Develop vegetative management guidelines for calcareous fens.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution confirming Council support for the submittal of a cooperative grant application to the
Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources by November 14, 2006 to meet the objectives
described above.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion
Second by: to:
H:lrens\LCCMR RC.A.DOC
do
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-06-06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING f S
EM DESCRIPTION: Orderly Annexation #06-07 by Gary Vandal. The applicant is PREPARED BY:
proposing to annex approximately 25.12 acres of land located along the south side of John Harford,
Pinewood Road, SE and east of Pinewood Ridge subdivision, Section 17, Marion Senior Planner
Township.
November 6, 2006
Planning Department Recommendation.
See attached staff report, dated November 3, 2006.
As part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement, property taxes payable on annexed land shall continue to be paid to the
Town of Marion for the entire year in which the annexation becomes effective. If the annexation becomes effective on or
before August 1 of a levy year, based on the date specified in the order from the Minnesota Municipal Board, the City may
levy on the annexed areas beginning with that levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after August 1 of a levy year,
the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. Thereafter property taxes on the annexed land shall
be paid to the City. The Township Taxes due on this property are $145.30.
Attachments
1. Staff report, dated November 3, 2006.
Distribution.
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk: Filing Fee
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
on Monday, November 6, 2006, in the Council
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
V11
CA
W
w
0
6W-
2 Ar
I
J
c c� oM
-
m � Yo
f O I
0 --• Aj.T'
1
v V
Y
— ii4.T'
I v
I r '
91 / o
N
v
A O a
W ✓ ��
O
1e7,0' rr r
v 9 Imo` T0T.99' -
y� 3r41TCD
' I or
7 N w 6 D
y• J Y ` J �I
to
1 1
H 1 —
O
x I INN
m I
1 I •!N A �r 54130'
n jN
I
d(< 4
O �J
—�
/I I
I 4)a pG'
r
i I �� 447.77'�su)
iR DtrD Z5e-rea•J I
e
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
cou„,, p, www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: John Harford, Senior Planner
DATE: November 3, 2006
No.-
N�p� �11�I�17
y
RE: Orderly Annexation #06-07 by Gary Vandal. The applicant is proposing to
annex approximately 25.12 acres of land located along the south side of
Pinewood Road, SE and east of Pinewood Ridge subdivision, Section 17,
Marion Township.
Plannina Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: Gary Vandal
2815 24`h Ave., SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Existing Land Use: This property is currently unplatted land with one existing
dwelling located on the property.
Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 25.12
acres.
Existing Zoning: Though this property is not currently within the City limits, it is
within the Orderly Annexation Agreement area with Marion
Township for which the City of Rochester has extraterritorial
land use and zoning controls. The property is zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester
Zoning Map.
Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family Residential) district on the Rochester Zoning Map.
Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "Low Density Residential" uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Adjacency to the Municipal The area proposed for annexation is permitted, according to
Limits: the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation between the City
of Rochester and the Townboard of Marion (Area #3),
Paragraph 7 (c) a landowner seeks to develop a residential,
Commercial, industrial, or governmental use on land which is
platted or subdivided or which is proposed to be platted or
subdivided for development at a density of more than one unit
per 40 acres. In such instance, review by the Rochester
Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be required prior
to the City acting upon said petition.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
.—V PIANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYlAFFIHMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Annexation #06-07
Gary Vandal
November 3, 2006
Sewer & Water Services: Not known. Insufficient time to obtain information.
Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd.13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review: Townboard review is not required for this annexation.
Report Attachments: 1. Annexation / Location Map
Staff Recommendation:
Section 7, Paragraph (c) of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area # 3) between the City
of Rochester and Townboard of Marion allows a landowner seeks to develop a residential commercial,
industrial, or governmental use on land which is platted or subdivided or which is proposed to be platted or
subdivided for development at a density of more than one unit per 40 acres. In such instance, review by
the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be required prior to the City acting upon said
petition.
Staff recommends that the City adopt a resolution annexing the property.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
J AGENDA SECTION:
J CONSENT AGENDA
..'EM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Public
Subdivision — J5227
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works 1 A.4
to Serve Badger Hills Third PREPARED BY:
M.Baker ,
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Badger Hills LLC (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract
J5227 consisting of construction of the "Public Improvements to Serve Badger Hills Third Subdivision'
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J5227,
"Public Improvements to Serve Badger Hills Third Subdivision".
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/06/06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
50
M DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
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.
ANNUAL BINGO -PREMISE PERMIT
Rochester Senior Center Foundation
At Circus World Bingo
2828 East Frontage Road NW Hwy 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities.
1UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/06/06
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Public Works
-5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution for Assessment Projects
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur"%,
The City staff has forwarded several projects to the City Council for levying of assessments. At the
direction of the City Attorney's Office it has been recommended that the City Council authorize the
levying of the assessment through formal resolution. The following projects should have a resolution
prepared for this authorization:
J4609 — New construction of sidewalk at various locations
J6530 — Remediate water infiltration for Southwood Townhomes
J7237 — Alley Reconstruction in 500 block from 91h Ave to 101h Ave SW
J7743 — Reconstruct 71h Street NW — 7th to 131h Ave
J7749 — Construction of 1" Avenue SW — 2M Street to Center Street
J9712 — Reconstruct 7'' Street NW — N Broadway to Cascade Creek
J9793 — Contribution Agreement for Stonebrook Development
J6539 — Rossi Ct. Drainage
The Council has previously taken action to authorize this work and assess the costs.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
By resolution authorize the City to levy the assessments associated with the above noted projects.
t;OUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /6/06
3ENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Hearings Finance
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Consenting to the City of Plainview Issuing Revenue Bonds on behalf D. Martinson
of YMCA for a project to be located in Rochester.
The City of Plainview has been asked to issue conduit revenue bonds in an amount
not to exceed $3.1 million on behalf of the Rochester YMCA. Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.153, Subdivision 3 requires that the City approve of the such tax exempt
issues if the monies are to be used for a project located within the City's boundaries.
Monies from the bond issue would be used to:
(i) finance a portion of the costs of construction of an expansion of approximately
9,800 square feet onto their existing 77,000 square foot facility located at 709
First Avenue Southwest., Rochester, Minnesota 55902(the "Project"), and
(ii) pay the costs of issuing the Note.
The Project will be owned by the Borrower.
The City does not participate in the issuance of these bonds, and is making no
recommendation to the City of Plainview to issue the bonds. The City would have no
obligation whatsoever with respect to the bonds or the project. The City's bond
counsel has reviewed the proposed resolution consenting to the issuance and has
made minor amendments to further protect the City.
City staff recommends consenting to the proposed financing.
Council Action Requested
Adoption of the prepared resolution consenting to the financing of the project for
Rochester's YMCA.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by, second by: to.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
C
ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISORDERLY USE PROPERTY VIOLATIONS AT 113 10`" ST. PREPARED BY:
NW AND OWNED BY ROGER ENGHOLM T. SPAETIW
On October 10, 2006, the Rental Housing Complaint Board held a public hearing relating to the property
located at the above mentioned address, in which there have been 3 disorderly use violations cited within the
past year. (There have been 4 disorderly use notices sent to the owner between 8/8/06 and 9/20/06). After taking
testimony, the Board recommended scheduling this item for a public hearing in front of the Council.
Based upon the following:
• Documentation related to the 4 disorderly use incidents
• Neighborhood resident testimony
• Staff testimony
The fact the owner does not have a valid rental certificate for this property
• The fact that the owner has not participated in a crime free multi family housing workshop
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council conduct a public hearing and determine what remedial actions under the provisions of RCO 38.153 be taken.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Rental Housing Complaint Board minutes from 5/10/06.
2. Copy of RCO 38.150 — 38.154
NOTE TO COUNCIL: The Disorderly Use background information has been sent separately to the Council.
e Co
dc'��
,rL 1t�2t43 k-j i'l-t IL
L1°°
11 �yT7� IIIIp �l
�tlg f ' '�
-,
JAI
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
r.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 11, 2006
TO: Mayor and Common Council
CC: Dave Goslee, Darrell Hildebrandt, Ron Boose, Rich Wright
FROM: Terry A. Spaeth
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Complaint Board Meeting Minutes from October 10, 2006, 3:30 PM
meeting for the property located at 113 101h Street NW, owned by Roger Engholm.
Members Present: Mayor Brede, Council President Dennis Hanson, Councilmember Bob Nowicki
Staff Present: Terry Spaeth, City Administration; Dave Goslee, City Attorney's Office, Ron Boose,
Building Safety Dept., Darrell Hildebrandt, Police Dept., Rich Wright, City Attorney's
Office
Others Present: A number of neighborhood residents attended the meeting. It should be noted the
property owner (Mr. Engholm) was not in attendance.
On October 10, 2006, the Rental Housing Complaint Board held a public hearing related to the disorderly use
violations on the property located at 113 101h Street NW in Rochester and owned by Roger Engholm. The
following is a synopsis of the testimony received by the Board:
Council President Hanson opened the public hearing. Councilmember Nowicki indicated that he had been
regularly attending the Northrup Neighborhood Association meetings and understands the concerns that the
neighboring property owners have regarding this property and what has been going on over there.
Cora Day — Neighborhood resident
Ms. Day indicated that the problems started back in June and have been going on since then. The problems
have been related to the tenants drinking and partying nearly every day at all hours of the night. There has
been drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and loud noise going on there regularly. She indicated the yard and
property has not been kept up. She believes that the present owner (Mr. Engholm) obtained the property
back in June, and wasn't aware of the condition of the property.
Bill Vandeberg — Neighborhood resident
Mr. Vandeberg believes the property is presently vacant. He reiterated the various problems related to
drinking and partying going on at this property. He indicated that he believes the owner is now trying to clean
the property up so that it may be rented out again.
Trade Johnson — Neighborhood resident
Ms. Johnson indicates she lives across the street from 113 & 115 101h St. NW. She believes that Mr.
Engholm owned the property with the problem tenants. She indicated 113 is presently vacant, but that some
of those tenants have moved next door to 115 10`h St. NW. She indicated that she has experienced property
damage and has had to deal with the underage drinking problem firsthand.
Darrell Hildebrandt — Rochester Police Dept. Crime Prevention Unit
Mr. Hildebrandt provided a review of the various incidents of disorderly use at 113 16' St. NW. He indicated
that after the 2otl notice, Mr. Engholm provided a note that indicated he would take action to evict the tenants
as soon as possible. Mr. Hildebrandt indicated that this did not really constitute a plan of action as required
under the disorderly use ordinance. Mr. Hildebrandt indicated that it was his opinion that Mr. Engholm has
not conducted criminal background checks on tenants. Mr. Hildebrandt indicated there is presently not a
valid rental certificate for this property, and that Mr. Engholm has not attended a crime free multi housing
workshop.
Mr. Hildebrandt indicated that the Building Safety Department will need to reinspect the property prior to the
property being rented out again. He also stated that at this time, they have not been notified of any disorderly
uses at the neighboring property at 115 1e St. NW, but that he will pass it on to the officers to keep an eye
on this property.
Ron Boose — Building Safe
Mr. Boose stated there is no valid rental certificate for this property. Notice was sent to the owner back in
July. The owner was to comply with order and have reinspection completed by September 6"'. Mr. Engholm
has not yet complied, and that their Department has had complaints regarding the condition of the property.
Inspectors have sent notices to Mr. Engholm, but no compliance has yet been achieved. Mr. Boose stated
that an inspection is scheduled for 10/12/06. Mr. Boose indicated that he had just driven by the property, and
does not feel it is in very good condition at this point.
Dennis Hanson — Council President
Council President Hanson feels a public hearing before the Council is warranted in this instance, based upon
the evidence and testimony presented to the Board, and the fact that the owner does not have a valid rental
certificate and has not attended a crime free multi housing workshop.
Mayor Brede and Councilmember Nowicki concurred with the recommendation to forward this matter as a
public hearing before the Council. Mr. Spaeth indicated that this item will be scheduled for the November 6,
2006 Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M.
38.150 Legislative Intent. It is declared to be the purpose and intent of
Sections 38.151 through 38.153 to protect and preserve this city's neighborhoods
and the public health, safety, welfare and morals of those who live there. The
Rochester Common Council determined that:
(1) there are persons residing in rental property in
Rochester engaging in disorderly conduct which
results in a hostile environment for other Rochester
citizens living close to the rental property;
(2) there is currently no city ordinance which provides a
formal procedure by which the City can notify a
rental property owner or manager of the disorderly
conduct occurring on the property;
(3) there is currently no procedure by which the City
can require a rental property owner or manager to
respond to and resolve the occurrences of
disorderly conduct occurring on his or her rental
property and to take administrative action against
his or her rental registration certificate or right to
obtain a rental registration certificate should he or
she fail to do so.
Accordingly, it is the intent of Sections 38.151 through 38.153 to address the
serious and, at times, life threatening problems posed by the occurrence of
disorderly conduct to the health and safety of all Rochester residents in all portions
of this city. At the same time, the Common Council recognizes, acknowledges, and
complies with all due process and property rights enjoyed by those who own or
manage rental property as well as those who reside in such property. This
ordinance represents the City's good faith effort to balance those competing and
legitimate interests.
38.151 Definitions. For purposes of Sections 38.151 through 38.153,
the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them.
"Appropriate action" shall mean that action which a
reasonable rental property owner would take based upon
the facts and circumstances of each case so as to prevent
a reoccurrence of the disorderly use.
"License" shall mean a registration certificate or the right to
receive a registration certificate as required by this chapter.
"Rental property owner" shall mean one who holds the
license or who is otherwise obligated to obtain and
f1 �
maintain the license as required by this chapter.
"Licensed Premises" or "Premises" shall mean the property
owned, operated, or managed by a rental property owner
and shall refer to an individual unit within a multi -unit
complex when applicable.
"Disorderly" or "Disorderly Use" shall mean that conduct
occurring on the "Licensed Premises" or `Premises" which
violates a provision of Section 38.152(2).
38.152 Conduct on Licensed Premises. Subdivision 1. Any rental
property owner shall be responsible to take appropriate action against persons
occupying specific units in the licensed premises or premises who conduct
themselves in such a manner as to cause the premises to be disorderly in violation
of the statutes or ordinances listed in Subdivision 2. For purposes of this Chapter,
the term "persons occupying the premises" shall include tenants as defined by
Minn. Stat. § 566.18, and those persons on the licensed premises whose presence
the tenant has invited or to which the tenant has acquiesced. Violations of this
section apply to individual units within buildings or complexes containing multiple
units when the conduct occurs within a unit. Violations of this section by persons
occupying specific units that occur within a common area of the licensed premises
shall apply both to the individual unit and to the common area of the licensed
premises.
Subd. 2. The following ordinances and statutes are applicable to
this section:
a) Section 85.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
prohibiting prostitution;
b) Section 85.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
prohibiting indecent conduct;
c) Section 85.04 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
prohibiting participation in a disorderly house;
d) Minnesota Statutes Sections 617.23 through 617.299
prohibiting obscenity;
e) Section 85.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
prohibiting loud parties or gatherings or other
unnecessary loud noises;
f) Section 34.20-34.27 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances prohibiting overcrowding;
g) Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.75 through 609.76
which prohibit gambling;
h) Minnesota Statutes Sections 152.01 through 152.025
and Section 152.027, Subdivisions 1 and 2, which
prohibit the unlawful sale or possession of controlled
substances;
i) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A which prohibits the
unlawful sale, use or possession of alcoholic
beverages;
j) Minnesota Statutes Section 9713.021, 976.045, 609.66
through 609.67 and 624.712 through 624.716, which
prohibit the unlawful possession, transportation, sale, or
use of a weapon;
k) Minnesota Statutes Section 609.72 which prohibits
disorderly conduct; or,
1) Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.221, 609,222,
609.223, 609.2231, and 609.224 which prohibit
assaults, except that domestic assaults, as the same
are defined by state law, are not included herein.
Subd. 3. The police or Director shall be charged with the responsibility of
enforcing Subdivision 2.
Subd. 4. Upon determination by the police or housing inspector that the
licensed premises were involved in a disorderly use, the police shall notify the
license holder by regular mail of such violation and direct the license holder to take
appropriate action to prevent further violations. Notice shall be effective if mailed to
the license holder at that person's last known address. This and subsequent
notices are collectively referred to as disorderly use notices.
Subd. 5. If another instance of disorderly use on the premises occurs within
12 months of an incident for which a prior disorderly use notice was given, the
license holder shall be notified of the instance of disorderly use and shall also be
required to submit a written report of appropriate actions taken by the rental
property owner to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written report
shall be submitted to the police within five days of the notice of disorderly use of the
premises and shall, in addition to the report of appropriate actions to be taken,
detail all actions taken by the rental property owner in response to all notices of
disorderly use of the premises within the preceding 12 months. Failure to submit
the written report as required herein shall be a basis for the imposition of a fine and
r =7�
the revocation or suspension of the license or right to receive the license for the
specific units or units located on the licensed premises as otherwise provided for in
this chapter.
Subd. 6a. If another instance of disorderly use of the premises occurs within
12 months of two or more prior disorderly use notices, the license or right to obtain
such license may be revoked or suspended for a specific unit or units located on
the licensed premises. If the notice of violation has been issued with respect to a
common area of a building or complex of buildings then the license or right to
obtain such license as to all units in such building or complex may be suspended or
revoked.
Subd. 6b. If another instance of disorderly use of the premises occurs within
12 months of the expiration of a prior suspension issued pursuant to the provisions
of this chapter, the license or right to obtain such license may be revoked or
suspended for the specific unit or units located on the licensed premises. If the
notice of violation has been issued with respect to a common area of a building or
complex of buildings then the license or right to obtain such license as to all units in
such building or complex may be suspended or revoked.
Subd. 7. No suspension or revocation or other sanctions shall be imposed
where one or more of the three required disorderly use notices were mailed or
delivered to the landlord after the rental property owner has filed an unlawful
detainer action with the district court for the particular unit or units identified in the
disorderly use notice. Calls to police made by rental property owners shall not be
considered incidents of disorderly use in the implementation of Section 38.152,
subdivisions 4, 5, and 6. The initiation of an unlawful detainer action shall not be a
bar to sanctions, however, unless the action is diligently pursued by the rental
property owner. Notice of and a copy of the unlawful detainer action shall be
delivered to the police department. A determination that the licensed premises
have been involved in a disorderly use as described in Subdivision 2 shall be made
upon a preponderance of the evidence. It shall not be necessary that criminal
charges be brought to support a determination of disorderly use, nor shall the fact
of dismissal or acquittal of such a criminal charge operate as a bar to adverse
license action under this section.
Subd. 8. This section applies to all leases, whether written or oral, and a
landlord may consider any tenant's conduct listed in Section 38.152(2) to be both a
material breach of the lease and grounds for termination in any unlawful detainer
action. Additionally, all written leases executed after August 31, 1995 shall contain
a clause providing that conduct that violates Subdivision 2 constitutes both a
material breach of the lease and grounds for termination of such lease.
Subd. 9. This ordinance is not intended to supersede criminal sanctions that
may be applied to the individual who violates the statutes and ordinances listed in
Subdivision 2.
1'
38.153 License Suspension and Revocation. Subdivision 1. Upon a
determination that a license or right to obtain such a license may be suspended or
revoked, or that a fine or other sanctions may be imposed, a public hearing shall be
held before a body to be known as the Rental Housing Complaint Board. The
Rental Housing Complaint Board shall consist of the Common Council member
from the ward in which the licensed premises is located, the Common Council
President, and the Mayor. All parties shall be afforded an opportunity to appear at
such hearing after receiving reasonable notice. The notice shall state the time,
place, and issues involved. At this hearing, rental property owners may present
evidence of mitigating circumstances showing the absence of any need for a public
hearing before the Council to consider the revocation or suspension of the license
or right to receive such a license, or the imposition of fines or other sanctions. The
Board shall in good faith hear and consider this evidence in making a determination
to hold a public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board shall make a
recommendation to the Common Council regarding whether a need exists for a
public hearing. The Board's recommendation must be submitted to the Common
Council for its consideration. If the Council determines to call for a public hearing to
consider the issue of suspension or revocation, or the imposition of a fine, the
Council shall follow the procedures described in subdivision 2
Subd. 2. No suspension or revocation shall be effective until the rental
property owner has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections
14.57 to 14.70 of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act. Should the
Common Council hold a public hearing pursuant to the recommendation of the
Rental Housing Complaint Board, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity to
appear at such hearing after receiving reasonable notice. The notice shall state the
time, place, and issues involved. At this hearing, license holders may present
evidence of mitigating circumstances that would allow a rental property to retain his
or her license or the right to obtain such a license. The Common Council shall in
good faith hear and consider this evidence in making a determination to revoke or
suspend the license or right to receive a license, impose civil penalties, or impose
other reasonable conditions based upon violations of this chapter. The Common
Council may postpone or discontinue such proceedings if it appears that the
licensee has taken appropriate measures that will prevent further instances of
disorderly use.
Subd. 3. The Common Council reserves the right to impose any of the
following sanctions for violations of Section 38.152(2):
a) suspend the license or right to receive a license for
up to 60 days; or
b) revoke the license or right to receive a license and
establish the time period after which an application
for a new certificate for the premises may be
made; or
c) impose a civil fine not to exceed an amount equal to
one months' rent for each violation found as a result
of the hearings; or
d) impose other reasonable conditions intended to limit
future incidents of disorderly use.
Subd. 4. Upon expiration of the suspension or revocation period, a license
holder shall pay to the City a reinstatement fee equal to $100 for the first unit re -
licensed and $20 for each additional unit.
38.154 Prospective Tenant Background Investigations. Subdivision 1. The
Rochester Common Council has determined that there are persons residing in
rental property in Rochester engaging in disorderly conduct which results in a
hostile environment for other Rochester citizens living in or close to the rental
property. It is the declared purpose and intent of this section to protect and preserve
this city's neighborhoods and the public health, safety, welfare and morals of its
citizens by providing a system at the local level for criminal history/background
investigations prospective tenants.
Subd. 2. Any owner of rental property may request that the Rochester
Police Department conduct a criminal history/background investigation of a
prospective tenant as provided under Section 21.05, subd. 1. Such request shall
be on a form approved or provided by the Rochester Police Department. The
applicant shall pay an investigation fee as established by resolution of the Common
Council.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM No.
CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 by Weis Development
PREPARED BY:
Corp. The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Mitzi A. Baker,
Area Land Use Plan to designate a portion of Block 3 East Rochester
Senior Planner
Addition from "medium density residential" to "commercial". The
property is located between 3 and 4th Ave SE and between 5th and 6th
St. SE.
October 30, 2006
The applicant previously requested continuing this item to the November 6, 2006 Council meeting.
The Staff recommendation varies from the recommendation from the Rochester Planning and Zoning
Commission. Please see the staff report and recommendations as well as the Planning Commission
minutes for details.
City Plannina and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this item at the September 27, 2006 meeting.
Mr. McGuine moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 with the below
findings. Mr. Pestka seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend that the City Council initiate [Land Use Plan Amendment and] rezoning of
the balance of the block to be consistent with their decision. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
Council Action Needed.
1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The
Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use
Plan.
2. The Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of
law supporting their decision.
c t
Distribution:
i
�q`�.
1. City Administrator ��
1. City Attorney: Legal Description attached l ! pi-'
% Cy `
2. Planning Department File s
3. This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 6, 2006 in the Council ! Board Chamber at
the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
07
> RocriESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAl[fMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
•j
CC II„r, Of www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
OCHESTER•hf�V^�
Opp .• : ' .'V
ORA TED.AUGU5T•4•P
DATE: September 21, 2006
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 and Zoning District Amendment
#06-06 by Joe Weis Builders. The applicant is proposing to amend
the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate a
portion of Block 3 East Rochester Addition from "medium density
residential' to "commercial' and to amend the Zoning Map from
"R-3" Medium Density Residential to "CDC -Fringe" to facilitate
development. The property is located between 3rd and 4th Ave SE
and between 5th and 6th St. SE.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Joe Weis — Weis Builders
2227 7th Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Surveyor/Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55906
Location of Property: The property is located between 3`d and 41h Ave SE and between 5"
and 61h St. SE. The applicant is proposing to amend the land use
designation and zoning for the central 213 of the block platted as
Block 3, East Rochester Addition.
Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan designation fora op rtion of Block 3 East
Rochester Addition from "medium density residential" to
"commercial" and to re -zone a op rtion of the block from R-3 Multi -
Family Residential to CDC -Fringe.
Existing Land Use: The property is currently developed with numerous multi -family
dwellings. Parcels included in this petition include a total of 13
dwelling units.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
.a w�
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
���
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYlAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Proposed Land Use:
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with multi -family
housing. Approximately 8 dwellings with 13 dwelling units would
be razed for the project. According to the neighborhood meeting
minutes, the applicant is proposing a multi -family apartment
building with approximately 66 dwelling units.
Adjacent Land Use and
As demonstrated on the attached maps:
Zoning:
North: "commercial" land use designation and CDC -Fringe Zoning
developed with commercial uses
West: "industrial" land use designation and M-1 zoning, currently a
surface parking lot
South: "low density residential" land use designation, and both R-2
and R-3 zoning, developed with residential dwellings
East: "medium density residential" land use designation and R-3
zoning developed with residential dwellings.
Transportation Access:
Access is proposed from 4" Ave SE, according to the proposed
General Development Plan for this property (#271).
Wetlands:
This is a re -development site. There are no known Wetlands
within the project site.
Referral Comments: 1. See comments attached to GDP #271
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
The applicants and their representatives met with Planning staff on several occasions prior to
filing their applications. The Planning Department recommended alternatives for pursuing
development of this property with multi -family housing and discouraged pursuing development
through a Land Use Plan Amendment to "commercial", a Zone Change to "CDC -Fringe" with a
Variance to the requirement for non-residential uses on the first floor of the building. The intended
development of the property has no commercial component.
Alternatives for pursing this development, as communicated to the applicant and representatives,
(Yaggy Colby staff) are:
a) File a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit application for the project, under
the current R-3 zoning; OR
b) File a Land Use Plan Amendment to "high density residential' for the whole block, or
request that the City initiate the amendment if signatures from all property owners could
not be secured; and file a Zone Change request for the whole block to "R-4, High Density
Residential' or possibly "CDC -Residential; again requesting the City initiate the
amendment if signatures from all property owners could not be secured. This alternative
may also require an Incentive Development to achieve the density and floor area ratio
proposed for the site (as identified in the neighborhood meeting minutes and
supplemental information provided by Yaggy Colby Associates).
For reasons unknown, the applicant wanted to avoid public a review and determination of the
project specifics (site plan, building elevations and materials, landscaping, etc).
The project as proposed includes approximately 2/3 of the central portion of the block and is a
piecemeal, incoherent approach to planning and development of the area. Furthermore, the
applicant proposes a "commercial" Land Use Plan designation and Zoning which Is inconsistent
with the project proposal for multi -family residential only, with no commercial component.
i l Page 3
This entire block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density
residential uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment, retail,
and the multiple types of pedestrian facilities in the area including: sidewalks, trails and the
skyway and subway system.
After reviewing the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, land use patterns in the Central Business District and
surrounding core, Planning recommends that the entire block between 3rd and 4'" Ave SE, and
between 5' and 6`" St. SE should be considered for "high density residential' designation on the
Land Use Plan and "R-4 High Density Residential' zoning on the Zoning Map.
Although the applicant proposes to amend the land use designation and zoning for only a portion
of the block, It is necessary to consider the land use and zoning most suitable for the whole block.
Whatever course of action determined appropriate by the Council for the portion of the block
included in this petition, staff recommends that the Council initiate amendments to the land use
designation and zoning for the balance of the block to facilitate coherent planning for the entire
block. Otherwise, two lots along the north side of the block, and four lots along the south side of
the block would remain zoned R-3, resulting in undesirable land use and zoning boundaries within
the block. This block is located between 3'd and 4`" Ave. SE, and 5'" and 6" Street SE, and is
legally platted as Block 3 East Rochester Addition.
Criteria from The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan & Staff Suagested
Findings:
Commercial Land Use Designation:
Regional shopping centers, defined as including one or more major department stores, or several
specialty stores, are best suited in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher
level streets.
This proposal would expand an existing "commercial" land use boundary on the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The greater area includes the intersection of Broadway
(Expressway) and 4f' Street (Major Urban Arterial), and also the intersection of 4° with 3rd Ave
SE (Major Urban Arterial).
b. Having level terrain.
This site is developed, and has some variation in terrain. The northeast corner of the block is
the low area of the block. The center is higher than the north and south ends of the block.
c. Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access.
The area generally has good pedestrian and transit access. Few locations in the community
have the opportunity to develop within a relatively short walking distance of the downtown and
the skyway and subway system.
d. Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development.
This site, if considered as part of the greater commercial center of the downtown, includes at
least 40 acres of land.
el
Page 4
High Density Residential Land Use Designation:
High density uses are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Having level to fairly rolling terrain, outside flood prone or poorly drained areas, or areas
with steep slopes.
The block has level to slightly rolling terrain, is outside offlood prone areas with no steep
slopes. Drainage and storm water management would be reviewed and addressed with a
specific development proposal.
b. In close proximity to major shopping areas, major employment centers, recreational and
cultural facilities, and other facilities that serve smaller households.
This entire block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density
residential uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment,
convenience retail, and the multiple types of pedestrian facilities in this area including. -
sidewalks, trails and the skyway and subway system.
c. Having immediate pedestrian, highway, and transit access to commercial areas,
community facilities, and major employment centers.
This block has existing pedestrian facilities linking it to a comprehensive network of sidewalks
and traits as well as the skyway and subway system within the Central Development Core.
This block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density residential
uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment, convenience
commercial areas, community facilities, pedestrian facilities and transit. Trunk Highway 63 is
within close proximity to the site.
d. Buffered from the adverse influences of industrial and other incompatible activities.
Third Ave SE serves as a division between"industrial' land uses and "residential' uses as
demonstrated in the attached existing Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Fifth Street SE in
this location currently serves as a division between "commercial' land use and zoning and
"residential" land use and zoning.
e. Not adversely affecting adjoining low -density residential areas.
As demonstrated on the attached Land Use Plan and Zoning Map, this block is at a pivotal
point between commercial and Central Development Core -Fringe uses and medium and low
density residential land use and zoning. It is strategically located to serve as a transitional block
between the CDC -Fringe and medium density and low density land uses and zoning without
adversely affecting low -density residential areas.
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Criteria & Proposed Findings
for Zone Change Petition #06-03:
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the
Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application
requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria:
Page 5
S '
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal
petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the
proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as
found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter
3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan;
or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to
rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
Proposed CDC -Fringe:
The current zoning is not inconsistent with the existing Land Use Plan, however an amendment
(#06-03) is being considered concurrent with this application. Action taken on that petition will
determine whether this zoning district would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. Changes in
the Central Business District, including expanding medical, medical research and educational
facilities create a climate in which it may be in the public interest to encourage redevelopment
in this area.
R-4:
The current zoning is not inconsistent with the existing Land Use Plan, however an amendment
(#06-03) is being considered concurrent with this application. Action taken on thatpetition will
determine whether this zoning district would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. Changes in
the Central Business District, including expanding medical, medical research and educational
facilities create a climate in which it may be in the public interest to encourage redevelopment
in this area.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by
formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the
subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and
Proposed CDC -Fringe:
Third Ave SE serves as a division between "industrial' and "residential' land uses and zoning
as demonstrated in the attached existing Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Fifth Street SE,
in this location currently serves as a division between "commercial' land use and zoning and
"residential" land use and zoning. A more intense residential zoning district (R-4) would
provide a smoother transition between the commercial uses and the medium and low density
residential land uses and zoning, than an extension of the CDC -Fringe would. Extension of
the CDC -Fringe should be considered if the City is committed to requiring integration of non-
residential uses at the groundfloor level of multi family residential uses.
Rezoning only the central 213 of the block to CDC -Fringe; leaving segments along the north
and south sides as R-3, would not be desirable.
Section 60.620 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes the
following description of the CDC -Fringe District:
Page 6
That portion of the Central Development Core which lies outside the identified "central
business district', "medical", and "high density residential" designations of the Land Use
Plan, where it is the intent to provide a location far less intensive commercial and service
uses which are necessary or tend to support and enhance the activities within the CBD
area.
R-4:
Third Ave SE serves as a division between "industrial" and "residential" land uses and zoning
as demonstrated in the attached existing Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Fifth Street SE,
in this location currently serves as a division between "commercial" land use and zoning and
"residential" land use and zoning.
As demonstrated on the attached Land Use Plan and Zoning Map, this block is at a pivotal
paint between Central Development Core -Fringe commercial uses and medium and low density
residential land use and zoning. It is strategically located to serve as a transitional block
between the CDC -Fringe and R-3(medium density residential) and R-2(low density residential)
zoning without adversely affecting low -density residential areas.
Section 60.620 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes the
following description of the R-4 High Density Residential district:
➢ This district is intended to maintain areas for multi family residential uses of the highest
intensity, along with supportive commercial, office and service uses of similar intensity, in
locations with proximity to the Central Development Core and major employment centers.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that
assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in
this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state).
Proposed CDC-Frinae:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning, if an amendment to the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Map are initiated for the balance of the block, to be consistent with the Council decision
on both Land Use Plan Amendment #06.03, and Zoning District Amendment #06-06.
R-4:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning, if an amendment to the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Map are initiated far the balance of the block, to be consistent with the Council decision
on both Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03, and Zoning District Amendment #06-06.
Staff Recommendation:
The southeast quadrant of the City is the only quadrant void of land zoned R-4 High Density
Residential; and also the only quadrant of the Central Development Core not supported by high
density residential land use and zoning.
This entire block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density
residential uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment, retail,
and the multiple types of pedestrian facilities in the area including: sidewalks, trails and the
skyway and subway system.
After reviewing the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, land use patterns in the Central Business District and
Page 7
surrounding core, Planning recommends that the entire block between 3`' and 4'" Ave SE, and
between 5 and 6" St. SE should be considered for "high density residentiar designation on the
Land Use Plan and "R-4 Nigh Density Residential' zoning on the Zoning Map.
Although the applicant proposes to amend the land use designation and zoning for only a portion
of the block, it is necessary to consider the land use and zoning most suitable for the whole block.
Whatever course of action determined appropriate by the Council for the portion of the block
included in this petition, staff recommends that the Council initiate amendments to the land use
designation and zoning for the balance of the block to facilitate coherent planning for the entire
block. Otherwise, two lots along the north side of the block, and four lots along the south side of
the block would remain zoned R-3, resulting in undesirable land use and zoning boundaries within
the block. The block is legally platted as Block 3 East Rochester Addition.
Since the petition proposed a more intense land use designation and zoning than recommended
by staff, the City Council could consider and act on the staff recommendation.
Which ever course of action is taken, the City Council will need to initiate amendments to the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for the balance of the block not
included in this petition, to establish a coherent Plan for the whole block.
APPLICATION
MATERIALS
r+n [si �dM� x waMrm xavwh�as M� i\m\dm\cm�Yn% u. O-orb � Fu aw n.L �
`D€VILLAGE on 3RD i
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANE
Pn���
AUG 3 ? 200
F,c' `_ -a - oJAST-D —� YCA 99627 LD2
J
8-29-06
Village on 3rd
Land Use Plan Amendments
Village on 3rd is located in SE Rochester bordering to the north by existing developed property,
on the west by 3rd Avenue SE, on the ease by 4th Avenue SE and on the South by 6th Street SE.
The Village on 3rd property owner proposes a Land Use Plan Amendment for approximately
1.12 acres of CDC-FR Central Development Core — Fringe Area.. Please see the attached
General Development Plan (GDP), Zone Change documents, and other supporting documents for
additional location and area information.
Commercial
The Commercial Land Use Plan Amendment request is for approximately 1.12 acres. This area
is being proposed as a CDC-FR Central Development Core — Fringe Area. The proposed
development is planned to be an extension of the existing Central Development Core, for this
analysis the Regional Shopping Center characteristics have been used to the site. The Location
Criteria, in the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area, have the following
guidelines (Land Use Plan text in italics):
B.3. Regional shopping centers, defined as including one or more major department stores, or
several specialty stores, are best suited in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or
higher level streets.
The proposed commercial site is at the intersection of 3rd Avenue SE (Major Urban
Arterial) and 61h Street SE (Primary Urban Collector). 3`d Avenue SE and 61h Street SE
serve as connector streets to Trunk Highway 63 which is shown as an Interstate on the
2035 ROCOG Transportation Plan.
b. Having level terrain.
The slopes on this site range from less than 1% to 20% with the majority of the site less
than a 5% slope. There are no steep slopes on this site.
c. Having good vehicular, pedestrian and transit access.
The proposed commercial site is at the intersection of 3`d Avenue SE (Major Urban
Arterial) and 6`h Street SE (Primary Urban Collector). 3'd Avenue SE and 6`h Street SE
serve as connector streets to Trunk Highway 63 which is shown as an Interstate on the
2035 ROCOG Transportation Plan. The proposed access to the site is along 4`h
Avenue SE.
There are existing sidewalks along all sides of the development (3`d Avenue SE, 6`h
Street SE and 4`h Avenue SE). The development is 1.5 blocks away from the City of
\ LO
Rochester bike path system with connection to parks and recreation facilities
throughout the city. The development is within 2 blocks of the downtown skyway
system.
The Rochester City Lines provides public bus service along 3rd Avenue SE and bei
Street SE. The proposed development is adjacent to the Mayo Clinic parking lot along
P Avenue with shuttle service to the Mayo Clinic and other medical facilities.
This location is consistent with the livable communities design principals, allowing
workforce residents to walk to jobs in the downtown area. This helps create a critical
mass in the downtown area needed to support existing merchants.
d. Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development
The CDC (Central Development Core) is made up of 4 zoning districts with a total
acreage of approximately 341 acres. The Central Development Core - Fringe Area
alone has 65 acres. City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual list a wide range of permitted commercial uses that vary within each of the
Central Development Core zoning districts. The area indicated as the CDC on the City
of Rochester Zoning Map meets or exceeds the requirements of 40 acres of land
suitable for commercial development.
Central Development Core Acreage Analysis
CDC — Central Business District 87 acres
CDC — Fringe Area 65 acres
CDC — Medical Area 139 acres
CDC — Residential 50 acres
Total 341 acres
RECEIN'ED
AUG 3 12006
N NNG
EE
C' CEPAR7 VEN7
Village on 3rd
Neighborhood Introductory Meeting
July 20, 2006
Workforce Housing
Weis Development
Agenda
Introductory Remarks — Dick Landwehr
The Development Team --- Weis Development Contact: Dick Landwebr; 288-2041
• Joe Weis, Weis Development
• Dick Landwehr, Weis Builders, Inc.
■ Jason Woodhouse, Yaggy Colby Associates
• Mike Busch, Paragon Property Management
• Sara Nygaard, Weis Builders, Inc.
Developer History and Firm Experience — Joe Weis
The Proposed Project: Overview — Jason Woodhouse, Yaggy Colby
What is Workforce Housing? — Mike Busch; Paragon
What is the capacity? 66 units.
What is the timing of this project? The earliest construction start will be November
2006 if financing and design are in order at that time. Construction duration will be 8 to 9
months once construction begins.
Are the units condos or rentals? Rentals.
What is the average price for each unit? One -bedroom units will have monthly rent
rates of $460; two bedroom units will be $560 and three bedroom units will be $760.
Are utilities included in the rent? Heat is included but other utilities like electricity are
not included.
Are there any other fees like a community fee? No, there are typically no additional
fees at a rental property.
Will there be a minimum time agreement for the lease? Yes, they will have to sign a
one-year lease.
Will this project accept Section 8 vouchers? Yes, but at other projects that we manage
the percentage of Section 8 tenants is very low, like two or three per complex.
Will college students be living here? The federal program that this project falls under
prohibits renting to college students. This program was simply not made for that. The
exception is that if one member of the family is going to college that is fine. All of the
renters cannot be attending college.
Are you receiving tax breaks on this project? Yes. We are using a Federal program
that incents developers to take certain risks associated with affordable housing. This
program, administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, allows the developer
to pass the lower cost of building the project on to the tenants in the form of a restricted
rent level. The program requires a commitment to the program of 30 years.
Is there really a need for more rental properties in Rochester? Yes, we are 95% full
in all of the workforce housing units in Rochester that Paragon manages. MHFA has
done studies that show Rochester needs more workforce housing. They have a lot of
applicants and they have a limited amount of tax credits to distribute in areas of the state
that they believe have the greatest need.
What about the small rental properties in the area? How are they going to rent their
units when there is a brand new complex? It may have an initial impact on older and
less desirable rental properties but this project will make the area more desirable for the
neighborhood as well as those who live in the Workforce housing units. Projects like this
typically enhance the entire area. Evidence can be seen of this at the Georgetown and
Rivers Edge facilities.
We own a property directly east of the project (311 6`" Street SE). What is going to
happen to our property values, property taxes and the views of the city we enjoy
now? A trip to the Assessor's Office may ease your mind. I have never seen a project like
this negatively affect property values.
I would like that in writing. We will supply documentation. (Joe to supply news
article?)
How many houses have been purchased? 8 houses are either under contract or have
been purchased by Weis Development.
What about families? Are there any play areas or green space for the children to
play? There is a play area designated but we are considering an enlarged area and
alternate locations. Also, keep in mind the there is a school with a large playground a
block away.
Will there be any buffer between the houses left on the block and the apartments?
Yes there will be plantings and some type of fencing but we would like to hear what kind
of fencing you would like to have. (Note that there were differing opinions on stockade
style vs. transparent style barriers. Both the Harts and the Garza's did not want
automobile headlights in their bedrooms.)
How many parking stalls are there? As currently designed, there are 58 stalls of
underground parking, 32 stalls in the main lot and 14 stalls in the small lot for a total of
104 (that is 2 more than the proposed zoning code requires).
We are very concerned about the parking in this area. Parking is very scarce
because people who work downtown park in this area. How will all these extra
people/cars from the new apartments impact this neighborhood? This project was
designed with underground and surface parking on site to take some of the parking off
the streets and with the access to parking from Fourth Avenue, thus to taking resident
parking of Fourth Avenue while eliminating any parking or access to parking off of 3rd
Avenue. That's another thing, we don't want to look at a parking lot. Sean Allen of
First Homes expressed that the Developer is showing too many parking stalls for this
project. He would like to reduce parking and add more green space. This project does not
need to have a high parking density since it close to downtown so people will be walking,
riding their bikes and the bus. On a related front, the property management would tow
people who do not live at the apartments if they park in the lot. Where would visitors
park? There are enough parking spaces shown on the plans to relieve pressure on the
street. Further discussion indicated that the congested street parking is caused by
transient daytime parking by non-residents of the neighborhoods (likely workers in the
downtown area who do not live there).
Could the South end of the building just have two stories for the gentlemen at the
corner to the east? There will be fewer units but then there will be less parking and
more green space. Unfortunately the financing is impacted negatively as the number of
units decreases. We could have built right up to the property line but we didn't want to
crowd the house at 311 6`h Avenue. All planning of this nature tries to balance the trade-
offs among parking capacity, green space, and housing traits to pay for the property
construction costs.
Will there be other barriers? What about the existing trees? We will try to save all
the trees that we can. An inventory/survey will be taken of all the existing trees to locate
them on the site plan. Our objective is to retain as many existing trees as possible.
When will you have more developed drawings? Will you have another meeting
then? There will be another meeting before we go to the City Council. Everyone that
received an invitation to this meeting will receive an invitation to a subsequent meeting.
We have lived in our house for 20 years (311 6`h St. SE). We are happy about the
project but we don't want to look at a 4-story building. We are used to trees and the
city view that we have from our backyard.
Katie Berg is new to the neighborhood but is really excited about the project. She
thinks it will urbanize the neighborhood.
How will you get people to move in to the apartments? We are taking a risk but a new,
clean, safe and affordable home should attract people. The proximity to the surrounding
envirorunent and nearby amenities will also draw people in.
Are there anv other developments planned for this neighborhood like this in the
works? Not that we know of. Sean Allen from First Homes said that it takes guts to be
the first developer to bring this type of redevelopment project to a neighborhood. He
hopes that it will lead to others. Chris from the Kutsky Park neighborhood added that in
other neighborhoods, people were initially wary about projects like this one but now they
find it an asset.
I thought First Homes was just for single-family housing. What is your
involvement? Sean Allen — We help families get homes but we also subsidize developers
to by providing equity to lower the property mortgage. We are very interested in
commitment to the community. Dick Landwehr — First Homes has given us a list of 40-
50 things we can do to enhance this development. Along with your comments/concerns,
we will adjust the initial design.
Where is the funding coming from? Well, it is very complicated but most of the finds
come from a syndicated tax credits. The rest comes from MHFA as a mortgage and
hopefully from First Homes and the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund.
I live on 61h Street (Maria Garza) and I have 3 kids. We will now have a parking lot
where there were trees and brush. What will you do to keep my kids safe from cars
and how will you keep all the headlights from shining in my bedroom window? I am
happy about the project. We are planning a privacy fence, as shown on the drawing, to
separate the children from the new parking lot and to keep the lights from shining into
your bedroom.
Does it have to be such a large building? Why can't it be more like townhomes? The
cost of the land has a lot to do with it. It wouldn't be financially feasible to build
something smaller. Chris from First Homes — We have another project where we are
losing money because we built a project that is too small for the land cost.
This neighborhood is a funnel for pedestrian traffic into downtown. What can you
do to make your project pedestrian friendly? Can you make it well lit and keep trees
and green space? It will be well landscaped and we have larger than average setbacks to
keep as much green space as possible.
Has 5ch Street come up in your talks with the city? It is supposed to be a one-way but
people cheat all the time. Inds are playing near there. Your project may impact the
one-way because they may decide to cheat too. Can we get it changed to a two-rvay?
The city didn't sound like they were planning any near term improvements on that street.
(The development team suggested that the neighborhood group and the adjacent
landowners approach the City regarding their concerns and suggestions for the street.)
Where will the parking lot entrances be located? How will the extra traffic impact
the already too narrow 41h Avenue? The city doesn't want access to our parking areas
off of Third Avenue. As mentioned in the previous question, the neighborhood group
may want to consider asking the City to review parking restrictions on 4`h Avenue.
How is the parking lot traffic going to get onto 3rd Avenue? Sometimes there is a 20
to 30 minute wait to make a left turn. We have been asking for a stoplight for a long
time. The parking lot for this project will exit on to Fourth Avenue rather than Third
Avenue. The city has asked us to leave an easement on the southeast comer that would
accommodate a future stoplight. Consider having neighborhood discussions with the City
regarding a future traffic signal at the 6'h Street/3`d Avenue intersection. This project will
be promoted as a "walk to work or ride the bus" apartment, thus reducing the on -street
parking demand and cueing demand at that intersection.
August 30, 2006
Ms Mitzi Baker
Olmsted County Consolidated Planning
2122 SE Campus Drive
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Request Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Rochester City Council to
initiate a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Dear Mitzi:
The owners of the proposed Village on 3rd Development request the Rochester Planning
and Zoning Commission and/or the City of Rochester City Council to initiate a Zone
Change and Land Use Plan Amendment to include Lot 1, 2, 3, 11 & 12 of Block 3, East
Rochester Addition. The Land Use Plan Amendment is to change the. underlying
residential Land Use to a Commercial Land Use. The zone change is to change the
existing Residential Zoning (R-3) to Central Development Core - Fringe Area Zoning
(CDC-FR).
Please call if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES
M 4, '� Auk -
Mark Root, ASLA
MR/M W E
YCA 99627
RECEIVED
AUG �12996
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
6. Prior to publ% water main con
based on the fire protection h
7. Any
B-4
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented a staff report, dated September 2 , 2006, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the ChesteZ
nning D artmen t.
The applicant's representative, Josh ohGhi and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue
SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed n. a stated that the applicant was in
agreement with staffs recommendation.
Mr. Burke asked if there would bea "towciation.Mr. Johnson responded that there wouldwners" association.
With no one else wishing to be hearded the public hearing.
,:by GP Del
conded the
1. Signage
is authori
listed for
2. The
ne
the ne
all also carry insura
All unused`water servu
Division requirements.
A five minute break occurred.
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff reports, dated September 21, 2006 and September 15,
2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
Department.
Ms. Baker clarified that the applicant's name is Weis Development Corporation.
Ms. Baker stated that the Commission needed to look at the entire block when considering the
requests. Staffs recommendation is that the Commission designate the property for high
density residential, rezone it to the R-4 zoning district, and ask Council to initiate a zone change
to rezone the balance of the block to be consistent.
Mr. Ohly asked if the project, as presented, could occur in the R4 zoning district.
Ms. Baker responded yes, but that they would need to go through the Incentive Development
process. Also, a variance to parking would need to occur.
Mr. Ohly asked if there is a dispute as to what would be put on the block.
Ms. Baker responded that there is no objection to the project occurring on this block. Staff
believes that it is appropriate. The question is the process.
Mr. Ohly asked if the process staff suggests the applicant go through would be more expensive
for the applicant.
Ms. Baker explained that decisions regarding the process of the development should not be
based on the cost to the applicant.
Ms. Baker stated that, based on the limited information submitted on project detail, it is possible
they may have to go through an Incentive Development process for the site, if zoned R-4.
Mr. Ohly asked if an Incentive Development process would delay their project.
Ms. Baker responded that she was not aware of their timeline.
The applicant's representative, Wade DuMond of Yaggy Colby Associates (717 Third Avenue
SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that there have been a
number of meetings with City staff where a number of drawings were presented. In the meeting
with Planning, they discussed the different options (3 were presented). The applicant evaluated
their options and decided to pick the current process as it would work in the neighbor's and the
applicant's best interest. Some of these reasons include the timing, cost of processing
applications, design work that would need to be done, and risk for applicant.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
Mr. DuMond stated that, if they went through the R-4 zoning process, they would have to
request 5 different variances. Also, the block would be a very small area of R-4 high density
than in other areas where R-4 is shown.
Mr. DuMond stated that the applicant is in agreement that the entire block should have the
same zoning and land use designation. He explained that there are three properties that are left
out of the block at this time.
Mr. DuMond stated that a neighborhood concern is traffic. He did indicate that there is a future
plan to put a signal at 61" Street and 3rd Avenue. The neighborhood would also like to only see
permit parking along 4" Avenue.
Mr. Ohly stated that he understood the reasoning for having the entire block zoned the same.
He questioned if there wasn't a way to approve the project with the R-4 zoning without delaying
the applicant's construction timeline.
Mr. DuMond responded that there would have to be significant design changes to go through
the R-4 zoning process and that there would need to be 5 variances applied for. He described
what each variance would be for.
Mr. Ohly questioned if the applicant was concerned that the variances would not be approved.
Mr. DuMond stated it was his impression that the City wants the least amount of variances as
possible on a site.
Ms. Baker explained that a variance to density would not be required. Therefore, they would
need to go through an Incentive Development process and apply for 4 variances.
Mr. Joe Weis, of Weis Development, addressed the Commission. He stated that the reason he
decided to go through the process to rezone to the CDC Fringe district is because there is
property directly west that is CDC Fringe. An area to the north is CDC Fringe as well, with the
exception of two apartments that have agreed to rezone to CDC Fringe. Also, his optimistic
time schedule is to be under construction in November 2006. It is their hope that the Minnesota
Housing will make a tax credit award on October 26, 2006. Therefore, they are moving ahead
with the anticipation to begin construction right afterwards. The R-4 zoning district would not
permit the density they need to make the numbers work. If they had to go through the Incentive
Development process, they wouldn't be ready to begin construction until next summer.
Mr. DuMond stated that, whenever they have worked on redevelopment areas, it is tough to find
the zoning district that works the best.
Mr. DuMond stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff recommended conditions for
the general development plan, with the exception of condition 1. However, he will work out the
issue with regarding to condition 1 with Rochester Public Works.
Mr. DuMond suggested that the Commission approve the variance to non-residential use on
ground level with the findings on page 95 of the staff report.
Ms. Baker clarified that the findings on page 95 of the staff report were prepared by Yaggy
Colby and not planning staff.
Page 7
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
Discussion ensued regarding green space and parking
Mr. Baker explained that the details of the plan are checked through the Site Development Plan
process.
Mr. Duane Hart (residing at 311 6'h Street SE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the
Commission. He stated that he has lived in his home for 20 years and is directly east of the
proposed project. He expressed concern with having 3 homes surrounded by a 4-story building.
He stated that he would rather the applicant purchase those 3 homes.
Mr. Hart expressed concern with traffic and parking on 4" Avenue. There is a berm and
retaining wall shown along his property. He asked that a fence be constructed on the
applicant's site to separate the properties to prevent noise, foot traffic, etc. He indicated that
there is a patio party area between his home and the building. Also, there is a tree on his and
the applicant's property line and expressed concern with underground parking and ruining their
tree. He stated that he would rather have the applicant remove the tree rather than killing it.
Mr. Hart expressed concern with the applicant proposing less parking. He stated that visitors
would need to park on 4" Avenue.
Mr. Burke asked if he would support rezoning the entire block.
Mr. Hart responded that he would support the zone change but felt ignorant as to how it would
affect his property.
Mr. Haeussinger left the meeting.
Ms. Donoghue (residing at 403 61" Street SE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the
Commission. She expressed concern about parking along the street and additional traffic. She
explained that additional traffic would occur even in the residents didn't have cars as they would
have visitors.
Mr. Burke asked if she thought a stop light at 6a' Street would improve the traffic situation.
Ms. Donaghue responded that it would help safety wise but not traffic wise. She also stated that
the three homes should not remain on the same block.
Ms. Mary Beth Hart (residing at 311 6" Street SE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the
Commission. She stated that a lot of the neighborhood residents were not in attendance as
they work evenings and/or don't speak English. She stated that high density residential is much
more appropriate for the area. She stated that they shouldn't try to cram a building in with
variances that will not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Hart stated that County employees park along 4`" Avenue, which is a main entrance to the
proposed building. She also stated that there is not enough green space for families to play
with their children on site.
Mr. Burke stated that notes from the public meetings indicate that the neighbors wanted more
green space.
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
Ms. Hart stated that, when the plans were first presented to the neighborhood, all the parking
was underground. However, the current proposed plan now shows more blacktop than
originally proposed.
Mr. Shawn Allen, from First Home Properties, addressed the Commission. He stated that they
are a potential funder of the proposed project under consideration. He stated that are in favor of
the proposed project as they like the location and design. He stated that, if the MN Housing
Finance Agency finances this project, he believed First Homes would as well.
Mr. Allen stated that it was First Homes opinion that the original plan was over designed for
parking given that there is underground parking and additional exterior surface parking given
their experiences in downtown Rochester. Therefore, they suggested that the applicant reduce
parking as shown at this meeting.
Ms. Baker explained that restrictive and incentive development processes are very good
planning tools. She referred to the two restricted development applications that were on the
agenda for this meeting. She indicated that she did not anticipate that either application would
be delayed in the process and that they were requesting that the City Council waive their final
plans.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing.
Mr. Wallace stated that he believed the property should be rezoned to the R-4 zoning district
Mr. Barry agreed.
Mr. Ohly stated that the same project would occur whether it is in the R-4 zoning district or the
CDC Fringe.
Discussion ensued regarding the process for the applicant if R-4 zoning was recommended
versus the process if what was requested by the applicant were approved.
Mr. Burke asked if the end result would be the same.
Ms. Baker stated that the Commission needed to make decisions if the land use designation is
correct, zoning correct, etc. even though the end result would be the same. She stated that
they shouldn't make decisions just to fit the development into to applicant's timeline.
Ms. Baker explained some differences between the two alternatives. The entire block needs to
be considered together. In the R4 zoning district, the residential uses that are favored are
permitted outright. Some commercial uses require a conditional use permit. The CDC Fringe
has a broader range of commercial uses permitted outright and have some residential uses
permitted outright and some that require an incentive development process for more intensity
uses.
Mr. Burke discussed transitional zoning.
Mr. McGuine move to reopen public hearing, Mr. Pestka second. The motion was
unanimous.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
The applicant, Mr. Joe Weis (residing at 1100 201" Street NW, Rochester MN 55901), addressed
the Commission. He stated that changing the zoning to the R-4 zoning district would kill the
project.
Mr. Burke asked if his financial situation would change based on the zoning district due to
funding available.
Mr. Weis reiterated that the project would not occur if the R-4 zoning district was required.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ohly stated that the neighborhood's objection was not the zoning district but the traffic.
Mr. McGuine moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 with:
the below findings. Mr. Pestka, seconded the motion: The motion carried 6-1, with Mr .
Wallace voting nay.
.'rgs'^• ?vk i > r ry. i
z Y} 'n`"' 3c r � -^. � a
FINDINGS r Fa,, �h#
a. Located at the in;q.
nterseetion of a malor_artenal or hitdher ievel shreet wi h S�mifaror `
higher level streets
b Having level terrain Y ri.A
c. , Having good pedestf di%vehicular, and transit access p
I VIM
st...
d. Havin of Teast 40 acies oiianij suiiabCe for comineeciaL depeio rilet�i ..
Discussion ensued regarding findings for the Zoning District Amendment.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment#06-06 with the
staff -recommended findings fgthe CDC -Fringe District, with the eaccepiion of�changmg
finding number 2 to state "The permiCDC Fringe uses allowed within the CFringe vyi0 be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible `with adjacent properties and the
neighborhood". Mr: Barrgseconded the, motion. ,The motion cartled.5-1, vlatrl Mr:
Wallace voting na y.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommeri'd,Opproval'of G
staff -recommended findings and conditions.
motion carried 5-1, with Mr.Wallace voting in,
CONDITIONS:
1. The GDP shall be revised to accommc
➢ Dedication
2. A grading and drainage plan appr
to
a4u Oka fnllnwinn•
Sian Facilities an Right -of v
tage of and, Ave. _
is
.11
151
Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
ManagementArea Charge wlllbe applicable for any net increase in impervious
surface associated with the proposed developments
3. The northerly parkin lot shall"be signed as "ResiilentfAssigned Parking Only' to
prevent the use of 4 Ave , SE:for circulation between the tywo Qarklr g lots ;;
4. Execution of a Cfity-Owner. Contract„ and dedication of any. apphcabl$ offlsite
public easements is required prior to constructiort4 of any public infrastructure
required to;aerve thisdevelopment
5. The boulevard and,curb and gutter aloe the frontage shaN'be resto'ecwhere,
removed as part of this project
6. Pedestrian#acihtiesalong theYrontages wilibe reviewed by the.PubrciNorks.
staff. Any needed panel repair7replacie ent shall be completed concurrent with
development of this project
7. All unused water services to thlssite must be abandoned Properly at the mom in
the street per RPU requlremer is ",` f' ; t . E
U rMdividua
Slightly'a
nearly 70
proposes
transporl
indicates
adjacent
access o
location 1
2 The varls
.., hnriscnn
available for recreation space for use by the ful
3. Based on a review of vehicle ownership for ren
reduction to the parking requirement will not re
parking demands. T.he reduction lit parking on
area and allow forbuffering the adjacent low do
tea-
4..The reduction in the parking requirementwill a
available to the residents of the building that m
dimensions required in Section 63.146. The mi
fewer parking spaces than required by the zoni
compared to 112 spaces required based on the
bedrooms).
Page 11
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: September 27, 2006
Mr. Pestka moved to recommend approval of Variance#06-16 by Joe Weis Builders for
Non-residential use on the Ground Level with the below findings. Mr. McGuine seconded':'
the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
FINDINGS. x ,
1. There are extraordinary c
2. The proposed use is a re
3. The proposed use of the I
detrimental to the adjacei
south and east
4. This is the minimum nece
ed.to permit the
T
Ildf z���
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend that the City Council initiate rezoning of the balance of
the block to be consistent with their decision. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As may be brought up with members
No discussion items were brought forward.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Mr. Ohly to adjourn, seconded by Mr. McGuine. Mr. Burke, Chair,
adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
jlg
Mr. Jay Burke, Chair
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
rs� �
MEETING
DATE: 11-6-06
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING_
r/
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #06-06 by Weis
PREPARED BY:
Development Corp. The applicant is proposing to amend the
Mitzi A. Baker,
Zoning Map from "R-3" Medium Density Residential to "CDC-
Senior Planner
Fringe" to facilitate development. The property is located
between 3rd and 4t" Ave SE and between 5tn and 6th St. SE.
fJ PT E :.8e¢ C eG en1%r,�.¢a.�� !—R
October 30, 2006
The applicant previously requested continuing this item to the November 6, 2006 Council meeting.
The Staff recommendation varies from the recommendation from the Rochester Planning and Zoning
Commission. Please see the staff report and recommendations as well as the Planning Commission
minutes for details.
City Plannina and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on September 27, 2006 to consider this petition.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #06-06 with the staff -
recommended findings for the CDC -Fringe District, with the exception of changing finding number 2 to
state "The permitted uses allowed within the CDC Fringe will be appropriate on the subject property and
compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood". Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay.
Mr. Ohly moved to recommend that the City Council initiate rezoning of the balance of the block to be
consistent with their decision. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Council Action Needed:
The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision
on this zone change.
If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the
Zoning for the property.
COUNCIL ACTION: 7t
Motion By: Seconded By: y I�' I �h Action:
f'
ROCnESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEP.AucIMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
c o u ... OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
�gs+'A+a►�Rii'��
DATE: September 21, 2006
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 and Zoning District Amendment
#06-06 by Joe Weis Builders. The applicant is proposing to amend
the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate a
portion of Block 3 East Rochester Addition from "medium density
residential" to "commercial" and to amend the Zoning Map from
"R-3" Medium Density Residential to "CDC -Fringe" to facilitate
development. The property is located between 3rd and 4th Ave SE
and between 5th and 6t' St. SE.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Joe Weis — Weis Builders
2227 7'h Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Surveyor/Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55906
Location of Property: The property is located between 3rd and 4'h Ave SE and between 5'h
and 61h St. SE. The applicant is proposing to amend the land use
designation and zoning for the central 2/3 of the block platted as
Block 3, East Rochester Addition.
Requested Action: The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan designation fora portion of Block 3 East
Rochester Addition from "medium density residential" to
"commercial' and to re -zone a op rtion of the block from R-3 Multi -
Family Residential to CDC -Fringe.
Existing Land Use: The property is currently developed with numerous multi -family
dwellings. Parcels included in this petition include a total of 13
dwelling units.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELLSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
=�r Page 2
Proposed Land Use:
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with multi -family
housing. Approximately 8 dwellings with 13 dwelling units would
be razed for the project. According to the neighborhood meeting
minutes, the applicant is proposing a multi -family apartment
building with approximately 66 dwelling units.
Adjacent Land Use and
As demonstrated on the attached maps:
Zoning:
North: "commercial" land use designation and CDC -Fringe Zoning
developed with commercial uses
West: "industrial" land use designation and M-1 zoning, currently a
surface parking lot
South: "low density residential" land use designation, and both R-2
and R-3 zoning, developed with residential dwellings
East: "medium density residential" land use designation and R-3
zoning developed with residential dwellings.
Transportation Access:
Access is proposed from 4tb Ave SE, according to the proposed
General Development Plan for this property (#271).
Wetlands:
This is a re -development site. There are no known Wetlands
within the project site.
Referral Comments:
1. See comments attached to GDP #271
Report Attachments:
1. Location Map
The applicants and their representatives met with Planning staff on several occasions prior to
filing their applications. The Planning Department recommended alternatives for pursuing
development of this property with multi -family housing and discouraged pursuing development
through a Land Use Plan Amendment to "commercial", a Zone Change to "CDC -Fringe" with a
Variance to the requirement for non-residential uses on the first floor of the building. The intended
development of the property has no commercial component.
Alternatives for pursing this development, as communicated to the applicant and representatives,
(Yaggy Colby staff) are:
a) File a Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit application for the project, under
the current R-3 zoning; OR
b) File a Land Use Plan Amendment to "high density residential' for the whole block, or
request that the City initiate the amendment if signatures from all property owners could
not be secured; and file a Zone Change request for the whole block to "R-4, High Density
Residential' or possibly "CDC -Residential'; again requesting the City initiate the
amendment if signatures from all property owners could not be secured. This alternative
may also require an Incentive Development to achieve the density and floor area ratio
proposed for the site (as identified in the neighborhood meeting minutes and
supplemental information provided by Yaggy Colby Associates).
For reasons unknown, the applicant wanted to avoid public a review and determination of the
project specifics (site plan, building elevations and materials, landscaping, etc).
The project as proposed includes approximately 2/3 of the central portion of the block and is a
piecemeal, incoherent approach to planning and development of the area. Furthermore, the
applicant proposes a "commercial" Land Use Plan designation and Zoning which is inconsistent
with the project proposal for multi -family residential only, with no commercial component.
i
Page 3
This entire block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density
residential uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment, retail,
and the multiple types of pedestrian facilities in the area including: sidewalks, trails and the
skyway and subway system.
After reviewing the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, land use patterns in the Central Business District and
surrounding core, Planning recommends that the entire block between 3rd and 4eh Ave SE, and
between 5' and 61h St. SE should be considered for "high density residentiar designation on the
Land Use Plan and "R-4 Nigh Density Residential' zoning on the Zoning Map.
Although the applicant proposes to amend the land use designation and zoning for only a portion
of the block, it is necessary to consider the land use and zoning most suitable for the whole block.
Whatever course of action determined appropriate by the Council for the portion of the block
included in this petition, staff recommends that the Council initiate amendments to the land use
designation and zoning for the balance of the block to facilitate coherent planning for the entire
block. Otherwise, two lots along the north side of the block, and four lots along the south side of
the block would remain zoned R-3, resulting in undesirable land use and zoning boundaries within
the block. This block is located between 3rd and 4'h Ave. SE, and 5" and 61h Street SE, and is
legally platted as Block 3 East Rochester Addition.
Criteria from The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan & Staff Suggested
Findings:
Commercial Land Use Designation:
Regional shopping centers, defined as including one or more major department stores, or several
specialty stores, are best suited in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher
level streets.
This proposal would expand an existing "commercial" land use boundary on the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The greater area includes the intersection of Broadway
(Expressway) and 4ih Street (Major Urban Arterial), and also the intersection of 4ih with Yd Ave
SE (Major Urban Arterial).
b. Having level terrain.
This site is developed, and has some variation in terrain. The northeast corner of the block is
the low area of the block. The center is higher than the north and south ends of the block.
c. Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access.
The area generally has good pedestrian and transit access. Few locations in the community
have the opportunity to develop within a relatively short walking distance of the downtown and
the skyway and subway system.
d. Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development.
This site, if considered as part of the greater commercial center of the downtown, includes at
least 40 acres of land.
i
>
E Page 4
High Density Residential Land Use Designation:
High density uses are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics:
a. Having level to fairly rolling terrain, outside flood prone or poorly drained areas, or areas
with steep slopes.
The block has level to slightly rolling terrain, is outside offlood prone areas with no steep
slopes. Drainage and storm water management would be reviewed and addressed with a
specific development proposal.
b. In close proximity to major shopping areas, major employment centers, recreational and
cultural facilities, and other facilities that serve smaller households.
This entire block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density
residential uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment,
convenience retail, and the multiple types of pedestrian facilities in this area including:
sidewalks, trails and the skyway and subway system.
c. Having immediate pedestrian, highway, and transit access to commercial areas,
community facilities, and major employment centers.
This block has existing pedestrian facilities linking it to a comprehensive network of sidewalks
and trails as well as the skyway and subway system within the Central Development Core.
This block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density residential
uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment, convenience
commercial areas, communityfacilities, pedestrian facilities and transit. Trunk Highway 63 is
within close proximity to the site.
d. Buffered from the adverse influences of industrial and other incompatible activities.
Third Ave SE serves as a division between "industrial" land uses and "residential" uses as
demonstrated in the attached existing Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Fifth Street SE in
this location currently serves as a division between "commercial' land use and zoning and
"residential" land use and Zoning.
e. Not adversely affecting adjoining low -density residential areas.
As demonstrated on the attached Land Use Plan and Zoning Map, this block is at a pivotal
point between commercial and Central Development Core -Fringe uses and medium and low
density residential land use and zoning. It is strategically located to serve as a transitional block
between the CDC -Fringe and medium density and low density land uses and zoning without
adversely affecting low -density residential areas.
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Criteria & Proposed Findings
for Zone Change Petition #06-03:
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.336 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the
Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application
requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria:
i
Page 5
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal
petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the
proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as
found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter
3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan;
or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to
rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
Proposed CDC -Fringe:
The current zoning is not inconsistent with the existing Land Use Plan, however an amendment
(1f06-03) is being considered concurrent with this application. Action taken on that petition will
determine whether this zoning district would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. Changes in
the Central Business District, including expanding medical, medical research and educational
facilities create a climate in which it may be in the public interest to encourage redevelopment
in this area.
R-4:
The current zoning is not inconsistent with the existing Land Use Plan, however an amendment
(#06-03) is being considered concurrent with this application. Action taken on that petition will
determine whether this zoning district would be consistent with the Land Use Plan. Changes in
the Central Business District, including expanding medical, medical research and educational
facilities create a climate in which it may be in the public interest to encourage redevelopment
in this area.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by
formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the
subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and
Proposed CDC -Fringe:
Third Ave SE serves as a division between "industrial' and "residential" land uses and zoning
as demonstrated in the attached existing Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Fifth Street SE,
in this location currently serves as a division between "commercial' land use and zoning and
"residential" land use and zoning. A more intense residential zoning district (R-4) would
provide a smoother transition between the commercial uses and the medium and low density
residential land uses and zoning, than an extension of the CDC -Fringe would. Extension of
the CDC -Fringe should be considered if the City is committed to requiring integration of non-
residential uses at the ground floor level of multi family residential uses.
Rezoning only the central 213 of the block 10 CDC -Fringe; leaving segments along the north
and south sides as R-3, would not be desirable.
Section 60.620 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes the
following description of the CDC -Fringe District:
i
Page 6
j J
That portion of the Central Development Core which lies outside the identified "central
business district", "medical", and "high density residential" designations oj'the Land Use
Plan, where it is the intent to provide a location for less intensive commercial and service
uses which are necessary or tend to support and enhance the activities within the CBD
area.
R-4:
Third Ave SE serves as a division between "industrial" and "residential' land uses and zoning
as demonstrated in the attached existing Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. Fifth Street SE,
in this location currently serves as a division between "commercial' land rise and zoning and
"residential" land use and zoning.
As demonstrated on the attached Land Use Plan and Zoning Map, this block is at a pivotal
point between Central Development Core -Fringe commercial rises and medium and low density
residential land use and zoning. It is strategically located to serve as a transitional block
between the CDC -Fringe and R-3(medium density residential) and R-2(low density residential)
zoning without adversely affecting low -density residential areas.
Section 60.620 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes the
following description of the R-4 High Density Residential district:
➢ This district is intended to maintain areas for multi family residential uses of the highest
intensity, along with supportive commercial, office and service uses of similar intensity, in
locations with proximity to the Central Development Core and major employment centers.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that
assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in
this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state).
Proposed CDC -Fringe:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning, if an amendment to the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Map are initiated for the balance of the block, to be consistent with the Council decision
on both Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03, and Zoning District Amendment #06-06.
R-4:
This amendment would not constitute spot zoning, if an amendment to the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Map are initiated for the balance of the block, to be consistent with the Council decision
on both Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03, and Zoning District Amendment #06-06.
Staff Recommendation:
The southeast quadrant of the City is the only quadrant void of land zoned R-4 High Density
Residential; and also the only quadrant of the Central Development Core not supported by high
density residential land use and zoning.
This entire block presents a unique opportunity to plan for and accommodate high density
residential uses within close proximity to the downtown, major employment, entertainment, retail,
and the multiple types of pedestrian facilities in the area including: sidewalks, trails and the
skyway and subway system.
After reviewing the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, land use patterns in the Central Business District and
Page 7
surrounding core, Planning recommends that the entire block between 3rd and 4`h Ave SE, and
between 5` and 6th St. SE should be considered for "high density residential' designation on the
Land Use Plan and "R-4 High Density Residential' zoning on the Zoning Map.
Although the applicant proposes to amend the land use designation and zoning for only a portion
of the block, it is necessary to consider the land use and zoning most suitable for the whole block.
Whatever course of action determined appropriate by the Council for the portion of the block
included in this petition, staff recommends that the Council initiate amendments to the land use
designation and zoning for the balance of the block to facilitate coherent planning for the entire
block. Otherwise, two lots along the north side of the block, and four lots along the south side of
the block would remain zoned R-3, resulting in undesirable land use and zoning boundaries within
the block. The block is legally platted as Block 3 East Rochester Addition.
Since the petition proposed a more intense land use designation and zoning than recommended
by staff, the City Council could consider and act on the staff recommendation.
Which ever course of action is taken, the City Council will need to initiate amendments to the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for the balance of the block not
included in this petition, to establish a coherent Plan for the whole block.
V l
��i 11MI i'35
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
1 SECTION:
CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
ING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #271 by Joe Weis Builders, to
be known as Village on 3rd. The Plan proposes developing a portion of Lots 1
and 4 and all of Lots 5-10, Block 3 East Rochester Addition with four story multi-
family residential and parking.
2, 2006 /J a-E : J&P- 6PZC -n' `"d L t cPi1
DATE: 11-6-06
ITEM NO. --
C _
PREPARED BY:
Mitzi A. Baker,
Senior Planner
NOTE: The Planning Commission did approve Variance #06-16, to permit a reduction to the required off street parking, and
also to allow residential use of the lower floor of the building.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 27, 2006: Mr. Ohly moved to recommend
approval of General Development Plan #271 with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr.
McGuine seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Wallace voting nay.
CONDITIONS:
1. The GDP shall be revised to accommodate the following:
➢ Dedication of a T wide Pedestrian Facilities and Right-of-way Maintenance Easement along the
entire frontage of P Ave.
2. A grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal or prior to building
permit approval if no plat is required. Payment of a Storm Water Management Area Charge will be
applicable for any net increase in impervious surface associated with the proposed development.
3. The northerly parking lot shall be signed as "Resident/Assigned Parking Only" to prevent the use
of 4th Ave., SE for circulation between the two parking lots.
4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is
required prior to construction of any public infrastructure required to serve this development.
5. The boulevard and curb and gutter along the frontage shall be restored where removed as part of
this project.
6. Pedestrian facilities along the frontages will be reviewed by the Public Works staff. Any needed
panel repair/replacement shall be completed concurrent with development of this project.
7. All unused water services to this site must be abandoned properly at the maithe street per
RPU requirements.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
Ceti.,
Page 2
RCA
November 2, 2006
Council Action Needed:
1. if the Council wishes to approve the General Development Plan it should instruct the City Attorney to
prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney:
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 6, 2006 in the Council / Board
Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
NVId IN3WdOl3A34 1v213MD Mimi, (INE UO 3OV111A <
1
RE
\/%% ROCnBSTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPAtcfMENT
4rN` 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
c o a x I OF www.olrnstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: John Harford, Senior Planner
p�•RpCHES TER •g77.UtF
Gam: '• r
pRA TED•A UGUST •'
DATE: September 15, 2006
RE: General Development Plan #271 and Variance #06-16 by Joe Weis
Builders, to be known as Village on 3rd. The Plan proposes developing
a portion of Lots 1 and 4 and all of Lots 5-10, Block 3 East Rochester
Addition with four story multi -family residential and parking. Variances
are requested to reduce the number of off-street parking stalls and
eliminate the required commercial component and allow residential
units on the lower floor.
Plannina Department Review.
Applicant/Owner: Joe Weis — Weis Builders
2227 7" St., NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultants:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 3rd Ave., NW
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and
The site includes parts or all of several lots within Block 3 east Rochester
Location:
Addition located east of SO Ave., SE, north of 61h St., SE., west of 4'h Ave.,
SE, and south of 5'h St., SE. The several lots combined are
approximately 1.12 acres in size.
Existing Land
The property is currently developed and consists of single family and
Use:
multi -family dwellings. According to county property records there are 13
dwelling units on the 8 lots included in this GDP, and a total of 30 in this
block.
Proposed Use:
The General Development Plan for this property identifies a proposal for
a multi -family residential building consisting of 66 units. The proposal
consists of 20 three bedroom units, 32 two bedroom units, and 14 one
bedroom units. The density of the project is approximately 59 units per
acre. The proposed building consists of approximately 22,400 square
feet footprint. With four floors the Floor Area Ratio is approximately 1.84.
Land Use Plan:
The property is designated for "Medium Density Residential' on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The applicant proposes
an amendment to the "Commercial' designation.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GISiADDRES5ING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 - WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
CC„JJ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan
September 20, 2006
Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-3, "Medium Density Residential". The
applicant is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment and rezoning from
R-3 "Medium Density Residential" to CDC -Fringe. The lands to the east,
south, and to the north are zoned R-3, and to the west of 3`d Ave. is the
CDC -Fringe district.
The proposed density and the Floor Area Ratio are slightly above the
Type I density of 58.08 units an acre and somewhat higher than the FAR
of 1.28. These numbers are also the same in the R-4 "High Density
Residential" district.
Streets: Access will be from 4t" Ave., SE for the at -grade parking and
underground parking. In the Transportation Plan 3rd Ave. one block is
designated as a Major Urban Arterial, 6" St. is designated as a Primary
Urban Collector, and 41" St is designated as a Major Urban Arterial.
Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities are required and exist currently on the east, west,
and south sides of the project.
Drainage: This site is relatively level on the southerly portion of the site and slopes
to the northeast on the northerly portion of the site. The change in grade
is approximately 8' from the center of the block to the northeast corner of
the property. Stormwater runoff is primarily to the east and west and to
the right of way. The increase in the impervious surface compared to the
current conditions will cause and increase in the stormwater flows from
the property. A stormwater system exists for this and surrounding
properties in the public right of way.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is
platted or developed, and will need to address runoff to adjacent
properties and the public system in the street right of way.
Wetlands: No hydric soils exist on this site according to the Soil Survey. There are
not wetlands on these several lots.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer, water and electrical services currently serve these lots.
All unused water services to this site must be abandoned properly at the
main in the street per RPU requirements.
Parkland Parkland dedication requirements appear not to require dedication or
Dedication: cash in lieu of dedication for this development.
Report 1. Proposed General Development Plan & Narrative
Attachments: 2. Narrative for variances.
3. Referral Comments
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Page 3
General Development Plan
September 20, 2006
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan. Staff suggested findings are in bold italics
print.
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies this property
for "Medium Density Residential" and is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential). A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment
are being considered concurrent with this application ("Commercial" and
CDC -Fringe). If approved, this GDP would not be inconsistent with the
Land Use Plan and Zoning designations. However, the proposal is more
closely associated with the "CDC -Residential" or R-4 "High Density
Residential" designations.
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
The GDP identifies a multi -family building that is under the maximum
established Floor Area Ratio for the CDC -Fringe of 4.0. Bufferyards will be
required along exterior property boundaries in accordance with the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Proposed
uses on the property should be compatible with adjacent land uses, with
the appropriate bufferyards in place. There is no internal connection
between proposed parking areas (under building and surface lots) therefore
there is the need to require the parking lots to be signed and utilized
differently by residents to reduce the potential for using 4fh St. as the travel
lane for parking.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property
as "Medium Density Residential' and is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential). A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment
are being considered concurrent with this application. if approved, this
GDP would not be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and Zoning
designations.
The mix of housing in this area would help further the policies and goals
found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development
styles and in close proximity to the major employment center within the
city, the downtown area. This development could also help to further goals
and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the
supply of housing.
0
99 �
Page 4 p ;
General Development Plan
September 20, 2006
Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and
streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement
Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation
Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City.
Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and
projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses
shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
This plan is located within a fully developed area of the city. No large scale
improvements to the public rights of way are anticipated. Development of
this property should not result in the trip volumes exceeding capacity
limitations.
Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will
provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those
adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to
safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in
the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of
adequacy.
Development of this property should not result in the trip volumes
exceeding capacity limitations of the existing street network.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
Sanitary sewer and watermain are available to this property as the
properties to be redeveloped are currently served. Streets and
sidewalk are already present.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the
property is platted or developed.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
e Page 5
r General Development Plan
September 20, 2006
The applicant will need to dedicate a 7' wide Pedestrian Facilities
and Right -of -Way Maintenance Easement along the entire frontage
of 3rd Ave.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
This site is relatively level with drainage currently to the stormwater
system within the existing right of way.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is
platted or developed.
Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property
for "Medium Density Residential" and is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential). A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment
are being considered concurrent with this application. if approved, this
GDP would not be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and Zoning
designations. The more suitable designation for this project would be the
R-4 district or the CDC -Residential district.
The GDP proposes a multi -family building with both underground and
surface parking. Bufferyards will be required along exterior property
boundaries in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual. Proposed uses on the property should be
compatible with adjacent land uses, with the appropriate bufferyards in
place.
A complete zoning review will be performed at a later date through the Site
Development Plan process to verify compliance with all zoning regulations
for specific site development.
Recommendation for GDP:
Staff recommends that the decision on the GDP be consistent with the land use plan and
zoning amendments and variance requests subject to the following modifications or
conditions:
1. The GDP shall be revised to accommodate the following:
r
Page 6
General Development Plan
September 20, 2006
Dedication of a 7' wide Pedestrian Facilities and Right-of-way Maintenance
Easement along the entire frontage of 3rd Ave.
2. A grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal or
prior to building permit approval if no plat is required. Payment of a Storm Water
Management Area Charge will be applicable for any net increase in impervious
surface associated with the proposed development.
3. The northerly parkinp lot shall be signed as "Resident/Assigned Parking Only" to
prevent the use of 4` Ave., SE for circulation between the two parking lots.
4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public
easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure required to
serve this development.
5. The boulevard and curb and gutter along the frontage shall be restored where
removed as part of this project.
6. Pedestrian facilities along the frontages will be reviewed by the Public Works staff.
Any needed panel repair/replacement shall be completed concurrent with
development of this project.
7. All unused water services to this site must be abandoned properly at the main in
the street per RPU requirements.
Note: The applicant will need to meet the requirements of the Fire Department as indicated in the
memo dated 9119106.
Variance Reauests:
The applicant has requested a variance to Sections 62.422 and 63.426 for amount of on -site
parking and 62.727(1) requiring that non residential use be located on the ground level of the
development.
On -site Parking: The applicant proposes 66 units in a configuration of sizes that requires 102
parking spaces plus 10 spillover spaces (63.246). The applicant proposes to provide 94 spaces
requiring a variance of 18 spaces.
60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority
shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines:
Subdivision 1. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this
ordinance if it finds that:
1. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or
shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are
peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the
same class of zoning district;
�. Page 7
General Development Plan
r September 20, 2006
Individuals living in rental housing own fewer vehicles based on the 2000 Census.
Slightly over 80% of the renter occupied units in one of the census tracts and
nearly 70% in another have access to 1 or fewer vehicles per unit. The applicant
proposes to provide 1.4 parking spaces per unit. Alternate modes of transportation
exist and the need for parking based on lower vehicle ownership indicates a
unique condition for this housing type in a location immediately adjacent to the
major employment center for the city. The lot configuration and access only to 4th
Ave. creates a unique situation also by limiting the parking location for this
development proposal.
2. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
The variance will allow for a reduction in impervious surface and increase the
landscape area and bufferyard adjacent to existing residential units and area
available for recreation space for use by the future tenants.
3. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious
to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this
ordinance; and
Based on a review of vehicle ownership for rental housing in the 2000 Census a
reduction in the parking requirement will not result in an impact on the off site
parking demands. The reduction in parking on site will increase the landscape
area and allow for buffering the adjacent low density residential properties.
4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of
the property.
The reduction in the parking requirement will allow for usable recreation space
available to the residents of the building that meets or exceeds the minimum
dimensions required in Section 63.146. The minimum variance is to allow for 18
fewer parking spaces than required by the zoning ordinance (94 spaces proposed
compared to 112 spaces required based on the number of dwelling units and
bedrooms).
The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by
the applicant or property owners who have control of the property.
Non-residential Use on the Ground Level:
60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority
shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines:
Subdivision 1. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this
ordinance if it finds that:
1. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or
shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are
Page 8
General Development Plan
September 20, 2006
peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the
same class of zoning district;
There are no extraordinary conditions or circumstances that cannot be addressed
through the use of the appropriate zoning district for this property and proposal.
2. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
The proposed use is a reasonable of the property that can be accommodated
through the appropriate zoning district designation that does not require a
variance to Section 62.727(t) limiting the use of the first floor to non-residential
uses.
3. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious
to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this
ordinance; and
The proposed use of the first floor of the building for residential units will not be
detrimental to the adjacent properties as the area is residential in nature to the
south and east.
4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of
the property.
If approved the minimum necessary variance will be to permit the establishment of
residential units on the first floor of the building.
The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by
the applicant or property owners who have control of the property.
/9t
\w�' ROCHESTER
M4k
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 9/15/06
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development
Plan #271 & Variance #06-06 for the proposed Village on 3`d residential development.
The following are Public Works comments on this request:
1. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal, or
prior to building permit approval of no plat is required. Payment of a Storm
Water Management Area Charge will be applicable for any net increase in
impervious surface associated with the proposed development.
2. Dedication of a 7 ft wide Pedestrian Facilities and Right-of-way Maintenance
Easement is required along the entire frontage of the Property abutting 3` 1 Ave
SE.
3. As discussed during the pre -development meeting, the northerly parking lot
shall be signed as "Resident / Assigned Parking Only" to prevent the use of 4`h
Ave SE as circulation between the two parking lots.
4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site
public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure
required to serve this development.
5. The boulevard, and curb & gutter shall be restored along the frontage of all
existing driveways that will be removed as part of this project.
The condition of existing pedestrian facilities along the frontages of the
Property will be reviewed by Public Works staff and any needed panel repair,
and / or replacement shall be completed concurrent with development of this
project.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will include:
❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $2105.70 per developable acre
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2105.70 per developable acre
❖ Storm Water Management Area Charge — TBD
Plant Investment Fee — Calculated and collected through the Building
Permit approval process.
C1Documents and Set6ngstplajgam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FileM0LK61\GDP271 Village on 3rd (Weis).doc
J.g
y 1
tl t:
The hand to reach for...
DAVID A. KAPLER
Fire Chief
DATE: September 19, 2006
TO: Jennifer Gayness, Planning
FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal
SUBJ: GDP #271 by Joe Weis Builders, to be known as Village on 3rtl. The plan proposes to
develop a four story multi -family residential and parking building.
With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located
and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place
prior to commencing building construction.
a) The minimum fire flow for this multi -family development shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20
psi.
2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be
serviceable prior to and during building construction.
3. Fire Department Assess shall be provided so that all portions of the building can be reached within
150 feet of a paved surface for fire department apparatus parking.
4. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings.
5. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4"
high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail
box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only)
Mark Baker — Rochester Public Works (e-mail only)
Weis Builders
Yaggy Colby Associates (e-mail only)
we ptidir, we deliver
September 11, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: General Development Plan #271 by Joe Weis Builders to be known as Village on 3rd.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. Static water pressures within this area will range from the mid to upper 70's PSI at the ground floor
level.
2. All unused water services to this site must be abandoned properly at the main in the street per our
requirements.
3. The Fire Prevention Bureau will need to comment on the location of the existing fire hydrants as
they relate to protection of this building. If additional hydrant(s) are required we will work with the
applicant's engineering firm on the needed system extension requirements.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
06MA (Z
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Gale Mount, Building & Safety
Joe Weis, Weis Builders
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Harford John
From: Jason Woodhouse Woodhouse@yaggy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:06 PM
To: Harford John
Subject: Re: Village on 3rd
John -
There is underground parking for the building.
Building Footprint: 22,400 SF +!-
Landscape/Play Area: 14,500 SF +/-
Pavement Area: 11,800 SF +/-
Total Site: 48,700 SF +/-
Hopefully that answers your questions. Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
Jason
Jason Woodhouse, AIA
Project Architect
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
(507) 288-6464 Fax (507) 288-5058
jwoodhouseayaggy.com
>>> "Harford John" <harford.john9CO.OLMSTED.MN.US> 09/18/06 03:58PM >>>
Jason, I am reviewing the GDP application for this project. Can you tell me if there is
underground parking proposed, as it looks that way on the drawings that were submitted
(and based on the number of dwelling units per the variance request)? Do you have an idea
of the floor area of the project and landscape area and recreation space?
John Harford
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
1
11
Baker Mitzi
From: Jason Woodhouse jjwoodhouse@yaggy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:01 AM
To: Baker Mitzi; Mark Root
Subject: Re: Village on 3rd
Mitzi -
There are 66 units proposed, consisting of approximately (20) 3-bedrooms, (32) 2-bedrooms
and (14) 1-bedrooms.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks.
Jason
Jason Woodhouse, AZA
Project Architect
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
(507) 288-6464 Fax (507) 288-5058
jwoodhouse@yaggy.com
>>> "Baker Mitzi- <baker.mitzi@CO.OLMSTED.MN.US> 09/11/06 11:14AM >>>
Mark:
How many units are being proposed in the Weise project?
Mitzi A. Baker
Senior Planner
Monday - Thursday
Phone: 507-287-1696
FAX: 507-287-2275
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the
children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow
of life, the sick, the needy, and the
handicapped." Hubert H. Humphrey
1
YCA t#9627 LD2
8-29-06
VILLAGE ON 3RD
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Village on 3rd is located in SE Rochester bordering to the north by existing developed
property, on the west by 3`d Avenue SE, on the ease by 4th Avenue SE and on the South
by 61h Street SE. The Village on 3rd Property is approximately 1.12 acres.
The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in
accordance with Appendix B E-3.
a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may
create potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design
and construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or
engineered to overcome the limitations.
The site topography is flat with elevation ranging from 992 to 1000. Available
information from geologic and soil maps of the property indicate the Decorah
Shale formation in this area starts at elevation 1080. Decorah shale is not present
on the site. Cover over the bedrock is expected to be less than 10 feet in some
places. Soil borings will be completed during the engineering phases to determine
subsurface conditions and the bedrock depth in the areas of construction. There
are no Steep areas on the property. The Olmsted County soil survey shows no
hydric soils on the property. There are no wetlands on the property.
b) Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in
costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs.
The storm drainage does not appear to cause problems that will result in the
increase of normal storm drainage costs.
c) Identification ofpotential off -site drainage problems.
Participation in the city's stone water management plan will occur for
development of the site. There should be no problems with off -site drainage
created by this development.
RECEIVED
AUG 3 jj
1 2406
RCC-E=<-OLVo-,��
Village on 3rd
General Development Plan
Page 2
d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration.
Sanitary sewer and water service are available in 3rd Avenue SE, 4`h Avenue SE
and 61h Street SE.
e) Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of
the applicant.
All erosion control measures will be in place using best management practices.
There are not erosion control problems anticipated.
f) A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to
occur on the property under the control of the applicant.
The development of this property is planned to be in one phase. No additional
phases are anticipated.
RECEIN ED
AUG 3 1 2006
RCCFESi�R-
August 30, 2006
Village on Third Apartment Building
Intersection of P Ave SE and 6"' Street SE
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Variance Findings to Eliminate the Requirement for Commercial Space on the
Main Level of a Residential Building in the CDC -Fringe Zone
a) There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical
conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands
within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district;
It is not economically viable to locate commercial office/retail space at the
proposed location. The traffic volume and speed, along with the width of
3rd Ave, is not conducive to providing access to and parking for
commercial space.
b) The variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
The variance would allow the entire building to be a residential use,
which would tie into the use of the land area to the south and the east.
Allowing residential on the main floor allows additional units available
for rent for people working in or near downtown, at affordable rates.
c) The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurous to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of this ordinance;
The variance would allow the entire building to be a residential use,
which would tie into the use of the land area to the south and the east.
Allowing the additional residential units on the main floor would not be
detrimental to the area/neighborhood, as it would bring more people into
the area, thus more vitality.
d) The variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
The variance allows this development to accommodate additional
residential rental units which helps make this project economically
feasible.
RECEIVED
F oos
rtCCnEST�R - C•_•;9Tc.
F' INN'%C _._
Au RECEI'� E�
August 30, 2006
g AUG 3 12005 I'
Village on Third Apartment Building
Intersection of 3rd Ave SE and 6`h Street SE
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Variance Findings to Reduce the Required Off -Street Parking by Nine (9)
Parking Stalls
a) There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical
conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands
within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district;
The shape of the lot, along with the size of the building needed to make
this project economically feasible, leaves only a certain amount of open
land left for surface parking and green/recreation space. By granting a
variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement by 9 stalls, a
sufficient amount of green/recreation space can be provided to
accommodate the number of residents the building will house.
b) The variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
The fundingfor this project may be coming from several sources including
MHFA Financing and First Homes. Each organization has
requirement/recommendations for the amount ofplayground area, green
space area and recreation space based on the number of residences within
the building. Reducing the required parking allows the project to meet and
exceed those guidelines, providing a better quality, affordable place to live
near downtown Rochester.
c) The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurous to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of this ordinance;
The variance will reduce the amount of blacktop surface and allow more
green space on the proposed project site. We feel this is in harmony with
the single-family residences to the east and the south, and avoids a large
sea of blacktop in this area.
d) The variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
The variance for 9 less parking stalls than what it is required will allow
for more recreation and open space for the residents of the building, thus
making the building more attractive to prospective renters, thus the
project is more economically feasible.
Weis Development Corp
2227 Seventh Street SW, Rochester MN 55901
507-288-2041
August 30, 2006
Ms Mitzi Baker — Senior Planner
Rochester/Olmsted County Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: GDP Application, Land Use Amendment and Variance Request
Village on 3`a Project
Rochester. Minnesota
Dear Mitzi:
The attached application for a Type III, Phase II Development is requesting the Planning
Department, Planning Commission, and the Rochester City Council to consider a General
Development Plan, and a Land Use Plan Amendment for the above referenced project.
We are also requesting the following variances as part of this application.
1. Remove the required commercial component on the lower level of the proposed
residential facility.
2. Reduction in the required off-street parking requirements by nine (9) stalls.
Please find the attached documentation for this application.
Sincerely,
Weis Development Corp
!. Josep C. Weis
RECEIVED
AUG 3 1 2006
ROCrESTeR- CLETED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING }
DATE: 11/6/06
CITY ADMINISTRATOR I C JL7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Development District # 34 and Tax Increment PREPARED
Financing District # 34-1 for the Village on Third Multi Family Housing Project T.SPAETkt
The City recently received a TIF Application by Weis Development regarding a proposed 66 unit rental housing project to
be located on the fringe of the downtown core area. The project is to be located along the east side of 3rd Avenue SE,
between 5 ° and 6d' Street SE. The developer is seeking the City's allocation of 2007 Housing Tax Credits, and is also
requesting TIF assistance from the City of Rochester.
The proposed TIF project consists of a 66 unit multi family rental housing development, with a mixture of 1,2 & 3
bedroom units. The proposed TIF District would be established as a "housing" tax increment fmancing district, with
applicable income and rent restrictions. The developer is requesting $660,000 ($10K / unit) in TIF assistance from the
City. That amount is consistent with previous requests for TIF assistance for multi family housing units.
The developer is proposing to start demolition and construction in the upcoming weeks, and the project is proposed to be
completed in September, 2007.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution approving the Development District # 34 and Tax Increment Financing District Plan # 34-1
** Please note that TIF Plan has not been included due to its length.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING (`
DATE: 1116106
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.
INI
CITY ADMSTRATION � — 7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Development District # 35 and Tax Increment VKtYAKCV of
Financing District # 35-1 for the Castleview Housing Project D. Knott
The City recently received a TIF Application from Castleview apartments Limited Partnership for a mixed use low income
housing project. The Salvation Army is the general partner in the limited partnership. The project consists of 32 units of
low income housing located over the Salvation Army medical and dental clinic. Sixteen of the units are intended for the
homeless and handicapped with the remaining 16 units serving very low income entry level employees. The project is
located on property owned by the Salvation Army at 118 North Broadway. In addition to TIF assistance from the City, the
project will be receiving an allocation of low income housing tax credits from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
The proposed TIF District would be established as a "housing" tax increment financing district, with applicable income
and rent restrictions. The developer is requesting $285,000 in TIF assistance from the City. That amount is consistent
with previous requests for TIF assistance for low income housing projects. The intent is to demolish the existing structures
on the site this winter and start construction of the project as soon as possible next year. Construction is proposed to be
complete by December 31, 2007.
This project has been reviewed by the Rochester Downtown Alliance and has received their support.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution approving the Development District # 35 and Tax Increment Financing District Plan # 35-1
** Please note that TIF Plan has not been included due to its length.
t
\ V
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-6-06
4GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
General Development Plan #272 by Williams Family Partnership, to be known as
John Harford,
Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods. The Plan includes approximately
Senior Planner
228.5 acres of land located east of the Wal Mart south and Kohls development,
south of 201h St., SE, north of 30th St., SE. The Plan identifies future roadways
and a general pattern of development.
November 2, 2006
NOTE: The property is located within the floodplain and is in the Flood Prone District and wetlands have been identified on
the property. The property is subject to the standards of the Flood Prone and Shoreland Districts, and the wetland
regulations.
City Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2006. Please see the attached minutes for
additional detail, discussion and input.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve General Development Plan #272 to be known as Williams Family Partnership
with staff findings and recommendations. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
CONDITIONS:
f. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Access, 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: stormwater management (including any obligations for
off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this
development), ownership & maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities, obligations for pedestrian facilities,
contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties
where applicable.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of development, prior to Final Plat submittals. Untreated storm
water discharge to existing and/or proposed wetlands will not be permitted. The Owner shall execute an Ownership and
Maintenance Agreement for all private sedimentation and storm water quality facilities.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable oft -site public easements is required prior to
construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development.
4. Prior to the development of the property, any proposed use shall be reviewed through the Site Development Plan
review process.
5. Pedestrian facilities are required along the entire frontage of this property abutting a public road.
6. Utilities and infrastructure must be extended to adjacent properties.
7. The Traffic Design Analysis should be submitted by the applicant prior to the next phase of development beyond the
development of Fire Station.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Page 2
I. s RCA
November 2, 2006
8. The revised GDP for the next phase of development should show eastbound extension of 2e Street SE, northbou
extension of 25'h street and north/south urban arterial connection between the proposed 2e Street SE and 2dh
Street SE in accordance with the Long Range Transportation Plan. These future streets must be included in the
Traffic Design Analysis.
9. Prior to review by the City Council this GDP must show the future bike paths and trails in accordance with the Urban
Area Bikeway Plan. One side bike path should be shown along the proposed alignment of 2e and25h Street
extension. The alignment and necessary easements or future right of way for the future pathRrail facilities should be
finalized during the future approval process.
10. The applicant should show the approved connection of 30h St SE with CSAH 1 as indicated in the Leitzen GDP 221.
The applicant must show the realignment of the 3e St extension on the eastern side of this GDP.
Council Action Needed:
1. if the Council wishes to approve the General Development Plan it should instruct the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 6, 2006.
Attachment:
1. Staff report dated October 6, 2006
2. Minutes of the October 11, 2006 CPZC meeting.
3. Referral agency comments.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney:
3. Planning Department File
4. This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday Novermber 6, 2006 in the Council/Board Chamber
at the Roc ester - Olmsted Government Center Building
f�4nf
..leer-r.•.r�
. �.tsl�-+ r� r r �
LpRlll
1\
.
IIIL�
INN m
','
VimOEM
sk
�3
T
'
i
r II
RECEIVED
SEP i 4 �
ROCHES>eR. pi y6 i "c0
FUNNING D_n�g-�p1.
fJ� 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, October 11, 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; Mr.
Paul Ohly; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Vince Barry; Mr. Robert Haeussinger; Mr. John McGuine; and
Mr. Gerald Pestka
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi A. Baker and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, City Attorney
SET ORDER OF AGENDA:
Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Wiesner seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr. McGuine made a motion to approve the following consent items. Ms. Rivas
seconded the motion.
September 27, 2006 minutes
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
General Development Plan #272, by Williams Family Partnership, to be known as
Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods. The Plan include approximately 228.5 acres
of land located east of the Wal Mart south and Kohls development, south of 20th St. SE,
north of 30th St. SE. The Plan identifies future roadways and a general pattern of
development.
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Wiesner stated that the applicant provided plans showing multiple building types when they
originally applied for the general development plan. She asked if those plans were not
applicable anymore.
Ms. Baker responded that the plans are showing the land use designations at this time.
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 11, 2006
Mr. Burke asked if a connection to the Leitzen property would occur.
Ms. Baker explained that the Leitzen general development plan and Williams/Seneca general
development plans would connect with a roadway.
Discussion ensued regarding roadway connections.
The applicant's representative, Geoff Griffin of GGG Engineering (14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield
MN 55923), addressed the Commissions. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the
staff -recommended conditions.
Ms. Naomi Smyrk (residing at 800 26`h Street BE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the
Commission. She asked if the land behind her would be developed.
Ms. Baker responded that the property is currently zoned "holding". It has no zoning
designation for them to move forward with developing. She explained the public process that
would need to occur if the owner were to develop the land.
Ms. Jennifer Anderson (residing at 839 261h Street BE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the
Commission. She asked what the definition of medium density was.
Ms. Baker responded that it accommodates theR-3 zoning district. Some of the uses could be,
4-plexs, attached townhomes, apartment buildings, mid rise buildings, etc.
Mr. Bob Marnocha (residing at 825 21" Street SE, Rochester MN 55904) addressed the
Commission. He stated that 20H' Street and 91h Avenue is the main intersection for the
subdivision. He stated that a traffic light would be better served at this location than where the
applicant proposes at this time. He also expressed concern with dust during construction time
Mr. Haeussinger stated that traffic signal locations are determined by Rochester Public Works
Department.
Mr. Marnocha asked at what time and where does traffic signals get addressed in the
development process.
Ms. Baker stated that Mr. Marnocha should contact John Harford at 507-285-8232 on the
project details and that there is a Traffic Engineer at Rochester Public Works that can be
reached at 507-287-7800. Also, Rochester's website hosts a location where residents can
register concerns related to traffic.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of General Development.PrarL#=- ik tC i
Williams Family Partnership, to be known as Williams CommerciatCente{Se�tec
with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Oh1y secondedthe ma on.
The motion carried 9-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer,
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 11, 2006
Water, Access, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to accommodate:the
development of this Property.No development wilt be. allowed to occur until the City
Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for sa4d, r
development. Alternatively, the developer may request 'to iom 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:-stormwaier maiiag'ement
(including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements
(including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this deVelopment�'
h 4V
ownership & maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities, obligations for -=
pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing &future public infrastricture and they
i r
extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable'-"'
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of deve opment,apnor tc�,
Final Plat submittals. Untreated storm water discharge to existing andlor proposed
wetlands will not be permitted. The Owner shall execute an`Ovunership arila 4s
Maintenance Agreement for all private sedimentation and storm water quality's
i
facilities.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedreati'on'of any`app icable;off site .public
easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure t enre thI
development
4. Prior to the development of the property,;any proposed use shall be reviewe, throrg
the Site Development Plan review procespsus� ' a
5. Pedestrian facilities are required along the entree frontage o his props a ntiiiig a'
public road.
6. Utilities and infrastructure must. be extender taadjacert t erhes -
7_ The Traffic Design Analysis should be submitted by the applrcantprior to the next"
phase of development beyond the development of Eire Ski U. 'ARIII
'
8. The revised GDP for the next phase of development`shouldi show eastbound ,,'I
extension of 28u' Street SE; northbound extension of 25N street end°norihls�uttt urban;
arterial connection between the proposed 28"' StreetSE and;?0 7Street�SFin,�
accordance with the Long Range Transportation Plan These future streets must be
included in the Traffic Design Analysis' r l „r*
i °
9. Prior to review by the City Council this GDP.`- mustshow the future ike pat sand
trails in accordance with the Urban Area'Bikeway'Plan' "One .'side' Bike path sfiould bekx
shown along the proposed alignment of 28"' and 25" Streetextensior The alignment
and necessary easements or future right of way for the future pathltraif facilities
should be finalized during the future approval process
10. The applicant should show the approved connection of„3g"'"StSEvirith CSAFI1 as `'
indicated in the Leitzen GDP 221. The applicant must show the reahgnmentpfthe
30th St extension on the eastern side of this GDP: x'
i
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT oF,R�cHESTER .mu%p
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 " Rochester. MN 55904-4744
cou"TY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning ?,'•. .+
R'I TE�:AL'GU5'C.5
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: John Harford, Senior Planner
DATE: October 6, 2006
RE: General Development Plan #272 by Williams Family Partnership, to
be known as Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods. The
Plan includes approximately 228.5 acres of land located east of
the Wal Mart south and Kohls development, south of 20th St., SE,
north of 30th St., SE. The Plan identifies future roadways and a
general pattern of development.
Plannino Department Review:
Petitioner/Property Owner: Williams Family Partnership, c/o August Williams
41050 95th St.
Blue Earth, MN 56013
Consultant: GGG Engineering
14070 Hwy 52 SE
Chatfield, MN 55923
Location of Property: The property is located south of 2016 St., SE and west
of Willow Creek and north of TH 52, and east of the
Broadway Commons development. The area
covered in the GDP is 228.5 acres. The Williams
Family property is approximately 36 acres within the
larger GDP.
Proposed Use: The GDP identifies Medium Density Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial uses on the property. The
Williams Family property is designated for industrial
uses and is the proposed future site of a new city fire
station. No substantial changes to GDP #131 are
proposed for the Seneca Foods property.
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
currently designates the property as "Flood Prone",
"Medium Density Residential", "Commercial', and
"Industrial". The Williams Family property is
designated as "Industrial", "Commercial' and "Flood
Prone".
Zoning:
The property is currently zoned M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial), M-2 ( Industrial), and H
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
w�
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELJSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
General Development Plan
o October 5, 2006
(Holding). The Williams Family property is currently
zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial Industrial). The
Williams Family property was rezoned in 2003.
Streets: Access to this property currently is from S. Broadway
by way of 28d' St., SE, a primary collector. Currently,
a secondary access connects to 3rd Ave., SE, north of
the W al Mart store.
The larger GDP reiterates the Seneca Foods GDP
#131, including the internal street pattern. The
applicant proposes two street modifications, 1) by
moving the north -south collector street further to the
east in an alignment parallel to the former railroad
right of way, and 2) creating a cul-de-sac at the end of
the north -south street on the west and south property
line of the Williams Family property. The previous
GDP proposed that this street, 30' St., would be a
Primary Urban Collector and connect to CSAH 1 east
of Willow Creek. This plan proposes that the
connection be made by the realignment of the major
north -south internal street.
The streets proposed within the Williams Family
property include an extension of 28'" St., SE, and a
north -south street on the west side of the property
that ends in a cul-de-sac east of the Menards site and
adjacent to the Leitzen property to the south.
A Traffic Impact Report was completed for the larger
Broadway Commons development in 1998, and
included this property. This GDP is comparable to
the previous GDP's #208 and 131 with the only
addition being the proposed development of the fire
station. The proposed plan is generally consistent
with the functional designation map in the Long
Range Plan in terms of planning for future major
street corridors. The applicant should, however,
show the connection planned bry the Leitzen GDP that
allows for the connection of 30 St. to CSAH 1. The
alignment shown on this GDP is not consistent with
the previously approved alignment and connection to
CSAH 1 in GDP #221.
Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire
frontage of the property abutting a public road.
Drainage: Grading and drainage plans will be required prior to
individual lot development within the development.
Untreated stormwater discharge to existing and/or
proposed wetlands will not be permitted.
The GDP identifies an existing regional pond located
to the north of the Williams Family property. Two
Page 3�-
General Development Plan
October 5, 2005
additional ponds are proposed based on the
conditional use permit and preliminary plat.
Depending on the amount of material excavated from
the proposed ponds, the applicant may need to apply
for a Substantial Land Alteration.
Execution of an Ownership and Maintenance
Agreement will be required for all private
sedimentation and storm water quality facilities.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
prior to the property being developed.
Floodplain and Wetlands: The Flood Prone District covers the entirety of the
property. The applicant has applied for a conditional
use permit to fill the Flood Prone District that will be
heard at a later date.
The City approved a wetland delineation completed in
2003 for the Williams Family property. The applicant
is proposing to revisit the delineation this Fall. The
applicant will need to submit a wetland replacement
plan based on the proposed impacts shown on the
preliminary plat. Several other wetland delineations
have been completed, starting in 1993, for portions of
the larger GDP covering the Seneca property. The
wetland replacement plan must be reviewed and
acted on separately by the City Council.
Public Utilities:
City services are available to serve the property. The
property is within the Main Level Water System Area.
Static water pressures within the area will range from
the mid 40's to the mid 60's PSI within this area. The
Owner will need to work with the RPU Water
Department to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve the area.
GDP #208 identifies a major sanitary sewer line
located on the Williams Family property. The line
runs north -south in the easterly portion of the
property.
Parkland Dedication:
Since this is a commercial development, there are no
parkland dedication requirements.
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Works Dept.
2. PlanningDept— Transportation
3. Planning Dept — Wetlands
4. Planning Dept. — GIS
5. MNDOT
6. Olmsted County Public Works
7. RPU
Report Attachments:
1. Copy of Proposed GDP
2. GDP Narrative
3. Referral Letters
Page 4
J` General Development Plan
} October 5, 2006
Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
Criteria for approval of a general development plan. The criteria and the staff suggested findings
are as follows:
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
The land uses within the M-1 zoning district is consistent with the land use
designation for the property.
The Neighborhood Analysis for this area, as included in Chapter 4 of the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, recognizes limitations of
properties designated "Flood Prone". The Plan states, "if by reason of the
implementation of flood control it is determined that flood fringe areas on
downstream flooding is eliminated, the flood fringe areas designated "flood
prone" on Map 1-34 would change in designation to those uses shown on
Map 1V-35. Essentially, if the site is elevated to or above the Flood
Protection Elevation, the "flood prone" designation is eliminated and the
"commercial" and "industrial" designations apply. Industrial development
on the Williams Family property would be consistent with the Plan
designation, subject to applying flood protection measures.
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, accesses and
circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of
adjacent property.
Access to this property will be by way of an extended 28`h St., SE
connecting to South Broadway. GDP #272 proposes a realignment of the
Primary Urban Collector north -south street for the larger GDP, and the
related connection to 30m St., SE and CR 1 east of Willow Creek.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
Not applicable to commercial or industrial development on the Williams
Family property. The Medium Density Residential Designation on the
northeasterly portion of the larger GDP is consistent with the adopted
Land Use Plan and is also consistent with the Housing Plan standards for
the physical and social environments of residential neighborhoods.
Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and
streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement
Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation
Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City.
Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and
projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses
shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
Page 5
General Development Plan
October 5, 2006
Access to this property will be from South Broadway by way of 28" St., SE.
The following comments were made in the review of GDP #208 covering the
Williams Family property.
o The proposed development will generate additional traffic on 28`" St that
will impact the intersection of South Broadway and the East Frontage Road
along 28" St.
o While the impact of the development traffic itself is minor, the combined
impact of additional development traffic on tar" St along with expected
traffic growth on South Broadway will in all likelihood lead to significant
congestion and queuing problems at the intersection of South Broadway
and 2e St
o To address this increase in congestion, options in addition to the do-
nothing alternative may include construction of additional lanes or
installation of an interconnected signal system to manage the traffic flow
at both affected intersections
o To the extent that the Williams property will contribute traffic to this
intersection, there is justification fora contribution on the part of the
developer towards the cost of future improvements at the intersection, in
proportion to the share traffic contributed to the intersection. Language
should be considered for inclusion in the development agreement
addressing the proportionate share contribution to future improvements.
The following comments dated 9126106 were made in a review of the
requirements for a traffic analysis by Muhammad Khan
Summary of Conclusion
1. The Traffic Design Analyses should be submitted by the applicant prior to
the next phase of development beyond the development of Fire Station.
2. The revised GDP for the next phase of development should show
eastbound extension of 2e Street SE, northbound extension of 2e street
and north/south urban arterial connection between the proposed 2e
Street SE and 20'n Street SE in accordance with the Long Range
Transportation Plan. These future streets must be included in the Traffic
Design Analysis.
3. The revised GDP for next phase of development should also show the
future bike paths and traits in accordance with the Urban Area Bikeway
Plan. One side bike path should be shown along the proposed alignment
of 2eh and 25t° Street extension. The alignment and necessary easements
or future right of way for the future path1trafl facilities should be finalized
during the future approval process.
Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will
provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those
adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to
safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in
c f
Page 6
k % l General Development Plan
October 5, 2006
the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be Included in the assessment of
adequacy.
Access to this property will be from South Broadway by way of 28'h St., SE.
The following comments were made in the review of GDP #208 covering the
Williams Family property.
o The proposed development will generate additional traffic on 28`h St that
will impact the intersection of South Broadway and the East Frontage Road
along 28'0 St.
o While the impact of the development traffic itself is minor, the combined
impact of additional development traffic on 286 St along with expected
traffic growth on South Broadway will in all likelihood lead to significant
congestion and queuing problems at the intersection of South Broadway
and 28f° St
o To address this increase in congestion, options in addition to the do-
nothing alternative may include construction of additional lanes or
installation of an interconnected signal system to manage the traffic flow
at both affected intersections
o To the extent that the Williams property will contribute traffic to this
intersection, there is Justification for a contribution on the part of the
developer towards the cost of future improvements at the intersection, in
proportion to the share traffic contributed to the intersection. Language
should be considered for inclusion in the development agreement
addressing the proportionate share contribution to future improvements.
The following comments dated 9126106 were made in a review of the
requirements for a traffic analysis by Muhammad Khan
Summary of Conclusion
t. The Traffic Design Analysis should be submitted by the applicant prior to
the next phase of development beyond the development of Fire Station.
2. The revised GDP for the next phase of development should show
eastbound extension of 28'h Street SE, northbound extension of 25'h street
and north/south urban arterial connection between the proposed 28'6
Street SE and 20'h Street SE in accordance with the Long Range
Transportation Plan. These future streets must be included in the Traffic
Design Analysis.
3. The revised GDP for next phase of development should also show the
future bike paths and trails in accordance with the Urban Area Bikeway
Plan. One side bike path should be shown along the proposed alignment
of 28f° and 2P Street extension. The alignment and necessary easements
or future right of way for the future pathRrail facilities should be finalized
during the future approval process.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
Page 7
General Development Plan
October 5, 2006
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
City services are available to serve the property. The property is within the
Main Level Water System Area. Static water pressures within the area will
range from the mid 40's to the mid 60's PSI within this area. The Owner will
need to work with the RPU Water Department to develop the necessary
water system layout to serve the area.
In the report for GDP #208 staff indicated that "dedication of a 50' wide
public utility easement will be required for maintenance and future
replacement of the existing trunkline sanitary sewer. Additional easements
may be needed to accommodate other utilities/utility extensions."
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire frontage of the
property abutting a public road.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
Grading and drainage plans will be required prior to individual lot
development within the development. Untreated stormwater discharge to
existing and/or proposed wetlands will not be permitted.
The preliminary plat indicates the construction of two ponds on the
property. Execution of an Ownership and Maintenance Agreement will be
required for all private sedimentation and storm water quality facilities.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to the property
being developed.
Criteria G. Areas in DEOZ will be managed in such a way as to maintain the quality and
quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge,
interflow, and infiltration, and recharge processes taking place.
According to the Bedrock Geology Map from the Geologic Atlas of Olmsted
County the Decorah Shale is not the first encountered bedrock. The area is
underlain by the SL Peter sandstone and Prairie du Chien Group, limestone
sandstone and limestone layers immediately below the Decorah Shale.
Criteria f. 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.
Page 8
t General Development Plan
October 5, 2006
A preliminary plat has been submitted for the Williams Family property.
Prior to the development of any uses on the property, the proposed use will
need to be reviewed through the Site Development Plan review process.
This review process will ensure that the use meets the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Recommendation:
Based on the above criteria, staff would recommend that the following conditions should be
imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual:
1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer,
Water, Access, 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: stormwater
management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation
improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate
this development), ownership & maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities,
obligations for pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public
infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where
applicable.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of development, prior
to Final Plat submittals. Untreated storm water discharge to existing and/or
proposed wetlands will not be permitted. The Owner shall execute an Ownership
and Maintenance Agreement for all private sedimentation and storm water quality
facilities.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public
easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve
this development.
4. Prior to the development of the property, any proposed use shall be reviewed
through the Site Development Plan review process.
5. Pedestrian facilities are required along the entire frontage of this property abutting
a public road.
6. Utilities and infrastructure must be extended to adjacent properties.
7. The Traffic Design Analysis should be submitted by the applicant prior to the next
phase of development beyond the development of Fire Station.
8. The revised GDP for the next phase of development should show eastbound
extension of 28fh Street SE, northbound extension of 25 h street and north/south
urban arterial connection between the proposed 28th Street SE and 2Q`h Street SE in
accordance with the Long Range Transportation Plan. These future streets must
be included in the Traffic Design Analysis.
i
Page 9
General Development Plan
October 5, 2006
9. Prior to review by the City Council this GDP must show the future bike paths and
trails in accordance with the Urban Area Bikeway Plan. One side bike path should
be shown along the proposed alignment of 2eh and 25m Street extension. The
alignment and necessary easements or future right of way for the future path trail
facilities should be finalized during the future approval process.
10. The applicant should show the approved connection of 30`h St SE with CSAH 1 as
indicated in the Leitzen GOP 221. The applicant must show the realignment of the
3e St extension on the eastern side of this GOP.
NOTE: A Substantial Land Alteration may be required for the pond construction in the proposed
outiots and/or fill placed on the lots to be platted.
Page 1 of 2 1�
Harford John
From: Mike Opat [mikeogggg.toj
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:16 AM
To: Hanford John; Baker Mitzi
Subject: FW: Williams GDP
John/Mitzi:
I am forwarding an email I received from Brian Thiel, Plant Manager at Seneca Foods, regarding the
Williams/Seneca Foods GDP. He ran it up the ladder within Seneca for comments. I had requested a formal
letter stating their comments on the GDP proposal. This email is all I received. Do you need me to push them for
something more formal?
Thanks,
Mike Opat
GGG, Inc.
From: BRIAN THIEL [mailto:BTH1EL@senecafoods.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:01 PM
To: Mike Opat
Subject: RE: Williams GDP
Mike,
I received word today that Seneca has no objections to the William's Plan.
Brian Thiel
Plant Manager
Seneca Foods --Rochester
1217 3rd Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
(507)280-4531 direct dial
(507)280-4542 fax
(507)251-3149 cell
-----Original Message -----
From: Mike Opat [mailto:mikeo@ggg.toj
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:06 AM
To: BRIAN THIEL
Subject: Williams GDP
Brian -
Good morning. Has anyone at Seneca Foods commented on the GDP for the Williams and Seneca
Foods properties that we submitted? The City is looking for any comments Seneca may have at this
time.
Thanks,
Mike Opat
Design Engineer
GGG, Inc.
14070 Hwy 52 SE
1niv1nnF
M
GGG In c.
Engineering Surveying & Planning
14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923
Phone:507-867-1666
Fax:507-867-1665
Rochester/Olmsted Planning & Zoning
2122 Campus Dr. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Written Summary Addressing the GDP for Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods
Dear Planning & Zoning Department:
We are representing the developers of property to be known as Williams Commercial Center. We are submitting a
General Development Plan (GDP) for this property and the adjacent property owned by Seneca Foods Corporation
in order to the meet the required 80 acre minimum area for a GDP. Below is a summary of the topographic,
drainage, and utility conditions for this site.
a) The soils on this site are favorable for development. None of the soils are unique to development and erosion
and stability of roadways and building pads can be achieved with common engineering practices. The water
table is relatively close to the existing surface, but a large amount of fill will be required to elevate the site
above flood levels, so this will not be a major concern. Attached is a soils map and the names of the soils types
found on the property. A portion of the Williams site will serve as an excavation area that will be used to
elevate the rest of the site. This may also take place on portions of the development owned by Seneca Foods.
A wetland delineation has been performed on the Williams property. Any wetlands encountered will be
avoided or mitigated.
b) Drainage and storm water treatment does not pose a problem for this site. Stormwater treatment ponds will he
constructed that will treat the majority of post development runoff. The excavation areas created on the Williams
property will serve as stormwater treatment ponds to serve that portion of the development. There is an existing
regional stormwater treatment facility located on the Seneca Foods property that will aid in the treatment for the
rest of the development.
c) The only apparent off -site drainage problem at this time is the potential for flooding due to the proximity to
Willow Creek. The areas that will be developed will be elevated to elevations safely above the established base
flood elevations for the stream.
d) Utilities to serve this site are readily available. A large sanitary sewer trunkline runs directly through the
development and smaller lateral connections are available on the west and north ends of the development.
Water is available on the west side with connections provided by the Broadway Commons development and
the extension of 28s' Street. Connections will also be available via 20th Street on the north side. Watermains
will eventually be looped to the east along County Road No. 1.
e) This site and adjacent properties can he protected during the grading of the lots with common erosion control
methods that will ensure proper soil stabilization and re -vegetation.
;-
f) This project is planned to be graded, utilities installed, and roadways constructed in multiple phases. The first
phase will include two lots at the easterly extension of 28 h Street to accommodate the new fire station. Further
development of the Williams property will be determined by future demand. At this time, the phasing for the
development of the Seneca Foods property is unknown. The applicant loll be requesting a 10 year approval
period before this GDP expires from the City Council.
Additionally, the entire area included in this GDP, which encompasses the property owned by Williams Family
Partnership and Seneca Foods Corporation is 228.5 acres. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions
or if you need any additional information. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey G Griffin, PE LS
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Muhammad Khan, Transportation Planner
Date: September 26, 2006
RE: GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER/SENECA FOODS
History and Background
The Williams Commercial Center / Seneca Foods GDP includeapproximately 228.5
acres of land located east of Broadway Plaza (Wal-Mart sout"nd Kohl's), south of 20"
Street SE, and north of TH 52.
The application references GDP # 208 and GDP # 131 thi t.were expired and replaced
by the current petition. The proposed plan identifies future roadways and a general
pattern of development as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1
9IXH�LL OL'.LILPMLMi P4K
GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER/SENECA FOODS
The Broadway Plaza General Development Plan (GDP) included a Traffic Impact Report
(TIR)' prepared by Benshoof & Associates submitted in July, 1998, in accordance with
the requirements of Section 61.520 of the Land Development Manual. As part of that
TIR assumptions regarding the future development east of Broadway Plaza were
included for purposes of analyzing improvement needs along South Broadway. In that
report it was anticipated that future development would occur after 2010. The TIR used
the following land use assumptions for the area east of Broadway Plaza for traffic
analysis purposes:
Land Use
Sizes . ft
Light Industrial
218,889
Industrial Park
110,425
Specialty Retail
162,043
Office
183,605
Rec/Park
1,402,632 32.2 acres
Residential
36 units
It was estimated that 1156 PM peak
hour trips were expected to be
generated by the future development.
In that study, it was concluded that
development of the area behind
Broadway Plaza was developable
subject to the condition that the
additional roadway system in the area
as shown in Figure 2 would be
developed. The report emphasized the
importance of future connections to 201h
Street SE and CSAH 1 on the east. The
TIR assumed the following traffic
distribution for 2010:
• 20.6% to/from north TH 63
• 17.6% to/from south on TH 63
• 9.9% to/from north on 3rd Ave
• 16.7% to/from east on 20th Street
6.4% to/from west on 25`h Street
• 4.6% to/from east on TH52
• 24.2% to/from west on TH 52
FlGUt1E 4
U
canx[Kru.axovExnEs
YEAP 2a70
nsu�aes�orua+r
aoAowAvsrsTEM
'Traffic Impact Report For Continental Properties Development At TH 63,125" Street SE, Prepared by
Bensboof & Associates, Inc, July 1998
GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER/SENECA FOODS
Comparison of Development Assumptions in GDP 272 with previous GDP
The acreage of the proposed GDP # 272 and the previous GDP is comparable. The
only addition in the proposed development is the inclusion of Fire Station site. Since the
impact of the Fire Station is not significant, therefore the traffic study may not be
warranted/require at this stage of development. However, further traffic analysis would
be needed for the future development beyond the development of Fire Station. Traffic
Design Analysis as per 61.522(3) would be needed for the future development with
focus on 1) confirming that no additional intersection improvements along TH 63 are
needed beyond those identified in original TIR and to identify when new street
connections must be completed, and 2) where new street intersections are to be built as
part of a new phase (such as the new intersection of the 25`h St extension and 20th
Street SE) that an analysis to define the intersection design is completed, and 3) Is there
any information regarding future land uses that would require recalculation of trip
generation and level of service analysis?
Consistency of Proposed Plan with Long Range Transportation Plan
The proposed GDP will be reviewed under the City of Rochester Land Development
Manual for consistency with the policies and guidelines found in the Rochester -Olmsted
Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plant, which has
been adopted by the City of Rochester as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
review will address each of the key issue areas found in the adopted Transportation
Plan that could influence decisions regarding the appropriateness of the GDP # 272.
Figure 3 shows the
functional designation of
the roadway system in the
vicinity of Williams and
Seneca Foods properties.
The plan includes the
extension of 28th Street as
a Primary Urban Collector
from its current location to
CSAH 1 through a number
of neighboring properties
east of the proposed GDP.
The issue of how this
extension will be funded
and its final alignment is
still unresolved, but the
Leitzen GDP immediately
west of CSAH 1
accommodates the
alignment if issues related
to crossing the Willow
Creek floodplain and the
u i
-
;
i, a
4-
7
G
r
um Mn ! n gnwys
..... ry_we...e
_.� -� •_n
r.rrw
._ w...e
iLxei Raatle antl SM1eele
z ROCOG 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, August 2005: The Rochester -Olmsted Council of
Governments (ROCOG) 2035 Transportation Plan provides a comprehensive look at anticipated system
development in Olmsted County for the next 25-30 years.
GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER/SENECA FOODS
associated bridge construction can be resolved. This road extension is important for both
the proposed GDP and the approved Leitzens/Quinstar GDP to improve connectivity and
traffic distribution patterns from these two commercial/industrial areas, which will help to
reduce the traffic loading on 20`" St SE and minimize local traffic on TH 52 between the
CSAH 1 and South Broadway interchanges.
The Long Range Transportation Plan also includes an extension of 3rd Ave SE into the
area south to the proposed 28d' St / 301" St alignment, along with the extension of 25"
Street east to 20t" Street SE as an urban collector. These east/west and north/south
connections, as demonstrated in the previous TIR, are needed to achieve acceptable
LOS for all intersections along TH 63 that will be impacted by traffic from the
development, in particular the TH 63/25`" intersection.
The proposed plan as illustrated in Figure 1 is consistent with the functional designation
map in the Long Range Plan in terms of planning for future major street corridors.
In terms of street capacity needs, the Street Design Classification Map in the Long
Range Plan (Figure 4), Indicates that the extension of 281" Street should be 2-lane urban
collector while the future extension of 3rtl Ave into the site should provide adequate width
to provide for two through travel lanes with left and right turn lanes at all major
intersections. The eastbound extension of 25`" Street through to 20`" Street SE is
•M..,w.�,,.�
�.,;
S,
Figure 4
r
N
T �
...-
'�a °tea
wfN•+
S
:�'�,.
Cln�lnotlem
�
i '
-
v,u.un
T�iy..i
— -
52
designated in the plan as a major urban arterial with a 4 lane cross section.
Figure 5 highlights the adopted Bikeway Plan. Improvement needs illustrated include a
single side path along the proposed extension of 281" Street SE (east/west
connection),and the future extensions of 25t' Street SE and 3rd Ave SE. The Urban Area
Bikeway Plan also shows a future bike trail running north south along the abandoned rail
GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER/SENECA FOODS
corridor, and a path along Willow Creek starting at Willow Creek Middle School and
running south is programmed for 2008.
ti+I
loth
C Map Legend
StU
_i nowRUR 36
�NRYIfuYRR
CW-1N.aee11R�
am. r:vrR
` Yby bw !rr y
Figure 5
FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION
Under the Land Development Manual a Traffic Impact Report would be required for a
development of the scale proposed. Given the previous work that has been
completed (and general consistency of this plan in terms of development intensity
with the previous plan), a full TIR is not recommended at this time. Staff would
recommend a Traffic Design Analysis as per 61.522(3) be prepared for submittal with
subsequent preliminary plat stages or prior to next phase beyond the development of
Fire Station to 1) assess whether the previous TIR adequately captured the traffic
impact created by Broadway Plaza and the anticipated impact that would be created
by development of the site, and 2) to provide the information necessary to design
any new intersections, such as the proposed intersection of 25t" St SE and 20' St
SE
As a base for completing this assessment, the following information should be
provided as part of subsequent application:
o PM Peak Hour Traffic counts should be conducted at intersections along TH
63 and 201" St SE that would be impacted by any phase of development.
o A comparison of traffic levels with those projected in the 1998 TIR should be
completed
GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTERISENECA FOODS
o Where the development -generated traffic exceeds that projected in the
1998 TIR, a re -analysis of intersection operations should be completed.
o Intersection design parameters for major street intersections should be
established based on the revised information
Consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan, the proposed GDP should
accommodate the eastbound extension of 28`h Street SE, northbound extension of
25th Street and north/south extension of 3rd Ave SE between the proposed 28t' Street
SE and 201h Street SE.
The proposed GDP should also show the future bike paths and trails in accordance
with the Urban Area Bikeway Plan. This would include bike paths on one side of the
proposed alignment of 3 d Ave, 28`h St and 251h Street. The alignment and necessary
easements or future right of way for the future path/trail facilities should be finalized
during the future approval process.
Summary of Conclusion
1. The Traffic Design Analyses should be submitted by the applicant prior to the
next phase of development beyond the development of Fire Station.
2. The revised GDP for the next phase of development should show eastbound
extension of 281h Street SE, northbound extension of 251h street and
northisouth urban arterial connection between the proposed 28`h Street SE and
20th Street SE in accordance with the Long Range Transportation Plan.
3. The revised GDP for next phase of development should also show the future
bike paths and trails in accordance with the Urban Area Bikeway Plan. One
side bike path should be shown along the proposed alignment of 28`h and 25th
Street extension. The alignment and necessary easements or future right of
way for the future path/trail facilities should be finalized during the future
approval process.
GDP # 272 WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTERISENECA FOODS
�,pPNEBOT�yO
OF TR>
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6
2900 48d' Street N.W.
Rochester, MNI 55901-5848
September 29, 2006
Office Tel: 507-280-3188
Fax: 507-285-7279
E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us
Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
Rochester Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE —Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: General Development Plan (GDP) #272 by Williams Family Partnership, to be
known as Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods. The Plan includes
approximately 228.5 acres of land located east of The Wal Mart south and Kohls
development, south of 20th St SE, north of 30" St SE. The plan identifies future
roadways and a general pattern of development.
US 63, CS 5509
Dear Ms. Garness:
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 6 staff has received GDP #272
by Williams Family Partnership to be known as Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods.
Mn/DOT also received the draft TIR prepared for Continental Properties Development at US
63/25th Street SE dated July 1998. Mn/DOT finds GDP #272 by Williams Family Partnership
incomplete and is requesting the following information.
• How does the trip generations in Table II, page 12 of the draft TIR dated July 1998
compare with the trip generations for the William Commercial Center/Seneca Foods
GDP?
• How does adding the Seneca GDP change the previous draft TIR prepared in 1998 for
Continental Properties?
• What is the proposal for 3`d Avenue SE and how does this impact the traffic
circulation?
• Will 306i Street continue eastward and will it connect with a local street? What are the
east/west connections?
• What are the additional traffic impacts anticipated for the intersections at 25,b Street
and at 28'h Street with US 63?
Please provide Mn/DOT this information at your earliest convenience. Mn/DOT will
comment once the requested material is available. If there are any questions, you may contact
Peter Waskiw, Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement,
Transportation Specialist at (507) 281-7777.
Sincerely,
Chris Meares CC� ^ Z ZQ�s
District 6 Planning Director ROCh:e
z•OtMS7
cc: Mitz Baker, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department
Muhammad Khan, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department
Greg Paulson Michael Schweyen Peter Waskiw Debbie Persoon-Bement 'File
DOCS4519488
r,. ~ ROCHESTER
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 9/27/06
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4t' Street BE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development
Plan #272, for the proposed Williams Commercial Center / Seneca Foods development.
The following are Public Works comments:
1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary
Sewer, Water, Access, 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: stormwater management (including any
obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any
off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development),
ownership & maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities, obligations
for pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public
infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where
applicable.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of development,
prior to Final Plat submittals.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site
public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure
to serve this development.
C:%Dccuments and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C\GDP272 Williams - Seneca GO P.doc
ROCHESTER
TO: Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
2122 Campus Drive SE WORKS
Rochester, MN 55904 201 4' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
FROM: Mark E. Baker
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further
addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will
include but are not limited:
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD
Water Availability Charge (WAC) —TBD
Transportation Improvement District (TID) - TBD
Utility Connection Charges - TBD
Storm Water Management — TBD through the Grading Plan review
process
Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer
Individual Lot development will be subject to a Plant Investment Fee
(PIF) that is calculated and collected through the Building Permit
review process.
C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LKICNGDP272 Williams - Seneca GDP.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE - SUITE 200
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
www.oirnstedpublicworks.com
507,285,8231
September 26, 2006
Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
Dear Jennifer:
The Public Works Department has reviewed General Development Plan #272, by
Williams Family Partnership and has the following comments:
Any proposed public street or access to CR 146, 20}6 St SE requires an
Olmsted County Driveway Permit Application.
Sincerely,
Michael °Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS/ss
c: Williams Family Partnership
GGG Engineering
T:\PWDATA\ENGINDOC\PIanning Zoning Letters\PLANZONEMCC
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
... .. .._...�,...�.,, c...... t„n and Mannino Enaineerinq Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
';�aSo`
rpuYiA # _.
wr /Ir rdyt, Alf c/t(:vrr
DATE: September 22, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept.
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept.
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
280-1579
SUBJECT: General Development Plan #272, by Williams Family Partnership, to
be known as Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods. The Plan
includes approximately 228.5 acres of land located east of the Wal
Mart south and Kohls development, south of 20tn St. SE, north of 30cn
St. SE. The Plan identifies future roadways and a general pattern of
development.
RPU's Core Services Division review of the above -referenced general development
plan is complete and we have no comments.
Sincerely,
jb
r
p
we pleJge, /or ilclikw
September 22, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: General Development Plan #272 by Williams Family Partnership known as Williams
Commercial Center/Seneca Foods.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. This property is within the Main Level Water System Area, which is available as noted within this
submittal.
2. Anticipated static water pressures will range from the mid 40's to the mid 60's PSI within this area.
3. Based on the street system shown preliminary computer water system modeling indicates adequate
flows for fire protection will be available for the types of uses shown.
4. The water mains must be looped and extended to adjacent properties per our requirements.
5. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to
serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yo
urs,
(ZLWA
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Gale Mount, Building & Safety
Williams Family Partnership
GGG, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Rochester -Olmsted Planning . epartment
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: September 21, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC:
RE: WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER / SENECA
FOODS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #272
Phone: (507)285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
A review of the GDP has turned up the following ROADWAY or ADDRESS related issues:
1. The roadway illustrated as FUTURE 32D AVE SE EXTENSION (COLLECTOR) will need to be
a named roadway.
RECOMMENDATION: Work with our staff on the designation of this roadway when this portion
of the development is platted.
2. The roadway illustrated as FUTURE 25 s STREET SE EXTENSION (COLLECTOR) will need
to be a named roadway.
RECOMMENDATION: Work with our staff on the designation of this roadway when this portion
of the development is platted.
3. The roadway illustrated as FUTURE LOCAL STREET / ALLEY will need to be looked at
during platting stage.
RECOMMENDATION: If this roadway gets platted as a local street it should be labeled as 3
AVENUE SE.
4. The roadway illustrated as DEDICATED ROW 66' will need to be looked at during platting
stage.
RECOMMENDATION: If this roadway gets platted as a local street it should be labeled as 30
STREET SE.
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: General Development Plan #272, by Williams Family
Partnership, to be known as Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods
No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the
information as part of this application.
® A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department.
A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss,
Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department.
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
ElNo hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to
the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for
wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands.
® Other or Explanation:
Wetlands have been identified on the Williams Family property. No wetland
delineation has been completed for the larger area shown on the GDP.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11-06-06
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PtBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING -
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #06-19 by Williams Family Partnership to be known PREPARED BY:
as Williams Commercial Center. The property includes approximately 36.23 acres of land Theresa Fogarty,
located north of TH 52, east of south TH 63, at the east end of 281" Street SE. The Plat Planner
proposes to subdivide the property into two lots and three outlots.
November 2, 2006
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 11. 2006 to consider this preliminary plat.
Mr. Geoff Griffin of GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission. He indicated that there is agreement with the
staff -recommended conditions and will work with staff regarding revising the plat.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following
conditions or modifications:
1. The Plat shall be revised as follows and submitted to the Planning Department, prior to Council action:
a. Correcting the "Site Data Summary" indicating number of M-1 lots = 5
b. Dedicate the entire roadway of `28t8 Street SE" to the eastern boundary of the plat and the roadway
located along the southern portion of the plat, as indicated on the General Development Plan or reduce
the size of the plat to include only the area identified as Block 1, Lot 1 and Block 2, Lot 1.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of development, prior to Final Plat submittals.
3. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer, Water, Access, 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: stormwater
management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -
site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), ownership & maintenance of any private
wetlands & or facilities, obligations for pedestrian facilities, ownership & maintenance of proposed Outlots,
contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting
properties where applicable.
4. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities will be address in the Development Agreement, and will consist of either 5
ft wide concrete sidewalk or 10 ft wide bituminous path.
5. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. The
wetland delineation is over 3 years old and must be recertified. The applicant must submit a new report
indicating any changes in the wetland boundaries. Based on one version of the preliminary plat and
preliminary grading plan a wetland replacement plan is required and must be reviewed and acted on by the
City Council prior to action on any grading plans.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
Page 2
Preliminary Plat
Williams Commercial Center
6. The Flood Prone District covers the entirety of the property. Approval of the preliminary plat is subject to approv:
of a Conditional Use Permit allowing fill in the Flood Prone District.
7. The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual
required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the buildings being proposed.
8. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to
construction of any public infrastructure to serve this development.
Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #06.19,
Williams Commercial Center, with staff recommended findings and
The motion carried 9-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated October 5, 2006.
by Williams Family Partnership to be known as
conditions. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion.
6orirrsiYAct%ii itl
ft" � nc + V ave prove yvit � ditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. Thy,
unci ;of f s6+ ti the criteria inrr�cn the staff report'
eri :r c u "_s�. songPIZ
, y:a conclus-rfrhaf at least one of thy_;-:
�fiftee mg od • n
M T ra
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated October 5, 2006.
2. Minutes of the October 11, 2006 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 2006 in the Council Chambers
at the Rochester / Olmsted Coun Government Center.
�i
C�3n� �: 113Y53Yt Dy~ 1
s�z s i snv
pd- Tb A F@ a E'n""a R � ••6Y iFEi fi eEi
E 4, »UNI PI l E zF.A ix e'.-. {{
Tis
€:wA
xzy �aY4"F § !Ss isSs •fseA
lib hill 8 a5�}�6- c
d[ 3
R§f`R Y�§ E t sR�ASf-:1 t 1F0.,'.. •F- � Y I f�
Hill
b V ^:�-rd g5i5il S :XFS}FB i - N Z V
EF,E"•xlE�:- F$si�§s E��s€ � '� - I m n
JR F � .� g i_ 6Bx EStF Y'd� CJ•s5�^ 55 A � '.. I D
i F iR:zF iitR ^E..._• ,Z I F z
I {{i�aft ili }
t4 sE is€sld,=O:Y�
�F.1° A. its YfF
'y 1,3 y •s p EwE�•d= pp :.SE }w.R.-2_ t N
.. ���=`5:e�a �Q9g�rB�q� • _! E6 a•$a§6� EFF s�E�e.Rs�EE�} 1Y m
c �kkCpp Rgg@@Eh;�y -E h3: jf E3i •Ra E-F •: ESR is E ]]F I
i i�.[[.r (` rr■.. fi4`b t�Ef+�3jgs E&FSE:�}i'-i{�a
C- � �� ••F[ 8 �9$cilia
1al- Ne �s3 ��� W rs 1` "- _ •III. �
s
C34Zow
3� 4§g n ti tea...• .. J
Ti
NMI
7
y
I
J Ab;y Jb`
1
-7v
v`-
�
VICINITY MAP
a
m
s
t _l
qi i
b�
1
�
�+ =RECEI'VED110poStj 6b*P
n
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 11, 2006
Water, Access, and Storm Water
development of this Property. N
ouncil has determined that all r
velopment Alternatively, the
maXng these inadequate public
ente 'nto a development agreen
devel errs and City's obligatior
(includi any obligations for ofi
(includin ny off -site improvem
pedestrian ftlitles, contribution:
extension of lic utilities to abi
2. Grading & Drain a Plan.approva
Final Plat submitt Untreated
wetlands will not b ermitted. T.
Maintenance Agreem t for all priva
facilities.
3. Execution of a City -Own Coi
easements is required pri tc
development.
4. f Prior to the development of th
the Site Development Plan reN
--public road.
a.Utilities and infrastructure mt
constru
)mentwill be
>ublic facilities
r may request
adequate fort
'accordance with
e Long Range Teansortation.Plan rri
included in th ` raffle D sign Analysis.p
9. Prior to re by the City Council thls GDP must show th
trails in Ord with the Urban Area Bikeway Plan.".-o
shown ong the proposed alignment of 2e and 26th Strei
and ssary easements or future right of way for the fu
sh d be finalized during the future approval process
10. a applicant should show the approved connection of 31
indicated in the Leitzen GDP 221. The applicant must she
30a' St extension on the eastern side of this GDP.
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 11, 2006
north of TH 52 east of south TH 63 at the east end of 28th St. SE. The Plat proposes to
subdivide the property into two Lots and three Outlots.
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated October 5, 2006, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
The applicant's representative, Geoff Griffin of GGG Engineering (14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield
MN 55923), addressed the Commissions. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the
staff -recommended conditions. He stated that he would work with staff regarding revising the
plat.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing.
Ms. Rivas moved to_recommen
Partnership to be known AS Wi,
findings and conditions. Mr N
CONDITIONS:
1. The Plat shall be revised as
Council action:
a. Correcting the,"Site Dal
b. Dedicate the entire roac
and the roadway locate;
the General„Elevefopme
area identified as Block
iuine seconded then otron, T,he,motlort dartied.9-0.
these inadequate public facilities adequate for this develol
development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that
City's obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater m
obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvem
improvements necessary to accommodate, this developmE
maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities, obliga
facilities, ownershtp & maintenance of proposed Qutiots, i
future public infrastructure, and the extenslon ofpubhc W
where applicable. .:
4. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities will be address in{thi
and will consist of either 5 ft wide concrete sidewalk or 10
5 A wetland delineation has been carried out for the properl
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date October 11, 2006
Planning Department. The wetland delineation is over 3 years old and must be
recertified. The applicant must submit a new report indicating any changes in the
wetland boundaries. Based on one version of the preliminary plat and preliminary,
grading plan a wetland replacement plan is required and must be reviewed and acted
on by the City Council prior to action on any grading plans.
6. The Flood Prone District covers the entirety of the property.Approval of the
preliminary plat is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing fill in the
Flood Prone District.
7. The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than
2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size
and construction type of the buildings being proposed.
8. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public
easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this
rlovpinnment_
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, d October 3, 2006, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-( anning Department.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr ur closed the public hearing.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend pproval Text Amendment #06-07, initiated by
the Rochester City Council, based on aff's recommendation.` Mr. Ohly seconded the
motion. The motion carried 9-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As may be brought up with members
Ms. Baker explained that the Council/Board Chambers will be closed the month of January 2007
so the meetings would be in City Hall Room 104.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Mr. McGuine to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Rivas. Mr. Burke,
Chair, adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
119
Mr. Jay Burke, Chair
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEP-AKTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
[ G O x T Y OF www.cimstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: October 5, 2006
OF Qp CNESTEg.M1r,NM1A
a iz
Ra TE6- j ' ST•
RE: Preliminary Plat #06-19 by Williams Family Partnership to be
known as Williams Commercial Center. The property includes
approximately 36.23 acres of land located north of TH 52, east of
south TH 63, at the east end of 28th Street SE. The Plat proposes
to subdivide the property into two lots and three outlots.
CP&ZC Hearing Date: October 11, 2006
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Williams Family Partnership
41050 95" Street
Blue Earth, MN 56013
Surveyors/Engineers: GGG, Inc.
14070 Highway 52 SE
Chatfield, MN 55923
Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division
Rochester Public Works Department
Planning Dept — LGU Wetlands Staff
Planning Dept —GIS Addressing Staff
Rochester Fire Department
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments ( 5 letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Copy of GDP being considered concurrently with
the Preliminary Plat request
5. Location Map
Development Review:
Zoning: The currently zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial)
district on the City Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of approximately 36.23
acres of land to be subdivided into 2 lots and 3 outlots
for commercial / industrial development.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 50712B5-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WE LJSEPTIC 507/2B5-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
�� ..,, A., r.o onon m,mwerrm I, ATNF ArMnN PMPLOYER
Page 2
Preliminary Plat #06-19
Williams Commercial Center
October 5, 2006
Roadways: There is one new roadway planned within this
Preliminary Plat.
The roadway identified as "281" Street SE" and is
designed with an 80" right-of-way.
The private roadway running east and west across the
southern edge of this plat is recognized as 30'h Street
SE and is not being captured in this plat. However, if
the roadway getsRiatted it needs to retain the
designation of 30 Street SE. Also, if the residential
and utility addresses east of this plat get access from a
different roadway, the cost of re -addressing these sites
shall be the responsibility of the developer at the time of
Final Platting.
Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian Facilities will be addressed in the
Development Agreement, which will consist of either 5
foot wide concrete sidewalk or a 10 foot wide
bituminous path. Currently the construction plans show
4 foot wide sidewalk, which is not permitted.
Drainage: Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required for
each phase of development, prior to Final Plat
submittals.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Flood Prone District covers the entirety of
the property. The applicant has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit to fill the Flood Prone District
that will be considered by the City Planning and Zoning
Commission at their October 25, 2006 meeting.
A wetland delineation has been carried out for the
property and is on file with the Planning Department.
The wetland delineation is over 3 years old and must be
recertified. The applicant must submit a new report
indicating any changes in the wetland boundaries.
Based on one version of the preliminary plat and
preliminary grading plan a wetland replacement plan is
required and must be reviewed and acted on by the
City Council prior to action on any grading plans.
Public Utilities: Based on the finished grades provided, the static water
pressures will range from 57 to 62 PSI within this area.
The minimum fire flow for this commercial development
area shall be no less than 2.500 gpm at 20 psi. The
actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the
size and construction type of the buildings being
proposed.
Execution of a City -Owner Contract and dedication of
any applicable off -site public easements is required
prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve
this development.
Page 3
Preliminary Plat #06-19
Williams Commercial Center
October 5, 2006
Spillover Parking:
Parkland Dedication:
General Development Plan:
Parking for the development of each lot will be
determined at the time of Site Plan Development
Review.
The property will not be used for residential
development; therefore, there are no parkland
dedication requirements.
This property is included within the Williams
Commercial Center / Seneca Foods General
Development Plan being considered concurrent with
this Preliminary Plat request.
Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application.
This section is attached for your information.
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff
recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications:
1. The Plat shall be revised as follows and submitted to the Planning Department, prior
to Council action:
a. Correcting the "Site Data Summary" indicating number of M-1 lots = 5
b. Dedicate the entire roadway of Ve Street SE" to the eastern boundary of the
plat and the roadway located along the southern portion of the plat, as indicated
on the General Development Plan or reduce the size of the plat to include only
the area identified as Block 1, Lot 1 and Block 2, Lot 1.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of development, prior
to Final Plat submittals.
3. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary Sewer,
Water, Access, 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: stormwater
management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation
improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this
development), ownership & maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities,
obligations for pedestrian facilities, ownership & maintenance of proposed Outlots,
contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public
utilities to abutting properties where applicable.
j Page 4
Preliminary Plat #06-19
Williams Commercial Center
October 5, 2006
4. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities will be address in the Development
Agreement, and will consist of either 5 ft wide concrete sidewalk or 10 it wide
bituminous path.
5. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department. The wetland delineation is over 3 years old and must be
recertified. The applicant must submit a new report indicating any changes in the
wetland boundaries. Based on one version of the preliminary plat and preliminary
grading plan a wetland replacement plan is required and must be reviewed and
acted on by the City Council prior to action on any grading plans.
6. The Flood Prone District covers the entirety of the property. Approval of the
preliminary plat is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing fill in the
Flood Prone District.
7. The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than
2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the
size and construction type of the buildings being proposed.
B. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public
easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve this
development.
Note to Applicant:
The roadway adjacent to the west edge of this plat illustrated as ,301h Street SE is
incorrect and should be labeled as "3 AVENUE SE" in conformance with City policy.
If the residential and utility addresses east of this plat get access from a different
roadway, the cost of re -addressing these sites shall be the responsibility of the
developer at the time of Final Platting.
Page 5
Preliminary Plat 406-19
Williams Commercial Center
October 5, 2006
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision:
The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing
a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are
made:
A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and
variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance.
B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal
and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and
timely extension to serve future development.
C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of
the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or
adopted drainage to stormwater policies.
D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans
and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service
standards in Section 61.526.
E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and
emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each
lot for planned uses.
F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other
Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of
the subdivision.
G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover
parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development.
I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with
adopted plans, policies and regulations.
J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or
wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards.
K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of
permitted uses on adjacent properties.
L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued
development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands.
��s
_ tr Page 6
�Q] Preliminary Plat #06-19
Williams Commercial Center
October 5, 2006
M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the Citys adopted
Comprehensive Plan with regard to street standards and classification, and other matters not
addressed in this ordinance.
O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary
and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, is determined to be suitable for its intended use
and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate
drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion
potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future
residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance.
P. That the proposed land subdivision, if approved, would not result in a violation of federal state
law, or city or county ordinance.
61.226 Conditions on Approvals:
In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving
body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such
modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225.
rpu
;vr pt?.�gv, we e.°fivrr
August 31, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat 906-19 by Williams Family Partnership to be known as
Williams Commercial Center.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. Based on the finished grades provided the static water pressures will range from 57 to 62 PSI
within this area.
2. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the
applicant's engineering firm with these comments.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Gary Schick, Building & Safety
Williams Family Partnership
GGG, Inc
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER
R�4��
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 10/5/06
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 0 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Preliminary Plat #06-
19, for the proposed Williams Commercial Center development. The following are
Public Works comments:
1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Sanitary
Sewer, Water, Access, and Storm Water Management Facilities, to
accommodate the development of this Property. No development will be
allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public
facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may
request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities
adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement,
prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developers and City's
obligations related, but not limited to: stormwater management (including any
obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any
off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development),
ownership & maintenance of any private wetlands & or facilities, obligations
for pedestrian facilities, ownership & maintenance of proposed Outlots,
contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of
public utilities to abutting properties where applicable.
2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for each phase of development,
prior to Final Plat submittals.
3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site
public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure
to serve this development.
4. Preliminary Construction Plan continents will be provided separately to the
Owner's consulting engineer. NOTE: The construction plans show 4 foot
wide sidewalk which is not permitted. Pedestrian Facilities will be address in
the Development Agreement, but will consist of either 5 ft wide concrete
sidewalk or 10 ft wide bituminous path.
C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFOGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK267\PP06-19 Williams Commercial
Centecdoc
r
ROCHESTER
H41fll .
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street BE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
5. The north/south street along the west line of the Property will need to be
renamed in conformance with City policy.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further
addressed in the City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement, and will
include but are not limited:
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - TBD
Water Availability Charge (WAC) — TBD
Transportation Improvement District (TID) - TBD
❖ Utility Connection Charges - TBD
Storm Water Management — TBD through the Grading Plan review
process
❖ Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer
Individual Lot development will be subject to a Plant Investment Fee
(PIF) that is calculated and collected through the Building Permit
review process.
C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFDGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK267\PP06-19 Williams Commercial
Center.doc
KI
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: Preliminary Plat #06-19 Williams Family Trust
No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is
responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the
information as part of this application.
® A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the
Planning Department.
A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -Loss,
Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department.
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to
the location in the landscape, the property owner should examine the site for
wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands.
® Other or Explanation:
The wetland delineation is over 3 years old and must be recertified. The
applicant must submit a new report indicating any changes in the
wetland boundaries. Based on one version of the preliminary plat and
preliminary grading plan a wetland replacement plan is required and
must be reviewed and acted on by the City Council prior to action on
any grading plans.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
Rochester -Olmsted Planrr.... -partment
GISlAddressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904.4744
Phone: (507) 285-8232 �;
Fax: (507)287-2275
PRELIMINARY PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: August 24, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GISrAddressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC: Mark Welch
RE: WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL CENTER
PRELIMINARY PLAT #06-19
A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related
issues.
1. The roadway adjacent to the west edge of this plat illustrated as 30 St SE is incorrect.
RECOMMENDATION: Roadway should be labeled as 3 AVENUE SE.
NOTE: The private roadway running east and west across the southern edge of this plat is
recognized as 30 St SE, and is not being captured in this plat. However if this roadway gets platted it
needs to retain the designation of 30 St SE. Also, if the residential and utility addresses east of this
plat get access from a different roadway, the cost of readdressing these sites will be billed to the
developer at the time of Final Platting.
The hand to reach (o(...
DAVID A. KAPLER
Fire Chief
DATE: September 1, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal
SUBJ: Amendment to GDP #208 and Preliminary Plat #06-19 by Williams Family Partnership, to
be known as Williams Commercial Center.
With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and
installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior
to commencing building construction.
a) The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at
20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type
of the buildings being proposed.
2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be
serviceable prior to and during building construction.
a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width.
b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets
less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4"
high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box
at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only)
Mark Baker — Rochester Public Works (e-mail only)
Williams Family Partnership
GGG. Inc (e-mail only)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-06-06
-AGENDA I ORIGINATINGDEPT: IT
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANI -) ,J .
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-26 to known as Century Hills Tenth Subdivision, by PREPARED 8Y:
Payne Company. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 19.07 acres of land into 38 Theresa Fogarty,
lots for single family development, and to dedicate right-of-way for new public roads Senior Planner
including an extension of Stone Park Drive NE. The property is east and south of Century
Knoll Lane NE.
November 1, 2006
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated November 1, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A GIS impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final
plat, per the October 25, 2006 memorandum from Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division.
2. Dedication of parkland and cash with payments shall be handled in the form outlined in the October 27,2006
memorandum from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department.
3. No hydrtc 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. The final plat appears to be located in an area that may have soils and geology to support potential
wetlands. The area in the drainage way in and beyond the easterly portion of the plat should be reviewed for
wetland if the proposed grading will occur to the easterly property line or beyond the line, such as for a
stormwater facility.
4. 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 G�vernment Center.
arI "
k
on Monday, November 6, 2006 in the Council
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
^
«R
� a�a l• O
�I
161
Q
nil
H
J
J F[i Pw H [v zo
Z .� •.� e��'�J inn U ."- :i Z
i uW Q
Ol a�G aS.�'�� ti � oz ✓,
o no VNF 6569'16.,q
0 0� pn �ti?; p0 .+m s\ "$%s zy i,�,�dA : `aR •lF s.p
2 �� W
O $ M p
[� �Or d`-z� ®\s g,..d•s �" a� Z6'Bfl
•y�''h N ? �d✓ Ewa+- � � \% In .pa N �' .Zb.LZ.l6 ......_ �_
CMD
N
Z N
m 7 (4.
$'� y g _x[ °'gir�im Z
LU
n - / y2 mn `nnl` : = N
N �
N
K M fir^ s�� _..—n as� Sioil cn
R �kd .0 6/ �?
",+� �r \; ; �d'4j l� Ci'ZZ•F9Z .4f£C44CZ N I=-
ava[ war I. •, O F '0O' 'R._.�' 7y_
Wt-
U ar e1J < M W
i tlR I—Taur �� z flf z
lA
Y c01 4 �i N
of z
rS d[rr[Y 8, [+_.........
ldp4 qq Y `—
M it
l R M y 9 l M jg
d � �• •9'� S '� *1 I [�u'J' gg • i g
} f, b
K.
69d�
�+• I I n
NIII"I",IIMCSI H1H9I3 :��HIH 7,JIUNK
AAAA-
2;3
;c 911i56 = s3: 3y s �
a 1V1d UIVNIKIRld '
YiOS3NNIV4 `d31S3HJOS
NOISIAIGUIS H1NIN SIIIH ANnIND > $$ pp
,L
V.
15211 d 1NIQd
A�1N3:]
a
vi
v7
io v
^ m
-"'� •'
`_
a
a
b
P
Y
d
Jill
(
3
R9E
'cs
BE
pal
g
nu
It!
s
lit
F
.
�11.m.
DES
nz
s5i
CIT.
�a
In :2
;fr:
M!
'':;`
it J U
`\(f\/�
fff
I,
lilt
EMMA
Mal ISM -MA
700 ft. Notification Area of Final Plat
to be known as Century Hills Tenth Subdivision
located in the Pt of the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 29, and Pt of the SE 114 SE 114 Sec 30,
and Pt of the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 31, and Pt of the Sec NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 32
31
Final Plat #06-26 by Payne Company
P I N s: 73.29.3 3.072244 ;
73.29,33.072239; 73.30.44.075226;
73.31.11.075227; 73.32.22.072237;
73.32.22.064838;73.31.11.075229
Neighborhood Assoc: None
Council Ward: 5 (Bob Nowicki)
10/23/06
Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map, please notify
the GIS Division, Rochester-0Imsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-8232.
BOB
ROCHESTER-OLbISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
C Q U N T Y of vnvwolmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Senior Planner
�DCHESTER; h7� ,
@q TED•pUGtiST•
DATE: November 1, 2006
RE: Final Plat #06-26 to known as Century Hills Tenth Subdivision, by Payne
Company. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 19.07 acres of
land into 38 lots for single family development, and to dedicate right-of-
way for new public roads including an extension of Stone Park Drive NE.
The property is east and south of Century Knoll Lane NE.
City Council Meeting: November 6, 2006
Planning Department Review:
ApplicanVOwner:
Payne Company
1700 Northwoods Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 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
Rochester Park & Recreation Department
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat
2. Copy of approved Preliminary Plat
3. General Development Plan
4. Location Map
5. Referral Comments (5 letters)
Development Review:
Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Roadways: The plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three
new public roadways.
The first roadway is an extension of "Stone Park Drive
NE" and is designed with a 60' right-of-way.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 50712B5-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 - WELLSEPTIC 507,'285-8345
FAx 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Final Plat #06-26
Century Hills Tenth Subdivision
November 1, 2006
Roadways (continued): The second roadway identified as "Silver Park Lane
NE" is designed with a 56' right-of-way, ending in a cul-
de-sac with a 56' radius.
The third roadway identified as "Century Corner Lane
NE" is designed with a 56' right-of-way, ending in a cul-
de-sac with a 56' radius.
Pedestrian Facilities:
A Development Agreement has been executed which
addresses the requirement for pedestrian facilities.
Drainage:
The Grading and Drainage Plan has been approved for
this property.
A Development Agreement for this property has been
executed and development is subject to the terms of
the Agreement.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. 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. The final plat appears to be
located in an area that may have soils and geology to
support potential wetlands. The area in the drainage
way in and beyond the easterly portion of the plat
should be reviewed for wetland if the proposed grading
will occur to the easterly property line or beyond the
line, such as for a stormwater facility.
Public Utilities:
Final utility plans have been approved.
Spillover Parking:
As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for service
vehicles and visitors. This development requires 46
spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the
additional parking can be accommodated on the
roadways and most likely within private driveways, as
well.
Disposal of Trees & Brush:
As per Section 61.200 of the LDM, any person seeking
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. Burning and
chipping on site, salvaging and removing from the
property.
Page 3
Final Plat #06-26
Century Hills Tenth Subdivision
November 1, 2006
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department
recommends that dedication requirements be met via:
Deferred land dedication with land to be dedicated
identified as the "future neighborhood park" located
immediately southwesterly of this proposed plat.
Dedication to occur when the park is accessed via
public street or when the City wishes to begin
development of the park.
The project consultant has confirmed that the minimum
100' wide park entrance access as shown on the GDP
(dated 11/18/03) has been proposed to be relocated
south of Block 2, Lot 7.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the approved Century
Hills GDP (#122).
Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on February 23, 2005. The City
Council also considered a Design Modification #05-01 (to not provide the required mid -block
pedestrian connection), this request was denied. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject
to five (5) conditions: The conditions are listed below:
1. A temporary turnaround is required at the southerly end of "Stone Park Drive NE".
Easements for this turnaround must be executed with the City prior to be recording of the
Final Plat documents.
2. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and
that the dedication requirements are outlined in the memorandum from the Park and
Recreation Department dated January 10, 2005.
3. The plat shall be revised to:
• Provide a drainage easement, of sufficient width, over the back portion of Lots 16 -19,
Block 2.
• A 20-foot utility easement is needed between Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 47 & 48, Block 1 for
the required 8" water main loop from Century Corner Lane NE to the Silver Park Lane
NE cul-de-sacs.
• Label the short portion of roadway southeast of Silver Park Lane NE as "Stone Park
Drive NE':
• Provide a mid -block pedestrian connection between Stone Park Drive NE and
Century Knoll Lane NE, unless this requirement is waived by the City Engineer.
4. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the owner shall examine the property for wetlands and
submit the necessary information to the Local Government Unit for review.
Page 4
Final Plat #06-26
Century Hills Tenth Subdivision
November 1, 2006
5. Drainage and Utility Easements shall be dedicated on the Final Piat as determined necessary
through final construction and grading plan review or as determined in the Development
Agreement.
Final Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this final plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The staff recommends approval of this final plat, as
submitted, with the following conditions / modifications:
1. A GIS impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid
prior to recording the final plat, per the October 25, 2006 memorandum from
Rochester- Olmsted Planning Department— GIS Division.
2. Dedication of parkland and cash with payments shall be handled in the form
outlined in the October 27, 2006 memorandum from the Rochester Park and
Recreation Department.
3. 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. The final plat appears
to be located in an area that may have soils and geology to support potential
wetlands. The area in the drainage way in and beyond the easterly portion of the
plat should be reviewed for wetland if the proposed grading will occur to the
easterly property line or beyond the line, such as for a stormwater facility.
4. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of the public
infrastructure to serve this subdivision.
Note to Developer:
A Development Agreement as been executed for this Property and development is
subject to the terms of the Agreement.
ROCHESTER
My k
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE_ 10/26/06
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 559043740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-26 for
the proposed Century Hills Tenth Subdivision. The following are Public Works
comments on this request:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property.
2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract is required prior to construction of public
infrastructure to serve this development.
Development charges and fees applicable to the development of this property are
addressed in the Development Agreement and or will be in the City -Owner Contract, and
include but are not limited to the following:
❖ SAC
❖ WAC
❖ TID
❖ A Stormwater Management Fee, for any area of this property that does not drain
to a privately constructed detention facility approved by the City to serve this
development.
Pedestrian Ramps - TBD
•:• First Seal Coat contribution.
Traffic Signs as determined by the City Engineer
C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFOGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK267\FP06-26 Century Hills 10th
Subd.doc
rpu
we plfdye. we deliver
October 23, 2006
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-26 by Payne Company to be known as Century Hills Tenth.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections.
The final utility plans have been approved.
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yoouur�s,n.-,�.
"OA 1"�'v
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
l
, ,' Rochester -Olmsted Planning . cpartment
GIS/Addressing Division
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: October 25, 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness, Stephanie Foster
FROM: Randy Growden
GIS/Addressing Staff
Rochester -Olmsted County
Planning Department
CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle; Peter Oetliker
RE: CENTURY HILLS TENTH SUBDIVISION
FINAL PLAT #06-26
Phone: (507) 285-8232
Fax: (507)287-2275
UPON REVIEW OF THIS PLAT THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE
PAID BEFORE THE PLAT CAN BE ADDRESSED.
E911 ADDRESSING FEE: $. 3040.00 (38 LOTS/ADDRESSES)
GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 970.00 (38 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 CENTURY HILLS TENTH SUBDIVISION the GIS / Addressing staff has
found no issues to bring forth at this time.
f
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: Final Plat #06-26 - Century Hills Tenth Subdivision
❑ 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:
This final plat appears to be located in an area that may have the soils and
geology to support potential wetlands. The area in the drainageway in
and beyond the easterly portion of the plat should be reviewed for
wetlands if the proposed grading will occur to the easterly property
line or beyond the line, such as for a stormwater facility.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
i
/ o
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION
Rochester, MIY DEPARTMENT
DATE: October 27. 2006
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Century Hills 10th
Final Plat 06-26
Acreage of plat..........................................................
19.07 a
Number of dwelling units .............................................
38 units
Density factor............................................................
.0244
Dedication...............................................................
.93 a
Fair market value of land .............................................
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via: Deferred land dedication with land to be dedicated identified as the
'future neighborhood park' located immediately southwesterly of this proposed
plat. Dedication to occur when the park is accessed via public street or when the
City wishes to begin development of the park.
The project consultant has confirmed that the minimum 100' wide park entrance
access as shown on the GDP (dated 11/18/03) has been proposed to be
relocated south of Block 2 Lot 7.
J2896
OAPARK DEDICATION12006\NE 2896\CENTURY HILLS 10, DOC
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROOM 150
ROCHESTER MI NNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6164
FAX 507-281-6165
DSTOTZ@CI. ROCHESTER. MN. US
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-6-06
4GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
ITEM NO.
, j
PUBLIC HEARING
4�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Text Amendment #06-07, initiated by the Rochester City
PREPARED BY:
Council, to amend the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Mitzi A. Balser,
Development Manual to clarify the zoning certificate issuance process,
Senior Planner
when part of a Sound Amplification Permit application.
October 24, 2006
The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2006 to consider this amendment.
The Commission recommended pproval unanimously.
Mr. Hauessinger moved to recommend approval of Text Amendment #06-07, initiated by the Rochester City Council,
with staff suggested findings. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
Council
Action
Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment as proposed, it should instruct
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's
decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph
60.338 (2) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see
attached staff report).
Distribution: `fin
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT oF,RocHESTER:^'lnyFs
k 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 .�y.••'•- '•.,�T
www.olmsedcunty.com/planning '
c�o—emu x�r r o v tonp •.,- '
A TED•AU GUS'�•
DATE: October 3, 2006
TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
RE: Text Amendment #06-07, initiated by the Rochester City Council, to
amend the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual to clarity the zoning certificate issuance process, when part
of a Sound Amplification Permit application.
Text Amendment:
The City Council initiated this text amendment on September 9, 2006. Enclosed is the proposed
amendment to the Ordinance. This amendment will result in changes to the following Sections
of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 61.111, 61.115 and 60.175.
The underlined text identifies text to be added.
Planning staff will coordinate with the City Clerk to modify the Sound Amplification Permit
application to include a reference to Section 61.111, Subd. 2 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance
and Land Development Manual.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION:
A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of
the Zoning Ordinance as follows (staff suggested findings follow each criteria):
a) whether there is a public need for the amendment;
There is a need to clarify this process in the Ordinance and to synchronize the Ordinance and
administrative practices;
b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City
of Rochester;
This amendment is consistent with the purposes of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual 0.e. Sec. 60.111);
c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful.
The amendment will provide clarification, and this amendment will be lawful.
Staff recommends approval of this text amendment.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING1HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507,1287-2275
�C`� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
CHAPTER 61
LOT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PROCEDURES
61.100 The requirements of this section identify which permits or certificates will be
required prior to the commencement of any development involving the
establishment, modification or change to a use on a parcel or tract of land
within the City of Rochester.
61.110 ZONING CERTIFICATE:
A document issued by the Zoning Administrator authorizing a development to
proceed based on information included on the application evidencing
compliance with ordinance requirements.
61.111 When a Zoning Certificate is Required: Subdivision 1. A zoning certificate
shall be required before 1) any new use may be established involving a change
in the manner in which the exterior portion of a site is used or involving the
erection, construction, reconstruction or alteration (as defined) of a building or
structure; 2) an existing use is changed or modified so as to alter the character
of its occupancy; 3) the re-establishment of a use involving the erection,
reconstruction, construction or alteration of a building or structure; or 4) the
I establishment of a temporary use on a site may proceed.
- - - Formatted: Indent: FirsC line: 0.25"
61.112
Procedure: All zoning certificates shall be processed under the Type I review
procedure outlined in subsection 60.510.
61.113 Submission Criteria: Appendix 8 outlines the information that is to be
submitted with an application for a zoning certificate.
61.114 Criteria or Approval of Zoning Certificates: It shall be the duty of the Zoning
Administrator to issue the zoning certificate provided that he is satisfied that the
use and layout of the development as indicated on the site plan conform with
ordinance requirements. No zoning certificate authorizing a conditional use, or
requiring a variance, special relief, or design modification, shall be issued until
said permit has been approved under the regulations of this ordinance, and the
zoning certificate evidences compliance with any conditions attached to the
approval of said permit.
61.115 Approval of Temporary Uses: The zoning administrator may approve a
zoning certificate for a temporary use in the form of a revocable permit for a
period not to exceed 12 months subject to conditions that will safeguard the
public health, safety and general welfare. Specific restrictions applying to
certain types of temporary uses are:
A. Carnival or Circuses: No structure or equipment shall be within
500 feet of any residential property line.
B. Christmas Tree Sales: Only permitted in non-residential zoning
districts for a period not to exceed 45 days.
C. Contractor's Office and Construction Equipment Shed:
Permitted in any district where use is Incidental to a construction
project. The office or shed shall not contain sleeping or cooking
accommodations, and shall be removed upon completion of the
construction project.
D. Seasonal Sales of Farm Produce: Sale areas shall be set back a
minimum of 20 feet from any right-of-way.
E. Public Gatherings (Concerts, religious meetings, tent
meetings): Unless the public cathennc is the subject of an
approved Sound Amplification Permit issued pursuant to Chapter
111 jhe organizers of such events shall present a traffic control_and
parking plan that has been approved by the Police Department and
the City Traffic Engineer. The site shall be cleared of debris at the
end of the event and all temporary structures removed within 20
days after the close of the event.
F. Storage Containers: Storage containers placed as temporary uses may
not block fire lanes, no -parking zones or restrict emergency vehicles,
delivery or other vehicle circulation. The placement of the container shall
not block the visibility for vehicles or pedestrians entering or exiting the site.
No solid or hazardous waste or hazardous material is permitted in or around
the storage containers. No materials may be stacked or stored on top of the
storage container.
61.116 Certificate of Zoning Compliance: A document issued by the Zoning
Administrator permitting the occupancy of a Type III use in a building or on a
parcel of land to commence, based upon a finding that the development is
consistent with the terms of the zoning certificate authorizing the development.
The Zoning Administrator may approve a conditional certificate of zoning
occupancy where conditions beyond the control of the applicant exist which will
not permit total completion of the development for a specified period of time.
Deleted: T
60,171 Fees. Subdivision 1. The fees provided for in this Section shall apply to
various land use and development applications and requests for information.
The fees adopted on the last date of the schedule below will remain in effect
until otherwise amended.
Subd. 2 Zoning Certificate Fees:
A. Residential Uses:
(Values of improvement building, grading, etc., according to
$1 to $500
$501 to $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
+$1-25 per $100
+ $2.55 per $1.000
1 +$1.80 per $1,000
5 + $.50 per $1,000
+ $1.30 per $100
+ $2.60 per $1,000
t + $1,95 per $1,000
) + $.55 per $1,000
B. Multiple Family and Non -Residential Uses:
(Values of improvement building, grading, etc., according to
the following schedule.)
+ $1.35 per $100
+ $2,65 per $1,000
7 + $1.90 per $1,D00
4 + $.60 per $1,000
Total Valuation
'.. Rale of Fee.
June 1, 2006
January 1, 2007
January 1, 2008
$1 to $500
S501 to$2000
S23
$23+$1.B0 per $100
S24
524+$1,55 per $100
S25
$25+$1.90 Per $100
$2,001 to S25,000
$50+$3,60 per $1,000
552+$370 per$1.000
$54+$3.60 per $1,000
525,001 to$50,000
$133+$1.55 per$1,000
$137+$1.60 per $1,000
$141+$1.65 per $1,000
550,001 to$100,000
$172+$.85 per $1,000
$176+$.90 per $1,000
$183+S.95 per$1,000
S1 D0,001 and up
$214+S.25 per $1,000
9222+$.25 per $1,000
$230+$.25 per$1,000
C. Double Fee: When the building construction or remodeling
has occurred prior to issuing of the zoning certificate, a double
fee maybe imposed.
D. Other Zoning Permits:
Other Zoning Permits
Rate of as
June 1, 2006
Janua 1, 2007
January 1, 2008
Single Family Repairs and
Interior Alterations
$22 per application
524 per application
$25 per application
Mobile Home Installation
$31 per application
$32 per application
$33 per application
Sign
Use Non -Residential
Use Non -Residential
Use Non -Residential
Zoning Certificate fee
Zoning Certificate fee
Zoning Certificate tee
Advertising Sign
New Sign
$180 per application
$188 per application
$190 per application
Sign Credit
5125 per application
$130 per application
$135 per application
Moving Permit
$83 per application
$86 per application
$90 per application
Grading Permit
$180 per application
$165 per application
$190 per application
Erosion Plan Review
Demolition Permit
$42 per application
$43 per application
$45 per application
Housing Certificate
$31 per application
$32 per application
$33 per application
Compliance Letter
Single Family
$83 per application
$86 per application
$90 per application
Other
$165 per application
$170 per application
$175 per application
Temporary Use Permit
$260 per application
$270 per application
$280 per application
Lies issued pursuant to 61.111, Subd. 2. the _ _ _ _ _ _ PC rmatted: Font: (Default) Aria[,
--------"--'"-"----- - Formatted; FonC(De J10 Aria1, 11
pt
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Heariry bate: October 11. 2006
Planning Department. The wetlind delineation
recertified. The applicant must bmit a new n
wetland boundaries. Based on o version of l
grading plan a wetland replaceme plan is reg
on by the City Council prior to actio on any �l
Z; _
6. The Flood Prone District covers the;
preliminary plat is subject to approv
Flood Prone District.
7. The minimum fire flow for`this coma
2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual re4
and construction type of the build'
8. Execution of a City Own ,ct
easements is required prior ns
Text Amendment #06 07 initiated by the Rochester City Council to amend the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to clarify the zoning certificate
issuance process when part of a sound Amplification Permit application.
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated October 3, 2006, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of Text Amendment SOH 07' l'h fated by
the Rochester City Council, based on staffs recommendation. lilji OhlsecondecFthe
motion The motion carried 9-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As may be brought up with members
Ms. Baker explained that the Council/Board Chambers will be closed the month of January 2007
so the meetings would be in City Hall Room 104.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Mr. McGuine to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Rivas. Mr. Burke,
Chair, adjourned the meeting at 7:30 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
Mr. Jay Burke, Chair
jig
EN
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Reports & Recommendations:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Agreement with VOT, LP
MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
ITEM NO.
F:, I
PREPARED BY:
T.SPAETH
A Development Assistance Agreement between the City of Rochester and VOT, LP has been prepared for the construction
of a 66 unit multi family rental housing project located along 3'd Avenue SE between 5" and 6"i Streets SE. The Council
approved establishment of a tax increment financing district for this project. The major points within the Development
Agreement are as follows:
Responsibilities of the Developer: The developer is responsible for the construction of a 66 unit multi family rental
housing project within the TIF district. Commencing of construction activities is to take place by December 31, 2006 and
be substantially completed by December 31, 2007. During the term of this Agreement, 100% of the residential units must
be occupied by individuals whose incomes are 60% or less of area median gross income.
City's Responsibility: The Council has agreed to provide TIF assistance in the amount of $660,000, along with interest at
a rate of 6%. The assistance is to be provided under the terms of a TIF note as a "pay as you go", and by that I mean that
the City will pay VOT, LP the available tax increments with semi annual payments to the developer starting February 1,
2009.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for the execution of a Development Assistance Agreement with VOT, LP by the Mayor & City
Clerk for the Village on Third (# 34-1) Tax Increment Financing project
** Please note that a copy of the Development has not been included in the packet due to its length.
�11�
jt, ' AIL4�
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by; to:
IV
CITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNTY OF OLMSTED
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WITH VOT, LP
BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council (the "Council") of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Recitals.
(a) The City has the powers provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124
through 469.134 (the "Act").
(b) Pursuant to and in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the City has
undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of certain land within the City, and in
this connection is engaged in carrying out a development project known as Development
District No. 34 (the "Development District") in an area located in the City.
(c) There has been approved by the Council, pursuant to the Act, a
Development Program for the Development District, as amended (the "Development
Program").
(d) In order to achieve the objectives of the Development Program and
particularly to make the land in the Development District available for redevelopment by
private enterprise in conformance with the Development Program, the City has
determined to provide substantial aid and assistance in connection with the Development
Program through the financing of certain of the public costs of development in the
Development District.
(e) VOT, LP (the "Company") has presented the City with a proposal for the
construction within the Development District of certain housing improvements, and there
has been prepared a certain Development Agreement (the "Agreement") the City and the
Company, stating the terms and conditions of such development and the City's and the
Company's responsibilities respecting the assistance thereof, has been presented to the
Council for its consideration.
2. The Council hereby approves the Agreement substantially in the form presented
to the Council and hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk, in their discretion and at such
time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the same on behalf of the City, with such
additions and modifications as those officers may deem desirable or necessary, as evidenced by
their execution thereof.
1946551v1
I
3. Upon execution and delivery of the Agreement, the officers and employees of the
City are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be
necessary on behalf of the City to implement the Agreement, including without limitation the
issuance of the TIF Note thereunder.
4. The Council hereby determines that the execution and performance of the
Agreement will help realize the public purposes of the Act and are in furtherance of the
Development Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 6T' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON
COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved this _ day of 2006.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
19465?lvl
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota, (the "City"), hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached
and foregoing resolution with the original on file in my office and further certify that the same is
a full, true and complete copy thereof, relating to the authorization by the Common Council of
the City of the execution of a certain Development Assistance Agreement between the City and
VOT, LP.
I further certify that said resolution was duly adopted by said Council at a duly called and
regularly held regular or special meeting thereof.
Witness my hand officially as such City Clerk this _ day of
2006.
City Clerk
Rochester, Minnesota
19a6s51 v1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/6/06
3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Reports & Recommendations: City Administration F:-
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement Castleview Apartments (Salvation Army) PREPARED BY:
D. Knott
A Development Assistance Agreement between the City of Rochester and Castelview Apartments Limited
Partnership has been prepared for the construction of a mixed use low income housing project located at 118 North
Broadway (the Salvation Army is the general partner in the limited partnership). The project consists of a four-story
building containing the 32 units of low income efficiency apartments located above the Salvation Army medical and
dental clinic. Sixteen of the apartments are intended for the homeless and disabled with the remaining sixteen units
targeted to very low income entry level workers. The project is in conformance with the City's zoning ordinance
requirements and no rezoning or variances are required.
The major provisions contained in the Agreement are outlined below:
Responsibilities of the Developer: Subject to unavoidable delays, construction of the project is to be complete by
December 31, 2007. Upon completion, the project will have a market value of at least $2,500,000. This is a
Housing Tax Increment Financing District and 100% of the residential units in the project must be occupied by
individuals whose income is 60% or less than the area median gross income. hi accordance with the TIF Statute, no
more than 20% of the total square footage in the project may be used for non-residential uses.
Citv's Responsibility: If approved by Council, the City will provide TIF assistance in a principal amount of
$285,000 at an interest rate of 6%. The assistance is provided on a "pay as you go" basis with semi annual payments
to the developer starting February 1, 2009. Payments on the TIF note are made solely from the available tax
increments. If the increments are insufficient to make such payment, there is no additional liability on the part of the
City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for the execution of a Development Assistance Agreement with Castleview Apartments
Limited Partnership by the Mayor & City Clerk for the Castleview (# 35) Tax Increment Financing project
** Please note that a copy of the Development has not been included in the packet due to its length.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING +"4
DATE: 11-06-06
1GENDA SECTION:
tESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
PLANNING
DEPT:
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #06-05 was adopted by the PREPARED BY:
Council on August 21, 2006. The second reading occurred September 18, 2006. The Phil Wheeler, AICP
attached ordinance makes additional minor clarifying revisions to the version approved on Planning Director
September 18.
November 2, 2006
The ordinance adopted in September used as a base the version of the LDM prior to another set of
amendments approved earlier this year. The attached ordinance makes the minor corrections needed to
bring the ordinance completely up to date.
!,I b
Council Action Needed: Approve the revised ordinance.
Attachments: Ordinance amendment text.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
/7
T,
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 3
AND 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 3787 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. On September 18, 2006, the Common Council of the City of Rochester
adopted Ordinance No. 3787 relating to development occurring on or near the Decorah -
Platteville -Glenwood geological formations in the City of Rochester. This ordinance, known as
the "Decorah Edge Ordinance," has been studied, researched and redrafted numerous times
during the past year.
Section 2. Sections 3 and 4 of Ordinance No. 3787 amended Sections 61.214 and
61.215, respectively. However, on June 5, 2006, the Council amended Sections 61.214 and
61.215 in Ordinance No. 3772. At the time the Council adopted Ordinance No. 3772, the
"Decorah Edge Ordinance" (Ordinance No. 3787) was still undergoing numerous drafts and
changes. When the Council ultimately adopted Ordinance No. 3787, that ordinance mistakenly
did not reflect the amendments previously adopted in Ordinance No. 3772. The purpose of this
Ordinance is to amend Ordinance No. 3787 so as to reflect the amendments adopted in
Ordinance No. 3772.
Section 3. Accordingly, the Common Council amends Ordinance No. 3787 so that
Section 3 thereof reads as follows:
Section 3. Section 61.214 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
61.214 Submission Criteria
Subdivision 1. Appendix B outlines the information that 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, parks, open space and pattern of future streets within
the development, and possible off -site drainage situations affecting other
tracts within 500 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land
subdivision. The City Engineer may reduce the distance subject to a
drainage analysis to 200 feet where stormwater is channeled into an
existing drainage facility that is designed to carry projected runoff and is
located within 200 feet of the site, or where the drainage plan is found to be
consistent with the Stormwater Management Plan, or adopted drainage and
stormwater policies.
Subd. 2. In addition to the information required in subdivision 1 of
this section, every application for a General Development Plan must show
one of the following:
A. The proposed development is bounded on all sides by arterial
or higher level streets, streams or other topographic
constraints, 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 provide the information
required by Chapter 59.
Section 4. The Common Council also amends Ordinance No. 3787 so that Section 4
thereof reads as follows:
Section 4. Section 61.215 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
61.215 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan:
In approving a general development plan, the Council must make each of
the following findings:
A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the
adopted zoning map. If the general development plan is
being processed concurrently with a rezoning request, the
general development plan and the rezoning request must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the general
development plan is being processed concurrently with an
amendment to the land use plan map and a rezoning
request, the land use plan map amendment, rezoning
request and general development plan must be consistent
with the policies of the comprehensive plan. If there is
inconsistency between these documents, the means for
reconciling the differences must be addressed.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density,
access and circulation, is compatible with the existing and/or
permissible future use of adjacent property.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and
Housing Plans.
D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital
improvements and streets reflected in the City of
Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program,
adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range
Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public
facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system
improvements required to accommodate proposed land
uses and projected background traffic are compatible with
the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use
Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be
adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the
properties under consideration and will provide access to
adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of
those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
1. Street system adequacy must be based on the street
system's ability to safely accommodate trips from
existing and planned land uses on the existing and
proposed street system without creating safety
hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks
driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on
any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if
required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from
improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP
must be included in the assessment of adequacy.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of
the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester
is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the
area of the proposed development and such utilities
are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year
Capital Improvements Program, or that other
arrangements (contractual, development agreement,
performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure
that adequate utilities will be available concurrently
with development. If needed utilities will not be
available concurrent with the proposed development,
the applicant for the development approval must
stipulate to a condition that no development will occur
and no further development permit will be issued until
concurrency has been evidenced.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities must be based
on the level of service standards in Section 64.130
and the proposed phasing plan for development.
F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be
handled through normal engineering and construction
practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more
detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
G. Wetlands and Edge Support Areas (as defined in Chapter 59)
will be managed consistent with Chapter 59 and, where
applicable, in such a way as to maintain the quality and
quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to
protect discharge, interflow, infiltration, and recharge
processes taking place; provided, however, that the Council
may waive this requirement under the provisions of Chapter
59.
H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the
lot density for residential development are consistent with
the subdivision design standards contained in Section
64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
I. If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a Type
III Land Subdivision Permit, the proposed development must
satisfy one of the following categories of development:
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
Section 5.
by this Ordinance.
2006.
Section 6.
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.
The remainder of Ordinance No. 3787 remains in effect and is not affected
This ordinance is declared to be retroactive and effective as of October 1,
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
O�OpSAme�w 9?Bi
2006.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
2006.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 1 I /6/06
ENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
G
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
TER INS
Y K
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
�a) An Ordinance Annexing To The City Of Rochester Approximately 42.09 Acres Of Land Located In A Part
Of The West Half Of The
Northeast Quarter Of Section 19, Township 106 North, Range 13 West,
This is located north of Highway 52 and south of Pinewood Road
Olmsted County, Minnesota.
property
S.E.
b) An Ordinance Amending And Reenacting Section 106A.03 OF The Rochester Code Of Ordinances,
Sp Relating To Ownership Limits For Dogs, Cats and Ferrets.
G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS
/ "
y
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by: to: