Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER �� COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 31 DECEMBER 11, 2006 7:00 P.M. REGULAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 3-4 5-10 1) 2) Recognize Fred Regal Reconsider Council Action of November 6, 2006, for Disorderly Use Property Violations at 113 Tenth Street N.W. owned by Roger Engholm 11- D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 12 13-14 1) 2) Approval of Minutes Request for Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Rochester Home Rule Charter, Section 3.01, relating to partisan ballots 15-16 3) for city elected officials Annexation of Property in Haverhill Township — Final Portion of Hawthorn 17-18 4) Hills Golf Course Amend RCO 106A.05 — Waiver of License Fee for Service Animals 19-20 5) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous City Activities 21-22 6) Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Percent Beer Licenses - Vietnamese Cafe 23-24 7) Approval of Accounts Payable bids for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride and Liquid Aluminum Sulfate 25-26 27-28 8) 9) Accept Request approval of Fire Fighter Recruitment Ad Campaign Contract 29-30 10) Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons and the City of Rochester Police Department, Rochester Fire Department, Olmsted County Sheriffs Office, State Patrol, Federal Bureau of Investigations, and U.S. Marshall Service 31-32 11) Endorse Rochester Public Library Board of Trustee Resolution 33-34 12) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action 35-40 13) Consideration of Public Utility Board Request 41-42 14) Professional Services Agreement: Traffic Signal TH 63 (Broadway Avenue) at 4fh St South, J6023 Council Agenda Monday, December 11, 2006 Page 2 of 3 43-46 15) Blind Child Sign Installation Request Mr. Chris Strangstalien, 949 40th Street N.W. 47-48 16) Supplemental Agreement #2 Project #6350-4-99 (J9578) 501t' Ave. and 55` St. N.W. 49-50 17) Revocable Permit: Lots 1-9, Block 3, Fieldstone Second Subdivision — Amenities within Right of Way and Easement Areas 51-52 18) Highway Maintenance Agreement between Olmsted County and the City of Rochester 53-54 19) W RP — 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 6 55-56 20) WRP-2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 7 E) HEARINGS 57-58 1) 2007 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing 59-60 2) Consider the Issuance of Housing Facility and Revenue Bonding assisted by the City of Rochester for the Wedum Shorewood Campus, LLC, City of Oronoco. 61-68 3) Type III, Phase I Variance #06-22 by Williams Family Partnership for propert located east of the Menard South Store, east of the current terminus of 28t Street SE and north of TH52 69-108 4) Type III Phase III Conditional Use Permit #06-29 by Williams Family Partnership 109-120 5) Final Plat #06-27 to be known as Soldier Field Plaza North, by TRCH Plaza, Inc. 121-132 6) Final Plat #06-28 to be known as Cascade Shores, by Cascade Shores LLC 133-134 7) Consider the Expansion of Residential Permit Parking Zone 6 on 81h Avenue SW between 7'h Street SW and 8`h Street SW. F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 135-136 1) First Street Plaza Design Fees 137-142 2) Capital Improvement Projects — Transfer of Funds 143-146 3) Sewer Rate and Plant Investment Fees for 2007-2009 G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 147-148 H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT ROCHESTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEETING. Council Agenda Monday, December 11, 2006 Page 3 of 3 ROCHESTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE DECEMBER 11, 2006 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 149-150 1) Resolution Establishing Reimbursement Bond Procedures to Comply with IRS Regulations 151-152 2) Design Contract HGA 153-154 3) Purchase Agreement Mayo Clinic REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/11/06 ENDASECTION: COMMENT PERIOD ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR jN0.OPEN IPREPARED ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD BY:VOLD 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. �A/f _ /� h Q'd.> A X_k COUNCIL ACTION: Mofion by Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/1 A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT. ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions Mayor's Office 1 0 Ir' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Recognize Fred Regal rmarAm�u c Mayor Brede Recognize Fred Regal and family (Regal Catering) for preparing and serving Thanksgiving Dinner to international guests for Mayor's International Affairs Committee and Rochester International Association for 20 years. Letters and Petitions REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION City Clerk DEPT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Reconsider Council Action of November 6, 2006 for Diso: Property Violations at 113 Tenth Street N.W. owned by Roger Engholm MEETING DATE: 12/11/06 ITEM LNO. 71- dr- : Use PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr Mr. Engholm has submitted a letter requesting that the Council reconsider the action that the Council took on November 6, 2006, and remove the $3200 fine that was imposed. His letter explains the situation at 113 Tenth Street N.W. and his removal of the renters from the property by the end of November. After the renters had vacated the property, he explains the renovations that he undertook. At the November 60' meeting, the Council took the following action: -Impose a civil fine on Mr. Engholm of $3,200 (or the equivalent of four months rent, whichever is less) to be paid to the City of Rochester by December 6, 2006. -Mr. Engholm must attend the Crime Free Multi -housing Program conducted by the Police Department. -Directed the Director of Building Safety to refer to the City Attorney for possible criminal prosecution any allegation that the property owner is renting the property without having obtained a valid rental registration certificate by November 18, 2006, and -complete an inventory of any other rental property of Mr. Enghohn for current rental certificates to be referred directly to the City Attorney if incomplete. Gary Dutton, Building Safety, has indicated that they are waiting on an electrical inspection on some hardwired smoke detectors. The Certificate will not be issued until the issue is resolved. (e- mail attached) Darrell Hildebrandt, Crime Prevention Unit, has indicated that he has had no contact with Mr. Engholm since the November 6, 2006, Council meeting. Mr. Engholm has not pre -registered for the Crime Free Multi -Housing class scheduled for Spring 2007. Mr. Hildebrandt said that it is his feeling that the Council should not reconsider the action that they took. (letter atttaa be ) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council may: 1) Reduce or remove the fine and other conditions placed on Mr. Engholm, 2) Place additional requirements on Mr. Engholm to bring the rental property in compliance, 3) Take no action on the request for reconsideration of the November 6, 2006, action. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Regular Meeting No. 26 — November 6, 2006 D-2 Councilmember Means asked if there would be other requests for the Pandemic Flu Supplies. Fire Chief Dave Kapler explained that these supplies will be for all departments in the city. Councilmember Means moved, Marcoux seconded, to approve purchasing supplies for a possible pandemic flu outbreak for $30,000 from the 2006 Contingency Account. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. D-20- City Attorney Terry Adkins wanted clarification that these contracts would not be 21 presented for signatures by the City Clerk and Mayor until the final Grading Plans have been approved as indicated on the RCA. Councilmember Marcoux moved, Snyder seconded to adopt Resolution No. 570-06 approving City Owner Contract for J-5250, "Public Improvements to serve Rochester Towne Club Villas" with one condition and adopted Resolution No. 571-06 approving City Owner Contract for J- 5250, "Public Improvements to Serve Rochester Towne Club Village" with one condition. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. E-1 A Hearing issuing Revenue Bonds to the City of Plainview on behalf of YMCA for a project to be located in Rochester. Wishing to be heard was Dean Stenehjem, 812-18'" Avenue NE representing the YMCA. Mr. Stenehjem explained that Rochester is the hosting community for tax- exempt community development funds for the City of Plainview activities. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing. Councilmember Blenker moved, Nowicki seconded to adopt Resolution No. 572-06 consenting to the financing of the Project for the Rochester's YMCA. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. E-2 j A Hearing on Disorderly Use property violations at 113 — 10'" Street NW owned by Roger Engholm. Wishing to be heard was Cora Day, 111 10'" Street NW. Ms. Day stated she has approached the occupants of the building in regards to the foul language and late night noise to no avail. She asked that the owner of the property be required to screen his renters more thoroughly. Wishing to be heard was Tracie Johnson, 922 2nd Ave. NW. Ms. Johnson also spoke about the disturbances at the residence and felt the landlord should be accountable for the problems. She stated she has seen an improvement since the notice of this hearing and the new renters. Wishing to be heard was Ron Boose, Building Safety Director. Mr. Boose stated that at this time the property does not have a valid rental certificate. This was discovered through the disorderly use violations with the police department. Mr. Engholm had an initial inspection on October 12"' with a deadline to correct violations set for November 17'h. He mentioned that it appears to be occupied at this time. Attorney Adkins asked for clarification that the issue before the Council is in regards to disorderly use complaints brought on by Rental Housing Complaint Board not by non-compliance issue with the Building Safety Department. Mr. Boose I Regular Meeting No. 26 — November 6, 2006 confirmed that Building Safety would file a complaint only if there is non-compliance once the November 17'" deadline has passed. Wishing to be heard was Darrell Hildebrandt, Police Department, Advanced Crime Prevention Unit. Officer Hildebrandt outlined the time line for contacts made to Mr. Engholm and his insufficient compliance with requests. Councilmember Snyder asked how it is determined what action is taken and when. Mr. Boose replied that they work with the property owner as long as they continue a good -faith effort. The concern of the council is that people are renting a home that may not be safe because of being out of compliance with safety issues. Wishing to be heard was Richard Lilla, 808 2nd Avenue NW, President of the Northrup Neighborhood Association. Mr. Lilla wanted to emphasize to the Council that the property owner needs to be held accountable for the issues in the disorderly complaints. Mr. Hildebrandt reported that Mr. Engholm had not attended the Crime Free Multi - Housing Class. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hanson closed the hearing. The Council was concerned with the lack of response by the landlord to the clear violations and disorderly use complaints from the Police Department and Building Safety Department. The house is being rented without a rental certificate that would make the property in compliance with city codes and neighbors are being severely imposed upon with the renters. There was discussion on what options the Council has for addressing the issues. Councilmember Marcoux moved, Means seconded, to impose a civil fine on Mr. Roger Engholm, property owner of 113 10'h Street NW, of $3,200 (or the equivalent of four months rent, whichever is less) to be paid to the City of Rochester by December 6, 2006 and Mr. Engholm must attend the Crime Free Multi -housing Program conducted by the Police Department. Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion carried. Councilmember Marcoux moved, Nowicki seconded to direct Mr. Boose, Director of Building Safety, to refer to the City Attorney for possible criminal prosecution any allegation that the property owner is renting the property without having obtained a valid rental registration certificate by November 18, 2006 and to inform Mr. Engholm, orally and by certified mail of the Councils directions following this council meeting and complete an inventory of any other rental property of Mr. Engholm for current rental certificates to be referred directly to the City Attorney if incomplete. Ayes (7), Nay (0). Motion carried. E-3 A Hearing on Land Use Plan Amendment #06-03 by Weis Development Corp. located between 3rd and 4'h Avenue SE and between 5Ih and 6'h Street SE. Roger Engholm 2145 Marion Road, S.E. a Rochester, MN 55904 Phone 507-280-0453 • Cell Phone 507-951-3325 Skid Loader Work • Bockhoe • Demolition • Construction Clean-up • Concrete Work • Snow Plowing Asphalt • Landscaping • Tree Trimming • Tree Removal • Stump Grinding • Snow & lce Removal Seal Coating • Parking Lot Sweeping Licensed and Insured PToposaVtnvoice Page No. of Pages PROPOSAL SUBMITTED 70 PHONE DATE STREET JOBNAME CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE We hereof issf ore b linnsh maleee6 arvt boor naxsearyfor Via cmnldelion 0 WIN G PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: Payment to be made as toll All material is guaranteed to be as specified- All work to be completed in a substantial workmanlike manner according to specifications submitted. per standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, lomado, and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. Not responsible for ground cover. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and condi- tions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outline above, I Note: This proposal may be 'An - withdrawn by us if not accepted within' L/ �K Signature Date of Acceptance- Signature Ct / ROCHESTER �r„rrsr�.��ta November 29, 2006 Ms. Judy Scherr, City Clerk City of Rochester 201 Fourth Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Ms. Scherr: ROGER PETERSON Chief of Police Rochester Police Department 101 4th St. S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-3761 www.rochestermn.gov As requested, here is my response to the problem property of 113 Tenth Street NW. Mr. Roger Engholm as not been in contact with me since the last council meeting on November 6, 2006. He has not called, written, e-mailed or stop by the office. He has not pre -registered for the Crime Free Multi -Housing class in the spring of 2007, either. The last correspondence from Mr. Engholm was September 5, 2006, when I called and asked for a written response to the second disorderly use notice I sent him. You asked me for my feelings about this problem; I hope that the City Council Members hold tight to their original motion on the fine. This gentleman is playing the system, as he had several other properties with rental certificates and tried to get by without one for this property in question. He has never attended a public hearing and now that he is getting hit in the pocketbook, he will start to comply. The police are having problems at his other properties as well. There have been numerous calls for service. We have not seen the last of Mr. Engholm, until he starts doing criminal background checks and screening his potential tenants better. I have several other landlords on there second disorderly use notice and I am sure if they don't clean up their acts they will be appearing before the City Council and we need to show them the City Council stands behind the Disorderly Use Ordinance. (__%incorely, Darrel Hildebrant Advanced Crime Prevention and CPTED Specialist Rochester Police Department 101 SE 4 Street Rochester, MN 55904 281-6056 - - I- __- ___,___ Page 1 of I f W Scherr, Judy From: Dutton, Gary Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:15 PM To: Scherr, Judy Subject: 113 10 ST NW Engholm HI Judy, I checked the rental file for the property at 113 10 ST NW owned by Roger Engholm. The only thing we are waiting on is an electrical inspection on some hardwired smoke detectors that were permitted, installed, but need to be inspected. The electrical inspector was scheduled but no one was home to let him in. We will hold the certificate until that issue is resolve. Thanks, Gary Dutton Manager Of Housing Inspection Services (507)281-6255 dq utton(a ci rochester.nnn.us t 1 r�Ri�nn� 3ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING " I ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS DATE: 1� ITEM NO. D-1-20 PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: 1) Approval of Minutes 2) Request for Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Rochester Home Rule Charter, Section 3.01, relating to partisan ballots for city elected officials 3) Annexation of Property in Haverhill Township — Final Portion of Hawthorn Hills Golf Course 4) Amend RCO 106A.05 — Waiver of License Fee for Service Animals 5) Licenses, Bonds and Miscellaneous City Activities 6) Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Percent Beer Licenses - Vietnamese Cafe 7) Approval of Accounts Payable 8) Accept bids for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride and Liquid Aluminum Sulfate ,9) Request approval of Fire Fighter Recruitment Ad Campaign Contract 10) Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons and the City of Rochester Police Department, Rochester Fire Department, Olmsted County Sheriffs Office, State Patrol, Federal Bureau of Investigations, and U.S. Marshall Service 11) Endorse Rochester Public Library Board of Trustee Resolution 12) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action 13) Consideration of Public Utility Board Request 14) Professional Services Agreement: Traffic Signal TH 63 (Broadway Avenue) at 4t' St South, J6023 15) Blind Child Sign Installation Request Mr. Chris Strangstalien, 949 40th Street N.W. -16) Supplemental Agreement #2 Project #6350-4-99 (J9578) 50`h Ave. and 55t�' St. N.W. 17) Revocable Permit: Lots 1-9, Block 3, Fieldstone Second Subdivision — Amenities within Right of Way and Easement Areas 18) Highway Maintenance Agreement between Olmsted County and the City of Rochester 19) WRP — 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 6 20) WRP — 2004 Plant Upgrade (J4390) Change Order No. 7 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CHARTER COMMISSION 3� MEETING DATE: 12t11106 ITEM NO. D - 2-- =M DESCRIPTION: Request for public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Rochester PREPAI Home Rule Charter, Section 3.01, relating to partisan ballots for city elected offices. Charter The City's population growth makes it likely that Rochester will become a city of the first class following the 2010 federal census. The state municipal election law, in particular Minn. Stat. Section 205.17, Subd. 2, provides that cities of the first class shall use partisan election ballots for the positions of mayor and councilmember. State law allows a city of the first class to 'opt out" of this requirement by providing so in its charter. The Charter Commission believes it inappropriate and not in the citizens' best interest to have municipal ballots that include political partisanship designations. Therefore, it is requested that Section 3.01 be amended as follows: SECTION 3.01. (Elections general provisions: ballots). Subdivision 1. All regular, primary and special elections shall be held as provided by the general laws of the State of Minnesota relating to elections except as herein otherwise provided. Subd. 2. Partisan ballots shall not be used in any election for any city elective office. Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Amendment of a charter may be made only after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment. Following the hearing, the council may adopt the ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members, jbject to the public's right to object by petition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, direct the City Clerk to publish notice of a public hearing to be held Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following that hearing, the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. :OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1/ / DATE: 12/11/06 Consent Agenda City Clerk ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation of Property in Haverhill Township - Final Portion of PREPARED Hawthorne Hills Golf Course I Judy Scherr This property is the final piece of land needed for the Hawthorn Hills Golf Learning Center (No. 3 on the attached map). The other two pieces of property were previously annexed from Cascade and Haverhill Townships. This particular piece was not annexed at the same time due to the fact that the Municipal Boundary Adjustments Office told us that the property has to be contiguous to previously annexed property. The property is city -owned and classified as tax-exempt on the Olmsted County real estate property system. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED A motion to adopt the ordinance for annexation for the City's property as part of the Hawthorn Hills Golf Learning Center and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance for adoption. It is requested that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be given a first and second reading. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: \11P 0 0 N co U N N a LL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ( I / AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda City Clerk ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amend RCO 106A.05 - Waiver of License Fee for Service Animals DATE: 12/11/06 REM NO. �)-4 Judy Scherr Several requests have been received by the City Clerk's Office asking if the animal license fee can be waived for service dogs and/or other animals. Information was solicited from other cities including Anoka, Alden, St. Paul and Grand Rapids as to the language contained in their ordinances for waiver of fees. The St. Paul ordinance states: Any properly identified service dog which aids persons who are totally or partially blind or deaf or have physical or sensory disabilities shall be issued a dog license at no charge upon providing proof of certification of training as a service dog. It is recommended that the City adopt the language provided in the St. Paul ordinance adding at the end of the sentence: "....and proof of a current rabies vaccination." The Police Department is in agreement with the recommendation as stated. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion amending RCO 106A.05 waiving the license fee of certified service animals and instructing the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING � I - AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, CITY CLERK & MISCELLANEOUS CITY DATE: 12/11/06 ITEM NO. BETHANY GERBER BY: 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. SINGLE GAMBLING Booker Mini Foundation 415 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Held at the Rochester International Event Center 12/15/06 Child Care Resource and Referral 126 Woodlake Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Held at the Graham Arena 04/27/07 TEMPORARY ON SALE LIQUOR Rochester Public Library Foundation 1012 d Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Held at the Rochester Public Library 01/13/07 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to approve the above city licenses, bonds and miscellaneous city activities. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ` DATE: 12/11/06 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk O. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Percent Beer Licenses - Vietnamese Cafe EPREPAREDBY: cherr An application for Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Percent Beer licenses has been received from Trang and Dung Nguyen for their restaurant, the Vietnamese Cafe, located at 1014 North Broadway. The Nguyen's are planning on opening the Vietnamese Cafe approximately December 20, 2006. The restaurant will serve 45 to 50 patrons. Approval is pending receipt of the required insurance certificates, departmental approvals and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Safety Department. A confidential investigation has been successfully returned from the Police Department on Trang and Dung Nguyen. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve a Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Percent Beer licenses for Trang and Dung Nguyen for the Vietnamese Cafe located at 1014 North Broadway pending receipt of the required documents and approvals. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A/� DATE: 12/11 /06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Finance Department ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Approval of Accounts Payable Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of $1,495,406.25 Accounts payable of $12 369,117.55 Total disbursements $13,864,523.80 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: Consent Agenda REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department MEETING 'y DATE: 12 ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Accept bids for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride and Liquid Aluminum PREPARED BY: Sulfate Jennifer King The Water Reclamation Plant requests approval to accept the low bids for a one year's supply of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Anhydrous Ferric Chloride: LIQUID ALUMINUM SULFATE — approximately 600 tons. General Chemical $171,000 C & S Chemical $131,400 PVS Technologies No Bid Hawkins, Inc. No Bid Kemiron Companies No Bid Nalco Company No Bid Accept the General Chemical proposal as low bid. ANHYDROUS FERRIC CHLORIDE — approximately 500 tons. Hawkins, Inc. $202,000 C & S Chemical No bid Kemiron Companies No bid PVS Technologies S212,000 General Chemical No bid Nalco Company No bid Accept the Hawkins, Inc. proposal as low bid. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Accept C & S Chemical as low bid for a one-year supply of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Hawkins, Inc. as low bid for a one-year supply of Anhydrous Ferric Chloride based on approximate quantities. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a contract with C & S Chemical for Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and a contract with Hawkins, Inc. for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride as specified. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A DATE: 12/11 /2006 AGENDA >nsent ORIGINATING FIRE ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request approval of Fire Fighter Recruitment Ad Campaign Contract. ITEM NO. a �- I PREPARED L. Felsch The Fire Department requests approval of a $13,500 expenditure for Mark It Advertising services through 2007. The attached contract provides complete marketing services for the Fire Department Recruitment Campaign for 2007. We expect the recruitment project to be carried forward through the next two entrance test periods, or through 2009. The proposal offers a substantial cost saving of more than $15,000 over paying for "piece meal' services that would normally total nearly twice that amount. There is an additional 10% in savings for payment now rather than through monthly billing. The expertise provided by Mark It Advertising to date on this project has exceeded expectations and has been all around most favorable. The vender costs needed for printing ads or purchasing media space is not included in this contract, but has been provided for in the Fire Department 2007 budget request as submitted. We anticipate the 2007 recruitment campaign to include the launch of an informational website www.becomeafireflahter.com which will provide an abundance of information and links to other sites that will help potential fire fighter candidates prepare for the entrance examination process. Rack cards and print ads will be located in schools, colleges, gyms, armories and other places frequented by young dults, with emphasis on those sites frequented by members of the protected classes. Radio and TV PSAs will also be produced to be aired at strategic times and venues to be most effective in reaching the target audiences. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Request approval. %/ <c COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 10 DATE: 12/11/06 ITEM NO. cmuU Qca I rv,.. ` T Consent Agenda Police V ITEM DESCRIPTION Memorandum of Understanding between the US DOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons PREP A IED on. and the City of Rochester Police Department, Rochester Fire Department, Olmsted Count Sheriffs Office, State Patrol, Federal Bureau of Investigations, and U.S. Marshall Service The Rochester Police Department seeks permission to enter into an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the USDOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons to facilitate the Federal Medical Center and the City of Rochester Police Department providing each other emergency assistance. For purposes of this MOU, a law enforcement emergency is typically an unusual situation which requires law enforcement intervention, and which is, or which threatens to be, of serious proportions, and state and local resources are inadequate to protect the lives and property of citizens or to enforce the criminal law in a situation identified as requiring prompt action. The goal of the MOU is to establish and ensure an effective and efficient response to emergency assistance requested by the City of Rochester Police Department. The intent of the MOU is to allow the City to be able to respond very quickly to many types of emergency situations by developing authorization procedures for basic Federal assistance. Any party participating in the MOU may terminate its involvement at any time by written notice of termination to all other parties. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Police Department requests approval to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center. It is requested that the council authorize the Mayor, City Clerk, and /or Chief of Police, and/or Fire Chief to sign the Memorandum of Understanding. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester Public Library M DESCRIPTION: Endorse Rochester Public Library Board of Trustee Resolution MEETING 2, DATE: 12/11 /2006 ✓ ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Audrey Belcher At the October 18"' Library Board meeting, the Rochester Public Library Board of Trustees had a long discussion about a Minnesota Library Association platform plank: MLA/MEMO seeks an annual increase of $5,000,000 for Regional Public Library Basic System Support for a total annual appropriation of $13,570,000. This funding will maintain current service levels and will also support increased costs for delivery of library materials between libraries which has increased significantly because of direct requests utilizing the MnLINK Gateway. There has not been a significant funding increase for RLBSS since 1992. After discussion, the Library Board voted to recommend that 75% of any new money allocated in federated regions be passed through to local public libraries. We request that the attached resolution be endorsed by the City Council. An additional direct funding stream is mutually beneficial for both the city and the library, and the state MnLINK project has had an impact on local budgets, so it makes sense for the state dollars to directly assist the local public libraries. t,OUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Endorse the Rochester Public Library Board of Trustees Resolution in Support of Regional Library System Support. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 01 Rochester Public Library Board of Trustees Resolution in Support of Regional Library System Support in order to strengthen local delivery of public library services thoughout Minnesota, the Rochester Public Library Board of Trustees supports an increase of $5,000,000 for Regional Public Library Basic System Support for a total annual appropriation of $13,570,000. This increase will assist local public libraries and regional public library systems meet the increased demands for staffing and support services, such as delivery, resulting from the success of the MnLINK system. in federated library systems, 75% of this new funding must be passed directly through to local city and county public libraries. Distribution of this funding must be based on a city's or county's percentage of the total regional population. The remaining funding may be used at the regional level to maintain current cooperative service levels and to support increased costs for delivery. Because there has not been a significant funding increase for RLBSS since 1992, local property taxes have been forced to increase to support library services at the city and county level. Approved unanimously on October 18, 2006 Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date. 1211/06 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ' Rochester Public Utilities Consent Agenda PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on November 28, 2006 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Burmeister Electric Co. for the - to approve purchase of 4,500 single phase residential electric meters in 2007. The amount of the agreement is $202,500. GENERAL MANAGER: COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: t Agenda Item # FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 11128106 SUBJECT: Consideration of Bids Purchase of Single Phase Residential Electric Meters for 2007 PREPARED BY: Dan Sturm, Supervisor of Technical Services ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bids for purchase of single phase residential electric meters in 2007 were received on October 20, 2006. Four bids were received (see the attached bid tabulation) of which Burmeister Electric Co. was the low bidder with a bid of $202,500.00 for 4,500 meters for 2007. This is a 2007 budget item, normal and routine for essential stock materials. Approval of this purchase is being requested prior to the overall approval of the 2007 budget. This purchase order needs to be executed in a timely fashion to continue delivery of monthly shipments after the first of the year to avoid a shortage of material. If the 2007 budget is not approved as anticipated this approval will be null and void. The anticipated 2007 Electric Utility budget includes $243,000.00. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: Staff recommends the Utility Board accept the low bid and request the Common Council to approve a one year purchase order with Burmeister Electric Co. in the amount of $202,500 for the purchase of residential electric meters for 2007.. X1' dd" 'tz7c"E Gen6fal Manager Efate a< Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date. 1?111/06 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATINGDEPT: ITEM& 13 Rochester Public Utilities Consent Agenda ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Kathy Wilson Consideration of Public Utility Board Request Rochester Public Utilities requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: - To approve a resolution to acquire permanent electric service rights to areas annexed to the City of Rochester subsequent to January 1, 2001 as described in the December 4, 2006 memorandum by Larry Koshire, RPU General Manager. e GENERAL MANAGER: llc"`t"""" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: i r u� t' we pledge, Hie deliver (507) 280-1601 E-mail: ]koshire@rpu.org DATE: December 4, 2006 General Manager's Office MEMORANDUM TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: LarryKoshire SUBJECT: Intent to Acquire Permanent Electric Service Rights to Areas Annexed to the City of Rochester Subsequent to January 1, 2001 Following the completion of various legal proceedings during the early 1990's, the City was able to obtain permanent electric service rights from People's Cooperative Services through negotiated settlements for a number of years (Four such settlements were executed for annexations completed between mid-1995 and December, 2000). Since 2000, RPU staff and People's representatives have met on numerous occasions to discuss settlement against the backdrop of several Public Utility Commission decisions involving other cities. As the Commission tended toward increasingly larger compensation awards for the co-ops, the gap between RPU's and People's position became pronounced (Other cities have subsequently turned to the statutory alternative of acquiring rights through condemnation in the district court, rather than an administrative proceeding before the PUC. However, RPU and People's have continued discussions and met this past August to explore options for settlement. People's committed to providing a settlement proposal to RPU at that meeting. While continuing to wait for a proposal on settlement of the transfer of permanent service rights, the City recently petitioned the PUC for interim rights. In their response to the petition, People's stated that negotiations for permanent rights "have failed." While we did not realize that People's delay in providing a proposal constituted "failed" negotiations, People's now purports that the lack of a settlement foreshadows a lack of commitment on the part of the City to actually acquire permanent rights. The Department of Commerce and People's have asked the Commission to deny interim rights to the City in the absence of a proceeding for permanent rights. Given People's position that negotiations have failed, it is necessary that the City pursue permanent service rights through a PUC or condemnation proceeding. Legal counsel is weighing the City's options and ,�sxill make a recommendation in the near future. In the meantime, legal counsel needs to address in its December 12 response to the PUC the concerns raised by People's and the Department of Commerce that the "failed" negotiations and absence of a proceeding for permanent rights are indications that the City lacks the willpower to pay the ultimate compensation award and are cause for denying the City's petition for interim rights. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 Facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.org Stevan Kvenvold December 4, 2006 Page 2 The attached Request for Council Action is intended to affirm the City's commitment to exercise its statutory right and longstanding policy to obtain permanent service rights to all annexed areas. Upon execution, the Council Resolution would be included with the City's December 12 response to the PUC. Dick Landwehr, RPU Board President Terry Adkins, Rochester City Attorney LJK:kaw 8 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER REGARDING OBTAINING PERMANENT ELECTRIC SERVICE TERRITORY RIGHTS WHEREAS, the City of Rochester ("City") has the legal authority to own and operate an electric utility providing electricity to its citizens; and, WHEREAS, the City has implemented this authority under the auspices of Rochester Public Utilities ("RPU") which operates, controls and manages the City's electric utility; and, WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a public project of annexing certain lands into the City and planning to provide City utilities and services for the benefit of the public, including streets, sewer, water, electricity, police, and other City services; and, WHEREAS, the City has an established, longstanding practice of providing electric service to all areas annexed into the City; and, WHEREAS, the City has no desire or intention to deviate from the well -established past practice of providing electric service to all areas annexed into the City; and, WHEREAS, the City has authorized RPU to file a petition with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, MPUC Docket No. E299,E132/SA-06-1475, seeking the right to provide electric service to appropriate areas annexed into the City since January 1, 2001, pending a decision on final compensation, often called interim service. This action occurred with the knowledge and at the direction of the Rochester City Council; and, WHEREAS, in that interim service proceeding, a question arose as to the City's intention to seek permanent electric service territory rights to the areas at issue; and, WHEREAS, the City would respond to this question by immediately implementing its intention to seek permanent electric service territory rights to the areas at issue were it not for the timing of the question. Currently, members of the Rochester City Council are attending the National League of Cities Conference in Reno, Nevada. Upon their return to Rochester next week, the Council will immediately begin its three-week long process of adopting its budget for 2007. A number of Council meetings and public hearings are scheduled to occur during the remainder of December. Because of Council's temporary absence from the City, the numerous meetings and hearings scheduled for the remainder of the month as well as the upcoming holidays, time does not allow the Council to immediately take the necessary steps to seek permanent electric service territory rights to the areas at issue; and, WHEREAS, although time does not permit the Council the ability to formally seek permanent electric service territory rights before the end of 2006, the Council does want to )ubliciy state its intentions to take those very steps in the very near future. For that reason, the Council adopts this Resolution as to its intention. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the City has every intention to seek permanent electric service rights for the subject annexed areas consistent with its long established policy of providing electric service to all areas annexed into the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council intends to fully implement its intention to provide permanent electric service to these areas by January 31, 2007. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2006. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2006, MAYOR OF SAID (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) ResMResoluPe"ElecSewim 3°1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 41 , DATE: 12-11-06 ;ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works t-1A4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement: Traffic Signal TH 63 PREPARED BY: (Broadway Avenue) at 4 h St South, J6023 f"!N"yG. Shannon In February 2005 the City retained SRF Consulting Group to perform a traffic study on the Broadway (TH 63) corridor downtown to identify improvements both for safety and congestion. The final report recommends short-term (2006) and long-term (2015) improvements. This report lists the 4th St South signal modifications as a short term improvement recommendation to reduce congestion and improve traffic operations through the addition of left -turn protected/permitted phasing. There are heavy pedestrian movements at this intersection and considerable left turn movements. The current signal design does not allow the left -turn movements a separate phase and the resulting conflict with pedestrians and approaching vehicles severely limits the number of left turning vehicles that can clear the intersection each cycle, resulting in congestion and vehicle queuing. The modification of this signal to allow protected/permitted left turns would increase the number of vehicles that can clear this intersection per cycle, reducing congestion and delays for vehicles at this intersection. HNTB Corporation has provided a proposal for professional services for design of the traffic signal modifications and signing/pavement markings required for the new lane assignments for a lump sum amount of exceed $7,106. A signal plan is required to obtain Mn/DOT approval to modify a signal system on their highway and to obtain the state aid matching funds for the project. Mn/DOT staff has been involved with the Broadway corridor traffic study, and have provided favorable review of the study recommendations and support for this signal modification. Construction of the signal modifications would proceed upon approval of the signal modification plan. This project is included in the 2006 City CIP, p. 44, item 6, J6006, with 50% city funding from municipal state -aid, and 50% funding from the state. The South Broadway & 4th St traffic signal project has been assigned J6023 to track specific project costs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution approving entering into a professional services agreement with HNTB Corporation in an amount of $7,106 for professional design services for a traffic signal at S Broadway Ave (TH 63) and 4th Street S, J6023. Attachments: - Agreement for Professional Services COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 1ENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Blind Child Sign Installation Request Mr. Chris Strangstalien; 949 40th Street NW MEETING A3 DATE: 1 P- /2006 ITEM NO. PARED BY: G.Shannon Background information: In September of this year, a request was received from Mr- Chris Stangstalien for the placement of a "Blind Child" warning sign. The request was denied and a letter was sent explaining the reasons why this sign would not be installed. Follow up conversations with the requestor and City Council member, Sandra Means leads to the request for this sign to be presented to the City Council for action. Recommendation: Since this is a non-standard sign that is not contained in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, And Since City Ordinance 130.05 indicates that "All traffic control devices authorized by the traffic engineer shall conform to the state manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices." And since the erection of this sign is contrary to the past practice for the installation of these specialized, non-standard signs. And since people move and we have no method to determine when the conditions used to justify the installation for these signs has changed, We therefore, cannot support the installation of the "Blind Child" signs and recommend the denial of this request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Deny the request to place "Blind Child" signs at the premises of Mr. Chris Strangstalien; 949 40th Street NW Attached: J Petition e-mail f T ­t. Denial Letter COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second nox From: Strangstalien, Christopher B SSG NGMN [mailto:Chris.Strangstalien@us.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:55 AM To: Knauer, Tony; Nelson, Doug; Ruona, Keith Subject: RE: REQUEST- CHRIS STRANGSTALIEN Has there been any progress on this? SSG Christopher B. Strangstalien Supply NCO Bravo Company 2-135th Infantry Regiment (Air Assault) 1715 Marion Road SE Rochester, MN 55904-5798 COM (507) 285-7346 GNET 8654 chris.strangstalien@mn.ngb.army.mil From: Knauer, Tony [mailto:tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:06 PM To: Nelson, Doug; Ruona, Keith Cc: Strangstalien, Christopher B SSG NGMN Subject: REQUEST- CHRIS STRANGSTALIEN Mr. Strangstalien is a new resident at 949 40`" ST NW tel 282-2266 and has requested a warning sign on his street cautioning motorists about his daughter who is blind. Fii[}i F.6TF R. ai1M1\y ALL-AN'RTCA ROCHESTER tP /f�/�p p'TEll • Apf.li �S•. October 31, 2006 /UGG�Ta7 E6aLCL Mr. Chris Strangstalien DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 940 401 Street NW 201 4th Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, NIN 55901 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 (507) 287-7800 RE: `Blind Child" Sign Request FAX (507) 2B1-6216 Dear Mr. Strangstalien, Thant- you for your traffic safety concerns. The City of Rochester does not install this type of sign on City streets since it is not enforceable (it is a warning sign) and it can lead to a false sense of security. In addition: A deaf child or blind child sign does not describe to the motorist where the child lives or may be present. Most streets within a residential neighborhood have all ages of children who act and react in different ways and each driver must be aware of all children within a residential neighborhood. • Special signs such as deaf child or blind child provide both children and parents with a false sense of security, and a feeling that these children are safe when playing on or near a street, when playing in the street is obviously an unsafe practice at any time. • Many attempts to attract the driver's attention through the use of unique and unusual signs have been made. Some examples include children at play, domestic animal crossings, and some odd- value advisory safe speed signs. Usually these unique signs are installed as a result of emotional and political pressure. • Unfortunately, the novelty effect soon wears off, the signs become just another part of the landscape, and the signs no longer attract the attention of motorists who regularly pass by them. Their use is discouraged because of both the lack of proven effectiveness and undesirable liability issues. In fact federal standards (the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) strongly discourages the use of such non -uniform signs. I have listed some Web sites below for your information From the Minnesota Department of Transportation: h=�//%,w,A,.dot.state..miL.us/traffictnL/fag/faq-si LmnR.htrnl#m From the City of Jacksonville, Florida: htto //w ww col neUDenartment&Tublic+Works/Trafic+Enoineerine/FAO+Traffic+Sims htm#deaf From the City of Des Moines, Washington: htM7//www desmoin^swa Gov/denUuub works/trausnortation.html Sincerely, Gary Shannon CC: Richard Freese Douglas Nelson Wayne Winter REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 'Al DATE: 12/11 /06 'GENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #2 Project # 6350-4-99 (J9578; 50`h Ave. and 55"' St. N.W. ITEM NO. 2ARED BY: M. Easley to The plans provide for, among other things, the construction of 50th Ave. N.W. from Nicklaus Drive N.W. to 65th St, N.W. The plans further provided that Bike Path be constructed on both sides of 50th Ave. the full length of the project. On the east side of 50th Ave. from Greens Drive N.W. to 55th St. N.W. it was determined that between Right of Way constraints and utility poles in the boulevard, there was not adequate space remaining for the paths construction. This section of roadway abuts developed property and is a direct route for children in the neighborhood to walk to the school on the west side of 50th Ave., therefore establishing the need for the pedestrian facility. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #2 Project # 6350-4-99 (J9578) in the amount of $21,223.02 to cover the cost construction of a 5' Concrete Sidewalk on the east side of 50th Ave. N.W. from Greens Drive N.W. to 55th St. N.W. 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 #2 in the amount of $21,223.02 Project # 6350-4-99 (J9578) 50"' Ave and 55th St. N.W. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 411', DATE: 12111 /06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works - ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: Lots 1-9, Block 3, Fieldstone Second PREBARED BY: Subdivision - Amenities within Right of Way and Easement Areas M. Nigbur GP Development, Inc. (Owner) owns property described as Lots 1-9, Block 3 of Fieldstone Second Subdivision. Owner has requested a Revocable Permit to construct the following amenities: a.Owner will place stamped bituminous in the public road right of way of Fieldstone Drive SW adjacent to the two areas where Outlot A, Fieldstone Second Subdivision intersects with Fieldstone Drive SW and Odyssey Drive SW. b.Owner will place entry signage announcing the subdivision and landscaping in the public utility easement of Lot 9, Block 3, Fieldstone Second Subdivision. c.Owner will place entry signage announcing the subdivision and landscaping in the public utility easement of Lot 1, Block 3, Fieldstone Second Subdivision. d.Owner will place a rain garden with rock wall and various planted berms within the public drainage and utility easement adjacent to Fieldstone Drive SW located within Lots 2-9, Block 3, Fieldstone Second Subdivision. e.Ornamental lighting will be placed throughout Fieldstone Second Subdivision within the public utility easement that is adjacent to Outlot A. The Owner(s) of the above lots will bear all costs associated with the installation, maintenance and repair of said improvements, as well as any damage that may occur to public facilities resulting from said private improvements being located within the public right-of-way. 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. a� �D a Lois t \i' Qac al- --1YFSTov e N O _ G �sro t 3y c COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: L ed Beim WESj--oN PI SW n _ amped Bituminous WOODSTONE DR SW Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit with GP Development, Inc. to allow the construction of entry signage, landscaping, rain garden, rockwall, planted berms and decorative lighting within the various easements and road right-of-way described above within Fieldstone Second Subdivision. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: 51 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12111 /06 IENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING c EPT:Works ITEM' NO. (� CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 1M� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Highway Maintenance Agreement between Olmsted County and PR PARED BY: the City of City of Rochester�r D. Nelson iD. Nelson i The County of Olmsted has transmitted to the City the Annual Highway Maintenance Agreement for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. The County will pay to the City $3,904.00 per mile for the maintenance of 10.65 miles of County highways located within the City of Rochester. This is the same rate as the previous year. All other terms and conditions of the proposed Highway Maintenance Agreement are identical to the previous 12-month agreement. The City Public Works Department recommends approval of the new Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the attached Highway Maintenance Agreement for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 with the County of Olmsted for the maintenance of 10.65 miles of County highways within the City of Rochester. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING n s �rc W-17 �3, • � zlndl2nn6 SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ---A. I Water Reclamation Plat ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Upgrade(J4390) C'hanee Order No. 6 0 ITEM NO: PREPARED BY: I Lvle J. Zimmermatl Bor-Son Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Upgrade Project and there have been several changes required with the work. The changes are required to improve the overall quality of the project and to address items omitted in the contract documents. The following is a list of the changes included in Change Order No. 6: 1. Relocate existing electrical junction box in Polymer Mix Room. (Credit) - $ 7,798.00 $ 10,069.00 2. Delete the Cementitious Coatings in certain designated rooms. $ 3,280.00 3. Insulate existing liquid polymer feed piping. TDS in truck load out area as requested. $ 48,386.00 4. Install additional valves piping 5. Modify concrete pad for modifications to LAP C as necessary .00 $ 8,978.00 8,908.00 as requested. 6. Install three eight inch isolation valve on Low Pressure Gas piping q $ 7. Modify monorail beam for dry polymer to increase hook height. A to improve controls in the headworks. $ 17,166.00 8. Add a PLC to LAP as requested 9. Modify pipe supports for raw sewage piping to avoid a conflict with a louver. $ 3,070.00 10. Provide a solenoid open feedback signals to the computer control system. $ 8,089.00 0.00 11. Relocate the 80 lb air line in the Gas Compressor Room. $ 5,174.00.00 12. Demolition hot water piping to the abandoned Reactor Clarifier. ,17 $ 13. Relocate sink in Gallery to tie to existing drain. roof of Storage Tank 2 to avoid staining. $ 9,378.00 14. Add a water stop between the wall and 15. Provide a concrete ramp in the Grit Building to improve trolley access. $ 3,028.00 16. Modify monorail hoist in the Screenings Building to provide more headroom. to avoid damaging of existing. $17,066.00 $ 16,532.00 17. Add a new 2" conduit to the Maintenance Building to the existing Reactor Clarifier to improve drainage. $ 3,598.00 18. Modify the concrete slab 19. Provide waterstops on Solids Storage Tank No. 2 not shown on drawings. $151,983.00 .00 Total Change Order No. 6. No time extension for contract completion is included with these changes. $32,000,000.00 Original Contract Amount $ 177,927.00 Change Order No. 1 $ 190,337.00 Change Order No. 2 $ 173,435.00 Change Order No. 3 $ 121,237.00 Change Order No. 4 $ 263,265.00 Change Order No. 5 $ 151,817.00 Change Order No. 6 $ 1078,018.00 Total Change Orders $33,078,018.00 Revised Contract Amount Council Action Requested: It is requested that Change Order No. 6 for the 2004 Plant Upgrade Project be approved to increase the contract amount by $ 151,817.00. (J4390) l-nt TNC"TT . AC'TiON Motion Second 1GENDA SECTION: ,onsent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Water Reclamation Pant ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2004 Plant Upgrade(J4390) Change Order No. 7 MEETING 9�5 DATE: 12/04/2006 ITEM NO: b ";�' o PREPARED BY: /..�L Lvle J. Zimmerma y�JT, Bor-Son Construction is continuing with the work on the Plant Upgrade Project and there have been several changes required with the work. The changes are required to improve the overall quality of the project and to address items omitted in the contract documents. The following is a list of the changes included in Change Order No. 7: 1. Modify Local Area Panels Hl and 112. (Credit) - $ 1,906.00 2. Modify Chemical Fill Piping. $ $ 3,594.00 7,754.00 3. Retain Heat Exchanger 6 and tie to High Temperature System. 4. Delete steel beam in Blower Building No. I. (Credit) - $ 436.00 5. Provide level element not shown on drawings. $ $ 3,681.00 6,877.00 6. Change power for polymer mix pump from 120 Volt to 480 Volt. 7. Relocate equipment for larger door opening in Blower Building No. L $ 3,663.00 8. Modify Lower Pressure Digester Gas Piping in Compressor Building. $ 1,157.00 9. Modify piping for Digester Gas Scrubbers. $ $ 7,296,00 694.00 10. Provide 2 inch vents on Thickened Digested Sludge Pipes. $ 1,394.00 11. Provide lugs on MCC 3 to fee MCC 3A. $ 1,826.00 12. Provide water to Polymer Blend Units, not shown on drawings. $ 1,118.00 13. Modify paging system equipment to match existing handsets. 14. Relocate gas monitor in Gas Compressor Room for better coverage. $ $11,530.00 582.00 15. Modify boiler vent piping to fit through existing roof structural members. 16. Provide 115 Volt in lieu of 490 Volt for supply fan in the Screenings Building. $ 3,065.00 17. Remove and reinstall fiber optics conduit to allow installation of 24" Plant Drain. $ 2,361.00 Total Change Order No. 7 $ 54,250.00 No time extension for contract completion is included with these changes. S32'�'�-00 Original Contract Amount 7.00 $ 190,33.00 Change Order No. 1 $ 173,435.00 Change Order No. 2 $ 121,7.00 Change Order No. 3 $ Change Order No. 4 6 ,265 $ 3,2.00 2 Change Order No. 5 $ 15,.00 Change Order No. 6 $ 54,25050.00 Change Order No. 7 $ 1,132,268.00 Total Change Orders $33,132,268.00 Revised Contract Amount Council Action Requested: It is requested that Change Order No. 7 for the 2004 Plant Upgrade Project be approved to increase the contract amount by $ 54,250.00. (J4390) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: i PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administration MEETING ✓ DATE: I2 nrr�vv. L .+_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: TRUTH -IN -TAXATION HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED 2007 1 PREPARtu MY: BUDGET AND TAX LEVY i S. KVENVOLD This is a hearing for the purpose of receiving public input on the proposed 2007 budget and property tax levy for the City of Rochester. The proposed 2007 budget program expenditures of $153,139,221 and would require a property tax levy of $37,500,000. Additional materials pertaining to the proposed 2007 budget will be available to citizens as they enter the Council/Board Chambers. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The only action needed by the City council is to close the hearing. The adoption of the 2007 budget is scheduled for December 18, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by �A.✓� !�'a,� to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING-!5q DATE: 12/11/2006 iENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Hearings Finance Er ITEM DESCRIPTION: Granting Host City Approval to the Issuance of Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds by the City of Oronoco for the Wedum Shorewood CamDUS Proiect Located in Rochester _ PREPARED BY: D. Martinson The City of Oronoco has been asked to issue conduit revenue refunding bonds on behalf of Wedum Shorewood Campus, LLC for their project located at 2115 - 2205 Second Street Southwest in Rochester. Because the project is located within the City of Rochester's boundaries, it is necessary for the City to provide host approval to this refinancing. Additionally, Minnesota statutes for this type of housing project requires execution of a consent agreement with Oronoco on this issue since the project is located outside of Oronoco's boundaries. Monies from the bond issue would be used to refinance the $25,500,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1999 issued by the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Those bonds were issued to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 229 unit senior housing facility including 61 assisted living units, 155 independent senior living units and 13 memory care units in the City. The City does not participate in the issuance of these bonds, and is making no recommendation to the City of Oronoco 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 granting host approval to the issuance as well as the consent agreement and has made minor amendments to further protect the City. Recommended Council Action Adoption of the prepared resolution granting host approval to the refinancing of the project for Wedum Shorewood Campus, LLC. and the execution of the consent agreement with the City of Oronoco. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by to: !2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION iGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS 'ING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III Phase III Variance #06-22, by Williams Family Partnership. The applicant is requesting a Variance to the Flood District regulations; specifically to Section 62.860, 2). "no net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity". The property is located east of the Shopko south store, east of the current terminus of 28"' St. SE and north of TH 52. December 7, 2006 MEETING 4 DATE: 12-11-06 6- Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner NOTE: Conditional Use Permit #06-29 is being considered for this property concurrent with this Variance, as a separate item. Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation: On December 6, 2006 the Board of Appeals considered this Variance request, a review item. The Board recommends in favor of granting a Variance to Phase I only, as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0 {Mr. Ohly moved, Mr. Ryan seconded). 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. 2. if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Conditional Use Permit request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 pm in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center on Monday December 11, 2006. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: SeCOnd by to: - GGG Inc. Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 December 4, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Attn: Mitzi Baker 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Conditional Use Permit for Williams Commercial Center Dear Ms. Baker, During recent discussions with Rochester Public Works staff, they felt it might be in our best interest to investigate the possibility of lowering the normal water levels (NWL) of the two large water bodies we are proposing on the Williams Commercial Center site. This would then create additional flood storage capacity to be counted towards the mitigation of the fill material being placed within the flood prone district. In order to lower the NWL's of the two water bodies, we would have to excavate a ditch connecting them to Willow Creek Within the past week we have sent our survey crew out to obtain additional survey data to design such a ditch. Based on the assumption of a flat ditch connecting the two, with the bottom of the ditch at an elevation one foot higher than the bottom of the creek, we would be able to drop the NWL's approximately two feet. This would reduce the loss in flood storage volume for the `ultimate' development from approximately 148,000 cubic yards to approximately 132,000 cubic yards. As you can see, it is impossible for us to lower the NWL's of the two water bodies to create enough flood storage capacity to mitigate the full amount of fill placed in the flood fringe district. By constructing this proposed ditch we would be doing everything we can feasibly do to mitigate the loss of flood storage on site. if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, "_�14 Geoffrey G. Griffin, PE LS Minnesota Registration No. 21940 Nis W r 0 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT o�.40c,HESTEx. y�NNFs 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 G( �h CO *. o F www.clmstedcounty.com/planning 'PP° ED•'t 5 •�O 'r�I—��.ey�QJ R9 TAUGUS• TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: November 30, 2006 RE: Type III Phase III Variance #06-22, by Williams Family Partnership. The applicant is requesting a Variance to the Flood District regulations; specifically to Section 62.860, 2) "no net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity". The property is located east of the Shopko south store, east of the current terminus of 28th St. SE and north of TH 52. Planning Department Review: Applicant: Williams Family Partnership 41050 95 Street Blue Earth, MN 56013 Consultant: GGG Inc. 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a Variance to the Flood District "no regulations; specifically to Section 62.860, 2) net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity". Location of Property: The property is located east of the Shopko south and Menard south stores, east of the current terminus of 28t' St. SE and north of TH 52. Zoning: The property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial — Industrial) District, and is also in the Flood Prone District, Floodway District, and Shoreland District. Referral Comments: Wetlands LGU, John Harford Background & Process' BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-B232 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-a345 HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224;, FAX 507/2B7-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER The applicant is proposing to develop property located east of the Shopko south store. The property is in the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district, and is also in the Flood Prone District, Floodway District, and Shoreland District. The Flood Prone District is a 100-year floodplain and includes a requirement that the development will not result in a net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters. Development activities in the Flood Prone District require a Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is being processed, and will be considered by the City Council on December 11, 2006. In error, the City Planning Commission considered this variance request on November 22, 2006. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual provides for consideration of a variance with a conditional use permit through the "concurrent review" regulations under Section 61.300. This applies to nearly all variance requests, but the Planning Department later learned that the more specific process for variances to the Food District regulations, outlined in Section 62.880, supersedes. This Section requires a review and recommendation from the Board of Appeals, with the City Council holding a hearing and making a final decision. Analysis: Variance to Section 62.860, 2) "no net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity". The applicant is requesting a Variance for the loss of up to 38,000 cy of flood storage for Phase I, which is the volume of fill material required to elevate the site from the existing contours up to the 100-Yr flood elevations, minus the storage created by excavating from the existing contours down to the water table (for Phase I). In order to support final build -out of the site, the applicant is requesting a Variance for the loss of 148,000 cy of flood storage on site. CRITERIA & FINDINGS: Staff suggested findings are in bold italics. 62.880 VARIANCES TO THE FLOOD DISTRICT REGULATIONS 62.881 Consideration: No variance under this article shall be authorized unless all of the following facts and conditions are considered: 1) That there are no practical alternatives available without the granting of a variance; in order to permit limited development of Phase I of the site, a Variance is necessary. Granting a Variance for Phase / is a practical alternative to allow for reasonable development of the property. Since the site has a high water table, there may be as little as 1 to 2 feet of material above the water table that can be removed to create flood storage. The amount of new storage that could be created in the Phase 1 excavation is somewhere between 6,044 cy and 12,088 cy. (The applicant has been requested to provide specific quantities of flood storage lost and gained with both Phase 1, and the ultimate development scenario.) The amount of fill necessary to bring the site up to the 100-year flood elevation is approximately 5' across the site. It is not practical to support a Variance for the "Ultimate Development", with a Variance to 148,000 cy of loss of flood storage capacity. Doing so could set an undesirable precedent for all other lands in the Flood Prone District, which are subject to the same regulations. Furthermore, such action would undermine the Ordinance. 2) That the literal interpretation of the zoning code would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, not mere inconvenience; Strict application of the Ordinance could result in less than 2 acres the 36 acres being developable. In order to support minimal development of the site (Phase I) with a public road, a Variance is necessary. The minimum Variance necessary to develop with a new public road is a Variance for the loss of up to 38,000 cy of capacity for surface storage of flood waters for Phase 1. 3) That the granting of such variance will not increase flood heights, create additional threats to public safety, necessitate extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinance. Based on the Flood Insurance Study, there will be an increase in flood heights if the entire 700-year f/oodplain is filled in. it is important to note that the FEMA study does not take into account increased runoff resulting from impervious surface as part of development. Instead, the FEMA study assumes no change in land use or increase in impervious surface. A portion of the capacity for flood storage lost for developing Phase I would be provided on -site. Granting of the Variance for Phase I supports minimal development of the property, with the majority of the Flood Prone area on the property not being filled. This area would be a small portion of the Flood Prone district, and would not set a standard for filling in the balance of the Flood Prone District which cumulatively could result in an upstream increase in the flood elevations with a downstream impact of increase in the flood flow within the floodway. Further consideration must be given to waiving the requirement for mitigating loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters in the Flood Prone District before this finding could be made to support a Variance of 148,000 cy to support the "Ultimate Plan" for full build -out of the site. Granting of a Variance for the Ultimate Plan fails to attempt to minimize conflict with regulations and would essentially circumvent the existing regulations. Furthermore, a Variance for 148,000 cy loss of flood storage on this site would make it difficult to defend the Ordinance in the future, should other properties with similar circumstances request a similar variance. A Variance of this magnitude challenges the Ordinance and policy decisions of the City, which must be considered outside of a Variance request. 4) No variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by State law. Granting this Variance would not result in allowing in any uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by State law. Section 60.417 Variance Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: Since the site has a high water table, there may be as little as 1 to 2 feet of material above the water table that can be removed to create flood storage. REASONABLE USE: Strict application of the Ordinance could result in less than 2 acres the 36 acres being developable. In order to support minimal development of the site (Phase l) with a public road, a Variance is necessary. The minimum Variance necessary to develop with a new public road is a Variance for the loss of up to 38,000 cy of capacity for surface storage of flood waters for Phase I. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The "Flood Prone district is a local regulation with a conservative approach to Roodplain management, for areas annexed to the City after November 3, 1980. Areas within the 100-Year floodplain annexed after that date are regulated as "Flood Prone" and subject to conditional use permit review prior to development, and also required to develop with no net loss of flood storage capacity. This requirement ensures no increase in threats for upstream or downstream flooding as a result of development in the Flood Prone District. Filling in the Flood Prone District eliminates flood storage capacity. The loss of storage results in increased flow rates within the Floodway, and cumulatively could result in an increased flood height within the Floodway. There is a level of protection provided with the current Flood Prone District regulations that will need to be evaluated further. It is not practical to support a Variance for the "Ultimate Development', with a Variance to 148,000 cy of loss of flood storage capacity. Doing so could set an undesirable precedent for other land In the Flood Prone District, which are subject to the same regulations. Furthermore, such action would undermine the Ordinance. MINIMUM VARIANCE: Strict application of the Ordinance could result in less than 2 acres the 36 acres being developable. in order to support minimal development of the site (Phase l) with a public road, a Variance is necessary. The minimum Variance necessary to develop with a new public road is a Variance for the loss of up to 38,000 cy of capacity for surface storage of flood waters for Phase L Conclusions: Findings do not support a Variance for the loss of approximately 148,000 cubic yards of flood storage capacity, for full build out of the property. Findings could be made to support development of Phase I of the project, with a variance for a loss of up to 38,000 cubic yards of capacity for storage of flood waters. 0 EXCERPT FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: Subdivision 1. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: A. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; B. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; C. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and D. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 4. In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or, its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. X 62.860 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN THE FLOOD PRONE DISTRICT The requirements applicable in the Flood Fringe District, as defined in Section 62.840 shall apply in the Flood Prone District and, in addition, the deposition of any fill or spoil from dredging of sand and gravel operations, the construction of any structure, or the grading or paving of any areas shall require certification by a registered professional engineer or hydrologist that the following conditions have been met: 1) Fill deposited in the Flood Prone area shall be no more than the minimum amount necessary to conduct the use. 2) No net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters shall result from the activity. 3) The effect of such activities in the Flood Prone area shall not result in an increase in erosion potential on the site. 62.880 VARIANCES TO THE FLOOD DISTRICT REGULATIONS Variances shall be processed according to the Type III review procedure, with the Phase III hearing process utilized. The Board of Appeals shall substitute for the Commission in the Phase III process. 62.881 Consideration: No variance under this article shall be authorized unless all of the following facts and conditions are considered: 5) That there are no practical alternatives available without the granting of a variance; 6) That the literal interpretation of the zoning code would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, not mere inconvenience; 7) That the granting of such variance will not increase flood heights, create additional threats to public safety, necessitate extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinance. 8) No variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by State law. MEETING L0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 'ADESCRIPTION: Type III Phase III Conditional Use Permit #06.29 by Williams Family Partnership. The applicant is requesting approval to place fill in and excavate in the Flood Prone district and to excavate in the Floodway district to accommodate development of property. The applicant is also requesting approval of an Excavation Permit as an Exempt Activity. The property is located east of the Menard south store, east of the current terminus of 28 h St. SE and north of TH 52, December 7, DATE: 12-11-06 ITEMler , J Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner This item was previously continued to provide for Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals review and consideration of a Variance to Flood District standards associated with this application. That Variance will be considered concurrent with this CUP as a separate agenda item. NOTE: The Planning Commission supported approval to proceed with development of the entire property; both phases I and II. Variance #06-22, associated with this CUP, will be considered concurrent with this application. Action on the Conditional Use Permit, will need to be consistent with the action on Variance 906-22. if the Council supports development of Phase 1, but does not support a Variance for the "ultimate development' of the site, the condition #5 which was stricken by the Planning Commission should be included as a condition of Council approval. Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission: The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on November 8, 2006. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #2006-29, by Williams Family Partnership, for development, fill and excavation in the Flood Prone District; and excavation in the Floodway for the entire site with the staff - recommended conditions. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. As. Wiesner moved to amend the motion to drop condition 5 and add condition 6 as stated by Mr. darford. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. CONDITIONS: 1. The stormwater conveyance system shall be designed to handle stormwater runoff, and any development should minimize disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce or delay runoff volumes. 2. The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. 3. The grading plan must be reviewed and approved by Rochester Public Works and shall comply with reclamation standards identified in Section 62.1108, 2. The applicant will need to file a revegetation plan complying with the requirements of this Section. 4. The areas proposed to be excavated as ponds for mitigating loss of flood storage capacity shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the placement of fill, and shall remain waterbodies unless otherwise approved through an amendment to this permit. fUNCI L ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Page 2 RCA December 7, 2006 6. The applicant must meet all wetland requirements. f. The Council shall hold a public hearing. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Conditional Use Permit request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. 3. The Council action should include action on the Excavation Activity, as an Exempt activity (except for reclamation) based on findings in the staff report. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 pm in the CouncillBoard Chambers at the Government Center on Monday December 11, 2006. RECEIVED -lk SiP 2 8 2006 F ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC U M TV OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning Ies ord�i�+� " 5-6W�ti.--wr1� H�GHrHs-t,� , TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 6, 2006 REVISED RE: Type III Phase III Conditional Use Permit #06-29 by Williams Family Partnership. The applicant is requesting approval to place fill in and also to excavate in the Flood Prone district to accommodate development of property. The applicant is also requesting approval of an Excavation Permit as an Exempt Activity. The property is located east of the Menard south store, east of the current terminus of 28t° St. SE and north of TH 52. A Variance to the Flood Prone District requirement for "no net loss of flood storage" is being considered under a separate item, concurrent with this application. The Planning Commission has approved a Variance to the 25% impervious surface limitation within the Shoreland District. Plannino Department Review: Applicant: Williams Family Partnership 41050 95`h Street Blue Earth, MN 56013 Consultant: GGG Inc. 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Requested Action: The applicant is requesting approval to place fill in the Flood Prone district and to excavate in the Flood Prone and Floodway District to accommodate development of property. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Sand & Gravel Excavation. Location of Property: The property is located east of the Shopko south and Menard south stores, east of the current terminus of 28th St. SE and north of TH 52. Zoning: The property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial — Industrial) District, and is also in the Flood Prone District, Floodway District, and Shoreland District. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GISfADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 50712B5-8224, PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-B345 FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .13 Referral Comments: Wetlands LGU, John Harford Background: The applicant is proposing development of approximately 36 acres of land located east of the Menard and Shopko south stores. The property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) and is also in the Flood Prone and Floodway District and the Shoreland District. Development of the parcel is proposed to include a future roadway and lots for development in the M-1 district. To facilitate development, the southern 1 /3 of the site is proposed to be excavated for the purposes of 1) mitigating a portion of the flood storage capacity lost with placement of fill in the Flood Prone District, 2) excavation to provide fill material to elevate the northern 2/3 of the site above the 100 —Year Floodplain and 3) stormwater treatment. Revised Application: The applicant filed a REVISED plan to address the following concerns and issues which were previously identified. o Fill in Flood Prone — Loss of Capacity for Surface Storage of Flood Waters: The applicant revised the Plan to show phasing, and is now requesting a Variance to Ordinance requirements that there be no loss of capacity for flood storage. o Phasing: A revised application was filed, identifying two phases. Phase I includes a short segment of street, and two lots. o Pond Reclamation: The revised Plan includes revisions to the reclamation plan and pond design for the site. The revised Plan appears to comply with regulations, but will need to be reviewed by the Public Works Department with more detail to ensure all grading and design requirements of the Public Works Department are also met. This was approved by the Planning commission. o Wetlands: The revised Plans show avoidance of Wetlands for Phase 1. Summary of Reguest-Ordinance Requirements: There are numerous Sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual that apply to this proposal. The following table is a summary of the approvals being requested with this application and the primary Ordinance references. Summary of Requests: Primary References: A Conditional Use Permit for development, fill and 61.146, 62.824, excavation in the Flood Prone District; and excavation in 62.833, 62.834, the Floodway 62.860 EF Sand & Gravel Excavation Permit (CUP), as an Exempt 61.146, 62.1102, activity (except for reclamation) 1, f), 62.1105, 62.1108, 1), 2 C Variance to Section 62.860, 2) "no net loss of capacity for 62.860, 62.881 surface storage of flood waters to result from activity" This Variance is being considered as a separate item, concurrent with this CUP. See Variance Report 60-44-7 suF#ase 89YeFa99 This Variance was approved by the Planning Commission ' Underlined references identify applicable criteria or findings In order to aid in reviewing and considering this complex proposal, staff will attempt to address each of these four items separately. A Conditional Use Permit for development, fill and excavation in the Flood Prone District; and excavation in the Floodway The Variance to Section 62.860, 2) is essential to be able to proceed with development in the Flood Prone District, if even only for Phase I of the development. If the Variance is approved for Phase I, or for the whole development, then the application will generally conform requirements for development, fill and excavation in the Flood Prone District, and Floodway district, subject to conditions recommended by staff. CRITERIA & FINDINGS: B Sand & Gravel Excavation Permit (CUP), as an Exempt activity (except for reclamation) CRITERIA & FINDINGS: Regarding findings for Section 62.1105 (see attached), staff suggests the findings as written can be made, with the exception of 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14. Staff suggests the following findings for those two items: #1)The grading plan must be reviewed and approved by Rochester Public Wprks and shall comply with reclamation standards identified in Section 62.1108, 2. The applicant will need to file a revegetation plan complying with the requirements of this Section. # 4 #10, #13) The grading and drainage plans and erosion and sedimentation control plans must be approved by the City prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. #5) Proposed development is not anticipated to adversely affect the scenic quality, natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat. #9) The grading plan must be reviewed and approved by Rochester Public Works and shall comply with reclamation standards identified in Section 62.1108, 2. The applicant will need to file a revegetation plan complying with the requirements of this Section. #11) Prior to completing development beyond Phase 1, the applicant will need to secure proper permits for impacts to wetlands. #14) The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable. 2) Not applicable. 3) Not applicable. 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable. 6) Not applicable. 7) Not applicable. 8) If the applicant agrees to the conditions recommended by staff, and the application approvals being requested with this petition are approved, the proposal will comply with regulations or variances will have been granted to allow for deviation from the applicable regulations. Recommendation: Findings can be made to support of Phase 1 of the proposed development, subject to conditions. 1. The stormwater conveyance system shall be designed to handle stormawater runoff, and any development should minimize disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce or delay runoff volumes. 2. The applicant must provide surety that guarantees that the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive plan, neighborhood plans, and Land use Plan and applicable el City policies. Said surety must be provided prior to commencement of grading activities on this property. 3. The grading plan must be reviewed and approved by Rochester Public Works and shall comply with reclamation standards identified in Section 62.1108, 2. The applicant will need to file a revegetation plan complying with the requirements of this Section. 4. The areas proposed to be excavated as ponds for mitigating loss of flood storage capacity shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the placement of fill, and shall remain waterbodies unless otherwise approved through an amendment to this permit. 5. Approval is limited to development of Phase 1, as identified on the REVISED plans dated received October 30, 2006 and labeled Phase L Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Referral Comments 3. Application materials and letters from GGG Inc. -11 61.145 Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure that it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area surrounding its location; and that it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator. Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase 1 site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. S) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 60.410 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: A. there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional f 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; B. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; C. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and D. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 2. The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: A. There has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and B. the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other person or party who has had control of the property, to provide misleading or incorrect information, or to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate request. Subd. 3. The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a use otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of the elevation or levels for flood protection Subd. 4. In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to ba varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any Iq conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. 62.824 Conditional Use Permits - Standards for Approval: When deciding on Conditional Use Permits in any of the flood districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of Paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: 1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. 3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary condition. 4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 6) The need for a waterfront location for the facility. 7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. 9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. 10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Paragraph 62.800. 62.860 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN THE FLOOD PRONE DISTRICT The requirements applicable in the Flood Fringe District, as defined in Section 62.840 shall apply in the Flood Prone District and, in addition, the deposition of any fill or spoil from dredging of sand and gravel operations, the construction of any structure, or the grading or paving of any areas shall require certification by a registered professional engineer or hydrologist that the following conditions have been met: 1) Fill deposited in the flood prone area shall be no more than the minimum amount necessary to conduct the use. 2) No net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters shall result from the activity. 3) The effect of such activities in the flood prone area shall not result in an increase in erosion potential on the site. - 62.1105 EXEMPT ACTIVITIES: 1) E11 xcept as required foe a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: i 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; g) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; ; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; c� 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. �3 W m WHoc cc HWOOCHO U 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 z H z H Q ri 111M tDO �O M'iOM r-I N Qm E. O H N N m M 0 o n m w W mm0 NM HMd mi(1 w= ,Y O 00.-1 00 0000000 1 1 1 1 1 . . 0W; wuz WQm W �rXw F3 O m � io0 �n m,y oMON Dm O p m O H N? m N 0 O h m w HO 10 m o NM H m v m mf m q' O oo.a o0 0 000000 Q X.1 .i .i .� .1 .� .a r H- 1; , . . 3 aO O ul M NO N N ri O M O N F' @ O H I!1 C m N O O h m 1p w m 0 N M H M� m m w m � Oo.i o0 om00000 W a a F W U E O w 0 W U OMO NM ,i ri d�NMM m £wwm Q '7 �nMO r� q mN n p Oa W N N W W W Ls, m xE; inoo in ui 0000c�om Eby a.�m �0O ,yomMM�nm �w W in in o 0 o in in in m o i� ui .Uy h to In \o c Ot rl r-I l0 N a0 a� E .iN ONMNIC v m m H o {u � m z x z H 0 U wx ro 14 x O r,� O m +J U al 0 m NQ fAU A HQ W ULl W W C9 W x 0 U 3Qf9 O U m m E+ w° 3 3 x 0 U 3 m i M m m x m al s� U 3 O r-I 3 E O w 3 u 0 W x m W L v ro H 3 u x U O A i r W -� O v x 40 ) y 0 a) 4� u d u ro J Y+ U Sa 3 U 3 A 0 U O --m a 0 "s0-H �u H 3 41 O al u m U G +) 3 N aA 0 -1 W FI JJ r0 y u i E U m 0 m m U O A U O N ro G s� � m > m + w m 0 � w £u W Y W W cc U cc J J_ 0 a a m Y FW a y U W 3o w 3 O x O J � LL J J 3 U. 0 Y S 0 LL H W R. zW CD tu z Z 0CD �a 0 00 CL Z 0 W N ZJ S Z. 6 J w © z LL TABLE 5 II N WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: Type III Phase III Conditional Use Permit #06-29, by Williams Family Partnership 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 proposal requires a wetland replacement plan. A decision cannot be made on the floodplain fill and mitigation until a wetland replacement plan is submitted and acted on by the city council. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative A �,pNE5ofg4o Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 tm,7 o. 2900 48" Street N.W. OFT Rochester, MN 55901-5848 November 21, 2006 Mitzi Baker Rochester Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.rnn.us RE: Type III Phase III Conditional Use Permit #06-29 and Type III Phase I Variance #06-02, by Williams Family Partnership. The applicant is requesting approval to place fill in and also to excavate in the Flood Prone district to accommodate development of property. US 63, CS 5507 Dear Ms. Baker: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 6 staff has reviewed the above described CUP #06-29 by Williams Family Partnership. As long as the loss of capacity of flood storage within the flood prone district does not cause adverse effects to US 52 right of way, Mn/DOT Hydraulic section does not have any issues with this revised request. Thank you for providing Mn/DOT the opportunity to comment. 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 Moates District 6 Planning Director cc: Kjersti Anderson Peter Waskiw Debbie Persoon-Bement File DOCS-#525059 GGG In e. Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 llwy 52 SE Chatfield, HN 55923 phon a 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 October 27. 2006 Rochester -Olmsted planning Department Attn: Mitzi Baker 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester., MN 55904 RE',: Conditional Use Permit ltesubmittal for Nilliams Commercial Center Dear Ms. Baker, Following recent meezinss and discussions with you and other Planning and Public Works staff; we are submitting revised materials for our Conditional Use.Permit application for Williams Commercial Center. The grading plan has been revised to show stormwater treatment cells that meet NPDES requirements for stormwater rvnoffbefore it is released to the two water bodies created by excavation operations on the site. The two water bodies have been modified to incorporate the slope requirements set forth in the reclamation standards for a'Sand and Gravel Operation'. The modifications also include the addition of curvilinear contours around the pond in place of the sharp corners previously shown. The grading has also divided into two phases. The first phase will include the adins for two lots adjacent to Ya Avenue SE, with one being utilized as a fire station in the near future. The borrow area ixill be excavated to the extent, required to elevatc these two lots at this time. The second phase is the `Ultimate' plan, with the entire 36 acres developed consistent with the general development plan. ,4.s you are aware from our discussions, we are unable to come tip with a feasible plan to mitigate the fill being placed within the :flood prone distrie t, per Section 62.86 of Land Development Manual (LDM), on site. This insults from a combination of the proximity of the water table to the surface and the amount of fill required to elevate the site above the 100-year flood elevations. In order to mitigate for the placement of fill within the flood prone district, we must complete the mitieatian off -site. We understand that it is your opinion that the LDM currently does net allow for this to happen. In order to keep this project proceeding in a practical and feasible manner, we must seek a Variance or other suitable modification to this requirement. We feel that a Variance is justified in this case for many reasons. Most notably are the facts that we are located REVISED RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2006 f ==ESTER • QLMSTED Pi ANNING DEPARTMENT 1" downstream of a reservoir, which provides a large factor of safety when it comes to flooding of areas downstream, and the Fact that a detailed flood study has been completed for this area by FEMA. This detailed study includes the delineation of a desigmated floodway on the site. This means that FEMA has already investigated the effectsolplacing fill within the flood fringe and they have determined that fill can be placed between the 100-year floodplain boundary and the designated 000dwav without adversely affecting neighboring propertit .This results in the City's ordinance requiring 1001%mitigation of fill placed in the flood fringe to be redundant. We are requesting a variance far the loss of 35,000 cubic yards of flood storage for Phase 1. This quantity is the volume of fill material required to elevate the site from the existing contours up to the I00-year flood elevations, minus time storage created by excavating fmm the existing; contours down to the water table_ For the ultimate development of the site, we are requestinga variance for the loss of 148,000 cubic yards of flood storage on the site. The addition of the separate stormwater treatment basins will provide treatment in excess of the requirements set for the by the MPCA and the NPDES. With the added benefit of the water bodies located between the treatment ponds and Willow Creel;, the amount ofstormwater leaving the site will be miniscule H cfs) on a 100-year storm event. Thus, the water quality fox all a stormwater leaving the site wilt be greatly improved over existing conditions. For this reason, we are seeking a Variance to Section G? t 102, 1,f) ofthe LDM, which would limit us to a maximum impervious coverage of?d % for the developed lots. There are approximately' S acres ofdeliueWed wetlands on the property, with the wetland del inaction having been updated within the past few weeks. We have designed Phase i of this project to avoid all impacts to the wetlands so that no mitigation will be required as a result of the development of this phase. Tile ultimate development will disturb all of these wetland areas, which requires a 1.1 replacement for mitigation. We understand that recent changes to the LDM require this mitigation to take place within Olmsted County. At the point in time that the development of the site will impact the wetlands, the developers will provide wetland mitigation to account for the loss in wetlands. This mitigation wilt take place within Olmsted County and will be provided by the acquisition of wettand banking credits, the creation of new wetlands off - site, or a combination thereof. Due to the fact that we do not know the exact timing for the future development of the site during which the wetlands will be affected, we request the wetland mitisationireplacement plans will not be required until such time as those wetlands are a5mied. if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Geoffrey G Griffin, PE LS Minnesota Registration No, 21940 3 Tf za ¢w .-a H az aW U HdW� z�,z ono, U W W U) F u 0Ox 0 ; UU0., W� I a c� I 0 EXCAPAT70NARFA A' 'Ems u 589-42'11-W 1231.04' 2 fed W 0. OF O ��Frc scAtE ' t • YA 1 re, z I 1 V� 0 q3 GGG Inc. Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 September 27, 2006 Fp- ECEIVED Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Attn: Mitzi Baker SEP 2 8 2006 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 CHE'aTER - CL^dSTED 1NNMNG DEFT RE: Conditional use permit findings for section 62.1106 for Williams Commercial Center Dear Ms. Baker: Below is additional information requested for submittal of a Conditional Use Plan (CUP) per Section 62.1106 of the Land Development Manual. This letter follows the land development manual in regards to the information requested as it is brought up in the manual. The request for a CUP is to allow for a substantial land alteration and for placing fill in a flood fringe area. A commercial site plan for individual lots will be developed at a future date which will detail final site development plans. Subsection 1: Required Plans: a-1.) Site/ Grading Plan — submitted a-2.) Permanent & Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan — A grading and erosion control plan has been submitted to Public Works. a-3.) Traffic Plan — Signs shall be erected which state "Trucks Hauling" on 28th Street SE at Trunk Highway No.63 on occasions where more than 50 trucks a day are hauling to the site. Minimal disturbances will occur as utility connections are made in 28`s Street and the adjacent access roads. The accesses are not primary access, so these disturbances will not result in major traffice concerns. a-4.) Operational Plan - All material will be brought in from off site will enter at the intersection of 28'h Street SE at the west edge of the site. All material excavated on site will be hauled on internal haul roads. a-5.) Reclamation Plan — Not Applicable a-6.) Phasing Plan — Phase one of the project will be constructed once the CUP is approved. This phase will include the new fire station site. Future phases of the development will proceed as demand for development dictates. a-7.) Drainage Plan — The grading and erosion control plans are attached. a-8.) Completed Wetland Delineation — On file with the Rochester Wetland LGU Administrator. ^ X 2 rmdings per section 62.1106 Subsection 2• Assessment of Existin¢/ Pre -Alteration Conditions: a.) Soil Types. -Native soil types on the site are of the grouping Sawmill silty clay loam and Littleton silt loam from the Soil Survey of Olmsted County published by the USDA/SCS. The site has one to two feet of oranic overburden with clay and sand lying below. Excavation operations on adjacent properties have revealed ground water levels at three feet of depth and hard pan clay at 25 feet. b.) Existing topography — see Site/ Grading Plan c.) Existing Roads and Rights -of -Way: 28`h Street SE currently ends on the west property line and will extend through to the east property line with an 80 foot right-of-way. This roadway will eventually connect into future Yd Avenue. Private roadways run along the south property line and along the west line north of 28`h Street. The City owns a 66 foot right-of-way along the west line south of 28`h Street. A 66 foot right-of-way will be dedicated along the south line through the platting process. See the grading/erosion control plan attached. d.) US Highway No. 63 and 28`h Street will provide safe and adequate access for haul trucks carrying any materials from off site. e.) Existing land cover is agricultural cropland, primarily hay production, with a small tract of woods in the southeast comer. There are no existing structures on the site. The nearest home is approximately a quarter mile from the site. There are commercial buildings within150 feet of the site. The site is bordered on the westand south by roadways, and by cropland on the north and east sides. f.) There are no previous excavation areas on the site. g.) There are no wells on this site and there will be no blasting on site to disturb existing wells in the area. There are existing irrigation wells on the Senceca Foods property located immediately north of the Williams' north property line. h.) Existing floodways and flood fringes are shown on attached plans. Wetland areas are discussed in the Wetland Delineation Reports on file with the Rochester Wetland LGU Administrator. Wetland areas are also shown on the grading plan. i.) There are no historic sites of record in the property. j.) At this time, there is a sanitary sewer line that run across the property. The line currently runs along the south line from the southwest comer and the proceeds to run northerly and northeasterly through the eastern third of the property. Watermains currently run on the westerly side of the property in the existing roadways. The existing public facilities are depicted on the site/grading plan. k.) There are no public facilities on the site. The only public facilities adjacent to the site are the public roadways on the northerly and easterly sides. 1.) There are no schools within 1000 feet of this site. in.) Adjacent properties have multiple zoning classifications. Please see attached GDP. n.) Properties to the north and east are currently undeveloped and are zoned under the `Holding' classification. Property to the west is developed as commercial. Southerly properties are undeveloped and consist of regional ponds. See attached GDP. ; o.) There are no adopted areas or specific plans for this site other than those layed out in the GDP for the site or the land use plan or zoning map for the area. p.) We are not aware of any other projects both on and near the property that will be publicaly funded. rnidings per section 62.1106 +�7/ q.) We are not aware of any other projects on or near the property that will be publicaly funded. r.) A traffic study was not required for this project. s.) The site is currently not being used for anything other than agriculture. t.) The site has been used for agricultural purposes forever. u.) This site is zoned M-1. Upon annexation into the City of Rochester, it was zoned `Holding'. Prior to annexation, it was zoned `A-4' under Olmsted County zoning. Subsection 3: Grading Plan: The factors listed for review of the Grading Plan are reviewed by Rochester Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. A grading and erosion control plan has been submitted to Public Works. Subsection 4: Operations Plan: a.) Site Plan: The site/grading plan is included with this submittal and has-been submitted to Public Works. b.) Required Bufferyards: The project will meet the required buffers set forth in Section 62.1108 for adjacent commercial and industrial areas. The excavation activities could possibly exceed 24 months so additional plantings may be required. Permanent bufferyard will be addressed at which time the lots are developed and final site plans are submitted. c.) Report: 1. No materials are intended intended to be mined or otherwise removed from the site. Material will simply moved from one location to another on -site. 2. Standard heavy construction equipment will be used for the excavation and placement of the material. If it is feasible, some material may be dredged out of the borrow areas as well. We do not anticipate that any blasting will be required. 3. No hazards or chemicals will be stored on site or used in the embankment activity. 4. No toxic material will be stored on site or used in the embankment activity. 5. The City's contractor will begin work on the project in accordance with the grading plan once the CUP and grading plan are approved to bring the future fire station site up to grade. The Williams' contractor will begin work to complete the roadway and the adjacent lot that has been included in the first phase. Future development timelines are unknown at this time and will likely proceed as demand for lots dictates. Work will proceed during standard hours of operation until the project is complete. 6. As development proceeds, the existing grass (hay) cover will be removed. Areas not being developed will continue to be hayed. An existing stand of trees in the southeast comer of the property will be destroyed when the pond is excavated. 7. An average depth of two feet of overburden will be removed from the entire site. The topsoil will be stripped off and stock piled on site. Once embankment; operations are complete the topsoil will be re -spread back across the site. Leftover material will be wasted in designated areas. All operations will be done in strict conformity with the grading/erosion control plan. 4 r uidings per section 62.1106 8. Approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material will be relocated from one area on `""'" ���` the site to another. 9. The method of land alteration will be excavation and embankment. Phasing will begin a a two lot subdivision including a new fire station site and then proceeding as demand dictates. 10. The standard hours and days of operation (Monday — Saturday 7:00 am — 10:00 pm) will be utilized to complete the project in the timeliest fashion possible. 11. Watering will be the method of dust control when conditions dictate the necessity. 12. Noise from construction operation will be that of normal construction operation. All construction activities shall be done during standard hours of operation and not in the evenings or nights. 13, See grading/erosion control plan. 14. See grading/erosion control plan and hydrology report. 15. Site entrance shall be posted with warnings signs for construction activity. No vertical slopes will be left on site. No additional safety or security features shall be needed for standard construction operations. 16. No emergency evacuation plan required for operations. 17. A lighting plan not required. 18. No emergency lighting plan required. 19. No material is anticipated to be removed from the site. 20. Not a quarry or mining operation for removing material. Does not apply. 21. Trucks will not be crossing roadway and no impact is anticipated. 22. The activities will not have any off site effects other than drainage. See hydrology report. 23. A stabilized vehicle entrance will be installed and maintained per Rochester Standard Plate. Street cleaning will be done daily as necessary to comply with NPDES permit requirements. 24. The first phase of grading operations should be completed by the spring of 2007. Final completion of the grading operation depicted on the Grading Plan is known. 25. The anticipated use of city utilities on the site once final development is complete will be typical of general commercial developments. Construction plans will be submitted and reviewed by public works to ensure adequate public utilities to the site. The use of these utilities during construction will be minimal, with minimal use of water for dust control and electricity for powering equipment. 26. The Rochester Police station would be the closest responding law enforcement office. The closest existing fire station is located at the intersection of Broadway and 6Ih Street, which is approximately two miles away. Following the completion of the first phase, a new fire station will be constructed on the property. Adequate access for safety vehicles will be provided, including a temporary tum-around associated with the first phase. Subsection 5: Reclamation Plan: This project is not a mining or quarrying operation as all material will remain on site. The grading plan shows the limits and extent to which the site will be regraded. At which time the individual lots are developed, final site plans will be submitted and reviewed by the Rochester Planning Department. ruidings per section 62.1106 a1 ITEMIZED RESPONSES TO APPENDIX B REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. 1) General Information: See attached plans 2) Site Information: a) See attached grading plan b) See attached grading plan c) See attached grading plan d) See attached grading plan e) There are no existing structures on the site at this time. Proposed lot layouts are shown on the attached grading plan. Future uses on each lot are unknown at this time. f) See attached grading plan. Wetlands are described and depicted in wetland delineation reports on file with the Rochester Wetland LGU Administrator. Flood plain areas are shown on attached drawings. g) Location of parking and loading areas are unknown at this time. During filling activities, these areas will move as filling proceeds. h) Phase II i) Phase II j) Phase II k) Phase II 1) Phase II m) See comments under Section 62.1105 1) & 3) n) Phase II o) See attached grading plan p) See attached grading plan q) Not applicable r) See attached grading plan s) See attached general development plan (GDP) t) Not applicable u) Wetlands are described and depicted in wetland delineation reports on file with the Rochester Wetland LGU Administrator. Wetlands are also shown on the grading plan. 3) Site Data: Each lot will be required to submit a site development plan consistent with the requirements of the M-1 zoning district. a) Not Applicable b) Not applicable c) Not applicable d) Not applicable e) Not applicable If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time.. Sincerely, Geoffrey G Griffin, PE LS GGG Inc. Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 September 27, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Attn: Mitzi Baker 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 P, RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2006 RE: Conditional Use Permit findings per section 62.1105 for Williams Commercial Center Dear Ms. Baker, We are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a substantial land alteration and for placing fill in a flood prone district on the property owned by Williams Family Partnership to be known as Williams Commercial Center. The grading required to meet the existing grade of the 28`t' Street and to elevate the site for flood protection will require that over 100,000 cubic yards of material will be moved. The first phase of the project will require filling to take place in the northwest comer of the property to accommodate the development of a new fire station along 28`h Street. The timeline for future phases is unknown at this time. It is anticipated that the site will be graded as each phase progresses. The following are our comments to the 15 findings outlined in Section 62.1105: 1.) This project is not a danger to life or property since the area of grading isn't developed yet. This site is part of a General Development Plan that outlined the area for industrial use. There aren't any residential areas adjacent to the site. The proposed project is inline with the zoning designation for the property is consistent the uses on adjacent properties. There will be no steep or unstable slopes on the property. Safe access to the property will be provided by the existing portion of 28`" Street which provides access to US Highway No. 63. Filling operations will not result in excessive traffic on existing roadways as most of the hauling will take place on haul roads located within the Williams property. 2 iings per section 62.1105 q q 2.) Construction activities that will take place are common and pose no threat to air or ground water quality at the site. Surface runoff will be caught in temporary and or permanent sedimentation basins along with the use of silt fence and other erosion control measures. 3.) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site. The existing adjacent roadways are fully capable of providing access to the site and once on the site, these vehicles will not need to operate on the public roadways. 4.) The project will not affect air quality. Excavation and filling operations will eventually disturb existing wetlands on the site. Wetland mitigation will be provided, either on site or in a separate location. Stormwater treatment facilities will be provided to treat stormwater runoff before it is released to Willow Creek. 5.) The scenic quality and wildlife in the area will not be affected any more than other commercial developments recently constructed in Rochester. A small stand of trees will be removed by grading operations, but no additional wildlife habitat will be destroyed. 6.) This development is part of the General Development for Williams Commercial Center/Seneca Foods. This area is being used as it is shown on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The property is currently zoned for its intended use. 7.) Adjacent properties to the west are already being utilized as commercial areas. Lands to the north and east are currently undeveloped agricultural areas. The south side of the property is bordered by a private roadway with two ponds lying south of the road. The proposed project will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. 8.) The site will be further developed once the fill has been placed. The site plan provides adequate buffers to unsightly areas of the excavation when required. 9.) Reclamation Plan — Not Applicable 10.) The drainage on this site will be improved once the project is completed. The site is naturally flat, with little relief from one end to the other. It is very difficult for runoff to leave the site. Once the site is filled and the stormwater ponds are functioning, the site will have effective drainage that will far surpass the existing conditions on the site. Additionally, there will be much less runoff discharging to the properties to the north and east (Seneca Foods). 11.) Erosion control measures including silt fence will be implemented to control stormwater runoff. In addition, diversion berms and sedimentation basins will be constructed to further aid in erosion control as deemed necessary during the construction process. All wetlands \� 3 ..ings per section 62.1105 affected by this project will be mitigated. The project will not affect any other natural features that have a direct effect on water quality. 12.) This site is no different than any other land development in the Rochester area in regards to the intensity. The site will only be excavated and filled as dictated by the demand for development. 13.) A grading plan has been submitted to the City of Rochester for their comments and approval. 14.) Surety will be provided in the city owner contract, which will guarantee the site be developed to city standards. 15.) This construction activity will does comply with the requirements of the adopted building code. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, .,/ IL-1 Geoffrey G Griffin, PE LS Minnesota Registration No. 21940 GGG In c. log Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 September 27, 2006 RECEIVED Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Attn: Mitzi Baker SEP 2 8 2006 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 oROC, uEST R CLMSE RE: Conditional Use Permit findings per section 62.860 for Williams Commercial Center Dear Ms. Baker, Section 62.860 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual outlines the requirements for construction in a flood prone district. This letter serves to certify that all of these requirements are being met. 1.) Fill deposited in the Flood Prone area shall be no more than the minimum amount necessary to conduct the use. The amount of fill that will be placed will be enough to raise the site so that buildings closest to the floodway are one foot minimum above the base flood elevation nearest the respective building. The site was designed such that the new roadways will be at or above the established base flood elevations. From there, the rest of the site will be filled to provide a minimum slope of I % for drainage purposes. The westerly side of the development will require additional fill in order to match into the existing contours and roadway elevations. 2.) No net loss of capacity for surface storage ofllood waters shall result from the activity. Material required to elevate the site will come from other areas on the property, thus creating two large ponds from these excavation areas. These areas will provide additional flood storage volume above their normal water elevations. If required, additional mitigation for flood storage loss will be provided on other property owned by the developers in the watershed. 3.) The effect of such activities in the Flood Prone area shall not result in an increase in the erosion potential on the site. Construction activity and future development of the area are subject to NPDES requirements and approval from the City of Rochester. Stormwater management is addressed in the grading and erosion control plan currently being reviewed by public works. During the filling process; silt fence, diversion berms, seeding, mulching, rock entrances, and sedimentation basins will be implemented to ensure a source of erosion isn't inadvertently created. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Geoffrey G. Griffin, PE LS Minnesota Registration No. 21940 GGG Inc. Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 September 27, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department RECEIVED Attn: Mitzi Baker 2122 Campus Drive SE SEP 2 @ 2006 Rochester, MN 55904 ,n FC7C� RE: Variance request for Chapter 62.1109 -Section 1: Operations Per orma ice Standards subpart 10) Six foot security fence Dear Ms. Baker, On behalf of our client, Williams Family Partnership, we are applying for a variance to Chapter 62.1109, Section 1) Operations Performance Standards, subpart 10). This section calls for a six foot security fence around the areas involved in the Substation Land Alteration. We wish for this variance to be processed concurrently with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for Williams Commercial Center. The fencing requirement is a stipulation of the Substantial Land Alteration (SLA) within the CUP we have applied for. This project will not have unique dangers due to the presence of unstable slopes or blasting operations which would require a fence. The SLA we are seeking is required for altering the existing ground by more than 10 feet. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Geoffrey G Griffrn, PE LS Minnesota Registration No. 21940 CC: Williams Family Partnership GGG Inc. Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 September 28, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Attn: Mitzi Baker 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Type III Phase III Conditional Use Permit for Williams Commercial Center Dear Ms. Baker, On behalf of our client, Williams Family Partnership, we are submitting the attached Type III Phase III application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Section 62.834 of the Land Development Manual (LDM). We also request that a Substantial Land Alteration be considered as part of this CUP, per Section 62.1102, 1, f) of the LDM. This project lies entirely within the Shoreland Zoning District due its flood district classification. Section 62.1008, 2, a) of the LDM requires a maximum impervious coverage of 25% for lots within this district. Due to the excessive amount of stormwater treatment we will be providing on -site for storm runoff, we will be seeking a variance from this requirement. It is our understanding that your recommendation would be to apply for this variance at the time the final plat is submitted. We would like to apply for this variance at this time. Obtaining a decision on the variance from the Council as soon as possible will aid in our planning for this project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ,--/h Geoffrey G Griffin, PE LS CC: Williams Family Partnership Rg CL IvED SLg 2 8 29�S PD FA \ 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, November B, 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; 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: Ms. Leslie Rivas Staff Present: Mr. John Harford and Ms. Jennifer Garness Other City Staff Present: None *** Ms. Garness stated that the recording equipment was malfunctioning and did not think that the equipment was taping the meeting after several reboots. After reviewing the tapes after the meeting, it was confirmed that the equipment did not tape the meeting. SET ORDER OF AGENDA: Mr. Haeussinger moved to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Wallace stated that, on page 9 of the minutes, Mr. Ohly should be listed as abstaining on ZC #06-07 and GDP #273 and the motion should have carried 7-0. Mr. McGuine made a motion to approve the following consent item, with the revision indicated by Mr. Wallace. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. • October 25, 2006 minutes The motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED ITEMS: Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 8, 2006 Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated November 2, 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford explained that staff is not in favor of the Commission approving the variance for the full build out. Mr. Harford asked that the Commission make four (4) motions on Phase I, which include: 1. shoreland variance 2. variance loss of storage 3. conditional use permit for fill 4. sand and gravel excavation Discussion ensued regarding the stormwater pond. Mr. McGuine asked what the intended use was for Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Harford responded that a future City Fire Station is proposed on Lot 1 Block 1. Discussion ensued regarding requesting a variance for the impervious surface. Ms. Wiesner questioned if the Commission has ever given such a blanket variance before. Mr. Harford responded that he could not remember a specific instance. However, the size and design of the sediment basin would control it. The applicant's representative, Geoff Griffin of GGG Engineering (14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield MN 55923), addressed the Commission. He explained that the reason for asking for the variance was due to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual requiring mitigation of the no loss (filling in the floodway). He stated that the floodplain is regulated City wide. Mr. Griffin stated that there is a detailed FEMA flood study on this area. Therefore, there would not be an impact to the neighbors. He explained that he discussed this issue with staff and was told that they would review the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual but that he could go ahead and apply for a variance. He indicated that it is his hope that the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual is changed by they time they propose to build Phase 2. If the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual is not changed, they will not be able to do any further development (Phase 2). Therefore, the applicant is asking that they approve the variance for both phases. Mr. Griffin stated that Rick Penz received a similar variance on Waterfront Business Park. Mr. Burke asked if they would be designing the stormwater pond for the entire build out. Mr. Griffin responded yes. .r Mr. Burke asked if the FEMA maps were changed. Mr. Harford explained that the FEMA maps were amended in 1995 and 1998. He stated that he was unsure if the property would change at all if they requested a Map Amendment through FEMA. Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 8, 2006 Mr. Harford stated that Phase 1 would make more sense to develop. He explained that there are other issues with regard to Phase 2. Ms. Wiesner asked if the reason why staff is allowing Phase 1 to be built out was only to get the fire station put there. She questioned why the applicant wouldn't be requesting that the variance be applied to the entire site. Mr. Harford responded that timing was an issue. There is an agreement signed by City for the purchase of the land and explained that the City had to perform under a certain timeline. Discussion ensued regarding what was stated in the agreement. Ms. Wiesner asked how many acres there was in all. Mr. Harford responded 36 acres. Ms. Wiesner reiterated that the variance should be applied to all 36 acres. Mr. Harford stated that staff's recommendation was to apply the variance only to Phase 1 so that there was minimal impact. He explained that there could be a larger impact on approving Phase 2 at this time. Mr. McGuine stated that the Commission could not guarantee that the applicant could build out Phase 2 unless the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual is changed or they apply for another variance. Mr. Ohiy stated that it sounded as though the only reason that the City is recommending the variance for Phase 1 is so that the fire station can be built. Mr. Griffin stated that they have disputed with staff that the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual requires that the storage must be on site. Mr. Harford stated that Mr. Griffin is asking that the Commission act on appeal that they haven't applied for. Mr. Griffin stated that the application was submitted for the variance to be applied to the entire site. Mr. Harford pointed out that there are multiple sub watersheds and that the proposed mitigation site is located in a separate sub watershed. They should have to model the flood flows to show the same level of flood protection. Mr. Harford stated that staff has agreed to review the question of the flood prone district to see if the intended policies make sense. He stated that he could not assure Mr. Griffin that any changes would be made. Ms. Wiesner questioned if the applicant would have to apply for a second variance if the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual was not changed. Mr. Harford responded yes. Page 4 PI City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 8, 2006 Mr. Griffin explained that the applicant could not risk only obtaining a variance on Phase 1 as they have a signed contract that has a $'A million penalty clause. Mr. Ohly asked if the contract for the fire station was contingent upon the variance proceedings. Mr. Griffin stated that the agreement would be voided if they could not get the necessary permits. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke stated that the applicant submitted an application requesting a variance for the entire property. However, staff is recommending that it be limited to Phase 1. Mr. Harford explained that the original application did not have a variance request with it. Discussion ensued regarding timing due to the construction of the fire station. Mr. Harford stated that the applicant could submit a Letter of Map Revision for the property to be acted on by FEMA, which would be the more appropriate action. Discussion ensued regarding changing FEMA maps. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 8, 2006 Mr. Harford stated that there are wetlands on the property. There have not been any replacement plans or approvals done on the property. He asked that the Commission add a condition to state `The applicant must meet all wetland requirements" and delete condition number 5 based on the motion by Ms. Wiesner to include the entire property. Ms:.+ i neTmovetl o°rw- isle ' !Dir 11n . ;+wave :Ezaavation Permit CUP,; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ` DATE: 12-11-06 9GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 'UBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E- S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-27 to be known as Soldier Field Plaza North, by TRCH PREPARED BY: Plaza, Inc. The Plat proposes to re -subdivide land located at the northerly end of Soldier Theresa Fogarty, Field Plaza into two lots. The subdivision includes approximately 1.62 acres. The property Senior Planner is east of TH 63 (South Broadway), south of AMPI and west of K-Mart Shopping Center. December 7, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated December 7, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording, the final plat shalt be revised as follows: a. Illustrating controlled access as shown on the attached Mn/DOT right-of-way map (the 35.96' along the west boundary of " e Place SE- Vacated'). b. RPU-Water Division records indicate that the existing 2" copper water service that serves the building located on Lot 2 crosses a portion of Lot 1. Per RPU requirements to provide for maintenance of this private service by the owner of Lot 2, this service will either need to be re -located to not cross Lot 1, the common lot line revised to include the entire service within Lot 2 or an easement is needed for the portion of the service that crosses Lot 1. 2. A GIS Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the November 30, 2005 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 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. on Monday, December 11, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by'. to: �| ! 3 'ON »e mme ms § 0 ® 5 - > f \ § N1000 ft. Notification Area of proposed p►at .u_ .4sTs to be known as Soldier Field Plaza North 44:P located in the SE 1/4 NE 114 Sec 2 Rochester TWP MEN MEN FIR Final Plat #06-27 by TRCH Plaza, Inc. PIN: 64.02.14.059485 Ward:4 (Pat Carr) Neighborhood Assoc: South -East Settlers 11 /28/06 -J- I " -7 - - ' IN 11 / Gq q�m Req�r8�Y0Cwnq A�xnY q��]tIIC+nW.Prc.4S RunsYw, YNdd. CYI19lS� Mal �r 111� == �� IMMOM IMMINE MOMMON I, MENIMMIN ME� i rA ft r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C O U NTT OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner Asi��r4ptoNt,� r��ylANnrylli DATE: December 7, 2006 RE: Final Plat #06-27 to be known as Soldier Field Plaza North, by TRCH Plaza, Inc. The Plat proposes to re -subdivide land located at the northerly end of Soldier Field Plaza into two lots. The subdivision includes approximately 1.62 acres. The property is east of TH 63 (South Broadway), south of AMPI and west of K-Mart Shopping Center. City Council Hearing Date: December 11, 2006 Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: TRCH Plaza, LLC 838 South Broadway Rochester, MN 55904 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department — GIS Division Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Mn/DOT — ROW Map attached Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments (4 letters) Development Review: Zoning: The property is currently zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Roadways: There are no new roadways dedicated within this plat. Mn/Dot maintains access rights along US 63 (South Broadway) and requests access control be illustrated on the plat as shown on the attached Mn/DOT right-of- way map (the 35.96 feet along the west boundary of the 'vacated 8" Place SE"). BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071297-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Final Plat #06-27 Soldier Field Plaza North 12/7/2006 Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities were addressed at the time of Site Plan Development Review, September 25, 2005. Drainage: Grading and drainage plans for the development was approved at the time of Site Plan Development Review, September 25, 2005. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: RPU-Water Division records indicate that the existing 2" copper water service that serves the building located on Lot 2 crosses a portion of Lot 1. Per RPU requirements to provide for maintenance of this private service by the owner of Lot 2, this service will either need to be re -located to not cross Lot 1, the common lot line revised to include the entire service within Lot 2 or an easement is needed for the portion of the service that crosses Lot 1. Spillover Parking: Parking for the development has been determined at the time of Site Plan Development Review, September 25, 2005, 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. No removal necessary due no trees / brush on site. Parkland Dedication: The property will not be used for residential development; therefore, there are no parkland dedication requirements Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: According to Section 61221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right- of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land Subdivision Permit). Final Plat Planning Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval subject to the following modifications / conditions: 1. Prior to recording, the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. illustrating controlled access as shown on the attached IJWDOT right-of-way map (the 35.96' along the west boundary of "e Place SE- Vacated'). Page 3 \� Final Plat #06-27 Soldier Field Plaza North 12I7l2006 b. RPU-Water Division records Indicate that the existing 2" copper water service that serves the building located on Lot 2 crosses a portion of Lot 1. Per RPU requirements to provide for maintenance of this private service by the owner of Lot 2, this service will either need to be re -located to not cross Lot 1, the common lot line revised to include the entire service within Lot 2 or an easement is needed for the portion of the service that crosses Lot 1. 2. A GIS impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the November 30, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 0 ROCHESTER K4%4 za TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 FROM: Mark E. Baker 507.287-7800 FAX — 507.281-6216 DATE: 12/04/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-27, for the proposed Soldier Field Plaza North. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. Public Works has no comments on this request. C:\Documents and Settings\PLHTFOGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK267FP06-27 Soldier Field Plaza North.doc \" Rochester -Olmsted Planning L. ,artment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: November 30, 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: SOLDIER FIELD PLAZA NORTH FINAL PLAT # 06-27 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: $160.00 (2 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 430.00 (2 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 SOLDIER FIELD PLAZA NORTH the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. I r PV �11 we pfrdgr. we d:<dvrr November 29, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-27 by TRCH Plaza, Inc. to be known as Soldiers Field Plaza North. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow: Our records indicate that the existing 2" copper water service that serves the building located on Lot 2 crosses a portion of Lot 1. Per our requirements to provide for maintenance of this private service by the owner of Lot 2, this service will either need to be re -located to not cross Lot 1, the common lot line revised to include the entire service within Lot 2 or an easement is needed for the portion of the service that crosses Lot 1. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yo urs, 0644tl Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention TRCH Plaza, Inc. Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 2900 48' Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901-5848 December 4, 2006 Jennifer Gayness Rochester Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dot.state.mn.us RE: Final Plat #06-27 to be known as Soldier Field Plaza North, by TRCH Plaza, Inc. The Plat proposes to re -subdivide land located at the northerly end of Soldier Field Plaza into two lots. The subdivision includes approximately 1.62 acres. The property is east of US 63, south of ,zbIEPI and west of the-K-A.Iart Shopping. Center. CS 5510 US 63 Dear Ms. Garness: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 6 staff has reviewed Final Plat #06-07 Soldier Field Plaza North re -subdivide. Mn/DOT maintains access rights along US 63 in this area and requests access control be illustrated on the plat as shown on Mn/DOT right-of-way map (attachment). Providing the access control is illustrated on this mapping, Mn/DOT finds this proposal acceptable. Thank you for providing Mn/DOT the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, you may contact Peter Waskiw, Principal Planner, (507) 285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist, (507) 281-7777. Sincerely, Chris Mnates District 6 Planning Director cc: Greg Paulson Craig Hansen Peter Waskiw Debbie Persoon-Bement File nhrc�gis i Dee 05 2006 9:13RM MN/DOT 507-295-7279 p.2 EM F��'-yyn..A. a � ' - _PMY t 4 S r�tQGI�4 iY1 Ulf l� , •f-a �:...��1 d 1 �� �� G��( • � i Tie fLgaG��� a p.P t 0 01 Y Chicago Great Western R.R. Co. LOSS-4 Blk.101 Wiison's Addn. \ �� 311 w Lots5-7 91k. 99 Wilson s Addn. , _o • '\ • \ %-D BOA ''— i�p � � .� - �iiM �•� '.. FFae'^ V,d U _.~t_• � , _ `ayy�t4\. �, pi�G��4 .6+".� ,.. W � 1 `♦`ry i , ' . •lam �..p.�+c,... ,�.`t•..- °�.$ \ 1'.:-'4:.56� i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A DATE: 12-11-06 AGENDA PUBLIC HE SECTION: ARINGS I ORIGINATING DEFT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC ■ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-28 to be known as Cascade Shores, by Cascade Shores PREPARED By: LLC. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 7.92 acres of land into 75 lots and one Theresa Fogarty, outlot for townhome development. The property is located west of 23'tl Avenue SW, north Senior Planner of Second Street SW and east of Grandville At Cascade Lake development. December 7, 2006 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated December 7, 2006 recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording, the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Grading Plan approval is required. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required to be shown on the final plat as part of the Grading Plan approval. b. Provide additional utility easements, per RPU-Core Services Division that are needed for electrical distribution facilities. 2. A G/S Impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the November 30, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department - G/S Division. 3. Parkland dedication has been met via the November 7, 2005 cash in lieu payment for the Grandville at Cascade Lake Subdivision, as outlined in November 27,2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. Council Action Needed. 1. if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 P.M. Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. M on Monday, December 11, 2006 in the Council COUNCIL ACTION: MDfionby: second by: to: LL O Un W U 3E 1�5 P E 4� f { 794 9t'�] IM. EE SEP : • $m 1r JQ�VI.J.� r-- Lai � a H 1` o � o w i LVWJ, ¢ Qd LU Ll Y W ¢ LY J F— V] LU ir- Q < H { J LL (fJ f, h uJ t ! JAI a I I lIJ If 'I T d$ J4uies I (L . ve .n.QLt I J 1 A rj —_ � LL911 Q9 3:IHl3Qb�iSb3 �ld 3llI63QNV80 �Fl w. mos wwu:ve rsn..wu au a :. L�3 gmaW ceunn s minmwwR.e lu mm�mmm w mwa4h.ONi�- ] dsmmem m.ImM Mm le mm. d.m naM tlm GIS qnm� RoeMM�OrrshECwnN Nw7nG Q9mMImL]l'a O�gmplm ]P� Ibd�.N. MN SSBW, I50>I165�NR ROCHESTER-OLMSTE1 PLANNINGDEPARTMENTLAN COUNTY Of .. 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, IVIN 55904-4744 WdI,P►11/�� or ' TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: December 7, 2006 RE: Final Plat #06-28 to be known as Cascade Shores, by Cascade Shores LLC. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 7.92 acres of land into 75 lots and one outlot for townhome development. The property is located west of 23rd Avenue SW, north of Second Street SW and east of Grandville At Cascade Lake development. City Council Hearing Date: December 11, 2006 Planning Department Review. Applicant/Owner: Cascade Shores, LLC 3165 Rosemary Lane NE Rochester, MN 55906 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department — GIS Division Planning Department — Wetlands LGU Representative Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division Rochester Park & Recreation Department Rochester Public Utilities — Core Services Division Report Attachments: 1. Copy of Final Plat 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments (6 letters) Development Review: Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Roadways: There are no new public roadways dedicated within this plat. All roadways proposed will be private. BUILDING CODE 507/285-B345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-B232 • HOUSINWHRA 507/285-8224, PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 507/295-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER J Page 2 `p Final Plat #06-28 Cascade Shores 12/7/2006 Pedestrian Facilities: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property, which includes the requirements for pedestrian facilities. Drainage: The Grading Plan has not been approved for this proposed subdivision. Grading Plan approval is required prior to recording the final plat. Dedication of additional drainage easement may be required to be shown on the final plat as part of the Grading Plan approval. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. 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 90 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. The Owner should be encouraged to provide unit mail boxes to limit the loss of on street parking. 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. Disposal will be completed by chipping on site, salvaging and removing from the property. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: No additional dedication due. Dedication for this development ahs been met via the November 7, 2005 cash in lieu of payment for the Grandville at Cascade Lake Subdivision. Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right- of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land Subdivision Permit). Page 3 Final Plat #06-28 Cascade Shores 12/7/2006 Final Plat Planning Staff Review and Recommendation: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval subject to the following modifications / conditions: 1. Prior to recording, the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Grading Plan approval is required. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required to be shown on the final plat as part of the Grading Plan approval. b. Provide additional utility easements, per RPU-Core Services Division that are needed for electrical distribution facilities. 2. A G!S impact Fee and E911 Addressing Fee shall be assessed and must be paid prior to recording the final plat, per the November 30, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department — GIS Division. 3. Parkland dedication has been met via the November 7, 2005 cash in lieu payment for the Grandville at Cascade Lake Subdivision, as outlined in November 27,2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. Note to Developer: The executed Development Agreement for Grandville includes this property. Development is subject to the terms of the Agreement. ROCHESTER ky1 M� TO: Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 2122 Campus Drive SE WORKS 201 4�" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 12/06/06 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-28, for the proposed Cascade Shores. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. The existing Development Agreement for Grandeville includes this Property. Development of this Property is subject to the terms of the Agreement. 2. The Grading Plan has not been approved for this proposed subdivision. Grading Plan approval is required prior to recording the final plat. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required to be shown on the final plat as part of the Grading Plan approval. Cmocuments and Settings\PLHTFOGA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet F1les\0LK26-AFP06-28 Cascade Shores.doc \, Y' Rochester -Olmsted Planning L ,.artment Q GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: November 30, 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: CASCADE SHORES FINAL PLAT # 06-28 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: $ 5920.00 (74 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $1540.00 ( 76 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 CASCADE SHORES the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. 0 WETLAND COMNMNTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: Final Plat #06-28 to be known as Cascade Shores 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: From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative we p.r6gr, Wr Arlrvrr November 28, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #06-28 by Cascade Shores, LLC to be known as Cascade Shores. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections. The final utility plans have been approved. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, ou�n.-.�I "44A 1`�'M&� 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 �<&�at< g'YyROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, Mn DEPARTMENT DATE: November 27, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: Final Plat # 06-28 Cascade Shores The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Dedication for this development has been met via the Nov 7 2005 cash in lieu payment for the Grandville at Cascade Lake Subdivision. No additional dedication due. OVARK DEDICATION12 MCASCADE SHORES.DOC J J :aN ,we plydgr, wr dcl[rrr DATE: December 5, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Dept. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities 280-1579 SUBJECT: Final Plat #06-28 to be known as Cascade Shores, by Cascade Shores LLC. The Plat proposed to subdivide approximately 7.92 acres of land into 75 lots and one outlot for townhome development. The property is located west of 23`d Avenue SW, north of Second Street SW and east of the Grandville At Cascade Lake development. RPU's Core Services Division review of the above -referenced Final Plat is complete and our comments follow. 1. Additional utility easements will be needed for electrical distribution facilities. Sincerely, c. Cascade Shores, LLC Yaggy Colby Associates jb REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 03 DATE: 12-11-06 aENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Expand Residential Permit Parking Zone 6, 81M1 Ave SW 700 Block K. D. RA This is a Public Hearing to consider a petition from the residents of this neighborhood to establish residential permit parking on their street. This would be an expansion of existing residential permit parking Zone 6 (Edison School Area). The purpose of the Zone is to control parking of vehicles by nonresidents of the area. There are no current parking restrictions on this street segment. As indicated on the map below, 7 residential parcels abut the proposed zone. All of the parcels contain Single Family Dwellings. RCO 138A.03 requires the petition to be signed by owners or occupants of at least 75% of the residential units. Signatures from 7 of the 7 homes (100%) are included on the petition. The petition has been reviewed to meet the requirements of RCO 138A. An informational letter of this item was mailed to the property owners on November 22, 2006, Legend Parking by Pe rnk Proposed Parmk Parking No Parking 705 803 8th St. SW City of Rochester, MN Residential Permit Parking Zone 6, Edison 7th St. SW COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Add paragraph 7.1 to Section L, "Residential Permit Parking", Zone 6 (Edison School Area) of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution, to read as follows: 7.1 8th Ave SW, from 7th St SW to nth St SW, on both sides, from 8 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. ,7+ COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: ' Second by: to: M Petition for Installation of Residential Permit Parking We the undersigned residents or owners hereby petition the city council to create a residential permit parking zone 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, on 8`" Avenue SW between 7`" Street SW and 8`h Street SW. Informational note: The current cost for permits is $5.00 for the initial application, plus $5.00 per vehicle per year. Generally only residents of property along this zone will be able to purchase permits. If there are employees who work at property along the zone, they will also able to purchase permits. Temporary permits (for residents' guests) are also available. Permits are issued at the City Clerk's office. Printed Name Signature Address Include Apt. Number Phone 1 iiA 62hven6�ck 713 '344I4ve, Slti A87-65c 2. vrr 3. �� J r�-- �pSt "�' r to Sr� s.w, G'r'iC-b 731 4. S U^ 2 1 ZD 5. . .?rva !✓ 71 � !� Ljf j i%�Btq 6. j hil50- ,W. r c - `Q 7. �.eb•n Sr••� /Ceh,r,�v,� 73 �. 8`t`" Ate= S'"�f 53(- -q7so 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0< DATE: 12/11/06 Reports and Recommendations ITEM DESCRIPTION: First Street Plaza Design Fees ORIGINATING DEPT: Administration ITEM NO. Doug Knott On 12/02/05, the City entered into a contract with Yaggy Colby for the design of the First Street Plaza for a fee of $120,000 plus reimbursable expenses. At that time, the project had an estimated construction budget of $1,700,000 with construction intended to begin in 2006. The current construction estimate is $2,600,000, including a $200,000 contingency amount. The project will be bid in late winter with construction starting in the spring of 2007 and complete by fall. Yaggy is requesting additional compensation based on the increased cost, scope, complexity and duration of the project. In a letter dated 11/30/26, they indicate that by the time their work is complete, they will incur total costs related to the project in the amount of $323,518. Of this amount, $48,400 is for outside consultants brought in to deal with specialized elements of the project. A committee composed of the Mayor, Council President Hanson, Bruce Fairchild from Sunstone, Sandy Keith and Elisha Anderson from the RDA, Bruce Rohde from Mayo, Mark 7asmin from HDR, Doug Knott and Richard Freese provided guidance to Yaggy during the design process. Additions to the project scope include an elaborate decorative and security lighting system, extensive work on the reconstruction of the Peace Fountain, and the addition of a second fountain on the Sunstone end of the project, a manned information kiosk, security cameras, a sound system and other improvements. The design was complicated by the fact that nearly the entire west side of the Plaza sits over pedestrian tunnels. Considerable time was also spent investigating the feasibility of a snow melt system, a permanent stage, and an ice rink. In assessing Yaggy's request, staff from the Public Works's Department and other agencies was contacted. Generally, projects of this size and complexity carry design fees ranging anywhere from 9% to 12%. 1 recommend that the Council amend the Yaggy Colby First Street Plaza project to provide for total design fees of $288,400. If this proposal is not acceptable to the Council, the contract provides that disputes are subject to mediation followed by arbitration if the mediation process does not result in a settlement. Council Action Requested Amend the Yaggy Colby First Street Plaza Design contract to increase the total amount of compensation to Yaggy to,$288,400 with the Mayor and Clerk authorized to sign necessary documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Secondby:: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION >GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINANCE ITEM DESCRIPTION: Capital Improvement Projects - Transfer of Funds MEETING 61 DATE: 12/11/06 ITEM NO. r-0-2� PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects, or completed phases within specific projects, and authorizing transfers of the unexpended balances or transfers to fund project deficit balances. The project funds were created and financed pursuant to City Charter, Section 11.10. The total amount of funds transferred for these projects is broken down as follows: Airport Sanitary Sewer Streets other Net Funds Transferred $ 348,823.67 5,737,348.02 18,636,92 1,648,390.50 $ 7,753,199.11 The amount of funds transferred to fund active projects as listed in item two of the resolution include funds from the following categories: Street Funds Abatement Funds Sewer Utility Bonds storm Water Utility Funds Pedestrian Facilities Funds Park Funds General Fund Contingency Future Assessment Funds Sales Tax Funds Other Net Funds Transferred �v �COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: $ 721,750.00 67,990.00 4,500,000.00 250,000.00 100,000.00 8,239.56 27,715.00 871, 838.00 6,469,000.00 100. 000.00 $ 13,116,532.56 1 C Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution closing completed improvement projects, or completed phases within specific projects, and transferring funds pursuant to the city Charter, Section 11.10; and to transfer the stated amounts to fund active projects listed in item # 2 below. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Common Council has appropriated funds to the following projects: Project # Project Description Amount Airport (13,845.00) 6913 Airport Signs - 2004 Trf fnds fr J6950 (Airport Future Construction) to J6913 13,845.00 6919 Construct 10 unit T Hangars 55,719.47 6956 Airport Storm Water project (7,968.05) Trf fnds fr J6508 (Storm Water Mgmt Contributions) to J6956 7,968.05 6965 Arrivals/Departures Facilities (25,385.13) Trf fnds fr J6950 (Airport Future Construction) to J6965 25,385.13 6981 Relocate County Road 16 (133,275.88) Trf fnds fr J6950 (Airport Future Construction) to J6981 133,275.88 6982 Modify Passenger Loading Bridge to fit CRJ (18,82220) Trf fnds fr J6950 (Airport Future Construction) to J6982 18,822.2D 6983 ADA Improvements (19,963,24) Trf fnds fr J6950 (Airport Future Construction) to J6983 19,963.24 6984 Fuel Storage Facility -- return funds to J6950 293,104.20 Pedestrian Facilities 4941 W Circle Dr Bike Trl f, 2 St SW to Bamber Valley Rd (17.00) Trf fnds fr J4946 (Bikeways) to J4941 17.00 Sanitary Sewer 7707 Sn/S to Lots 1-3 & 11-13 Osjor Est 3 Subd 11,538.00 Trf fr J8213 (WQPP Asmnt funds) to J7707 54,500.00 Trf fnds fr J8202 (Sewer Availability Fnds) to J7707 22,146.40 Trf fr 422 (Sales Tax Fund) to J7707 31,315.60 7717 Sn/S W/M Ext to Salem Rd SW Sec 8 & 9 1,927.20 9750 Sn/S & W/M Rose Haven Subd 451,455.52 Trf fr J8213 (WQPP Asmnt funds) to J9750 437,341.41 Trf fnds fr J8201 (Water Availability Fnds) to J9750 74,350.00 Trf fnds fr J8202 (Sewer Availability Fnds) to J9750 70,200.00 9786 Sn/S W/M ext to Kahoun Subd 263,929.56 Trf fr J8213 (WQPP Asmnt funds) to J9786 622,882.60 Trf fr 422 (Sales Tax Fund) to J9786 235,766.84 9787 Sn/S W/M ext to Crystal Springs Subd (183,420.84) Trf fr J8213 (WQPP Asmnt funds) to J9787 585,009.78 Trf fr 422 (Sales Tax Fund) to J9787 365,139.06 9790 Sn/S W/M ext to Cedar Park Subd (197,298.16) Trf fr J8213 (WQPP Asmnt funds) to J9790 218,592.77 Trf fnds fr J8201 (Water Availability Fnds) to J9790 71,010.00 Trf fnds fr J8202 (Sewer Availability Fnds) to J9790 26,323.00 Trf fr 422 (Sales Tax Fund) to J9790 25,741.39 139 9792 SnlS & W/M Ext to serve Southport 1,108,222.50 Trf fr J8213 (WQPP Asmnt funds) to J9792 1,268,991.75 Trf fnds fr J8202 (Sewer Availability Fnds) to J9792 171,683.64 Streets (40.22) 2245 Widen 3 Av SE fr 4 St to 12 St Trf fnds fr J2201 (Street Resurfacing) to J2245 40.22 2272 Recon CSAH #8 fr CSAH #22 to one mile south (176,622.75) Trf fnds fr J2201 (Street Resurfacing) to J2272 176,622.75 7203 Remove 11 Av SW @ CR 16 (13,115.58) Trf fnds fr J4844 (MSAS Construction) to J7203 13,115.58 7216 C&G Overlay 7 Av SE fr 6 St to street end (Return fnds to J2200,J8204,J8307) 18,636.92 7254 Constr 60 Av NW fr Valleyhigh Dr to 55 St (67,750.00) Trf fnds fr J7229 (Westside TID) to J7254 67,750.00 Basic Construction/Owner Contract Proiects 5009 B/C Grandeville @ Cascade Lake - O/C (1,152.50) Trf fr J6501 (Storm Water Mgmt) to J5009 1,152.50 5166 Recon 34 Av NW fr 9 St to end of culdesac (7,516.50) Trf fnds fr J2201 (Street Resurfacing) to J5166 7,516.50 �-affic Sisanals 6396 Emergency Vehicle Signal Project (81,029.72) Trf fnds fr J6308 (Trfc Sgnl Repl Program) to J6396 81,029.72 Other 1943 DVD Security Self Checkout - RPL 0.01 1976 Regional Public Safety Training Facility 1,648,259.04 2074 Animal Control Facility 131.45 Total unexpended balances 7,753,199.11 WHEREAS, the above listed projects have been completed and all costs of said improvements have been paid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota in compliance with the Charter of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, Section 11.10 that: 1. The above named funds shall be discontinued and the total unexpended balances in said funds shall be transferred to the following local improvement project funds: Droiect # Project Description Amount Air ort 6950 Airport Future Construction -- fr J6919 55,719.47 8950 Airport Future Construction -- fr J6984 293,104.20 Sewer 422 Fnd Sales Tax Fund - fr J9750 302,616.93 422 Fnd Sales Tax Fund - fr J9792 428,719.89 2175 East Zumbro River Sn/S - 607 RE fr J7707 40,000.00 2175 East Zumbro River Sn/S - 607 RE fr J9750 319,500.00 2175 East Zumbro River Sn/S - 607 RE fr J9786 205,000.00 2175 East Zumbro River Sn/S - 607 RE fr J9787 174,000.00 2175 East Zumbro River Sn/S - 607 RE fr J9790 25,000.00 2175 East Zumbro River Sn/S - 607 RE fr J9792 882,000.00 8201 Water Availability Funds - fr J9786 12,750.00 B201 Water Availability Funds - fr J9787 2,248.00 8202 Sewer Availability Funds - fr J9786 16,070.00 8202 Sewer Availability Funds - fr J9787 36,750.00 8204 Future Assessments - fr J7707 79,500.00 8204 Future Assessments - fr J7717 1,927.20 8204 Future Assessments - fr J9750 411,230.00 8204 Future Assessments - fr J9786 888,759.00 8204 Future Assessments - fr J9787 553,730.00 8204 Future Assessments - fr J9790 119,369.00 8204 Future Assessments - fr J9792 1,238,178.00 Streets 2200 Street Rehab - fr J7216 15,765.03 8204 Future Assessments - fr J7216 2,647.89 B307 Sidewalk Construction - fr J7216 224.00 Other 1994 Future Construction -- fr J1976 104,259.04 1994 Future Construction -- fr J2074 131.45 2003 Future Property Acquisition -- fr J1976 1,544,000.00 2041 Libr Inf Technology Hdwr/Sftwr -- fr J1943 0.01 Total unexpended balances transferred $ 7,753,199.11 2. The following is a summary of transfers that were recorded in 2006 based on documentation from various sources. These transfers do not result in the closure of specific projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota that the following transfer amounts be officially and formally accepted and approved. Project Number Proiect Description Amount 1945 Trf Ends fr J1998(CityWideAreaNetwrk) to J1945(Tech Imprvmnts-Council Rm) 100,000.00 1980 Trf fnds fr Gen Fnd Contingency to J1980 (DME Concern) 27,715.00 2175 Trf fnds fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J2175 (E Zmbro Rvr Sn/S) 1,000,000.00 2208 Trf fnds fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J2208 (Cnstr 20 St SE fr 11 Av to Marion Rd) 40,000.00 2885 Trf fnds fr FE Wlms Fund to J2885 (Outdoor Skate Park) 8,239.56 2937 Trf Ends fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J2937 (RCTC Health Science Center) 2939 Trf fnds fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J2939 (UCR Football/Soccer Stadium) 4013 Trf fnds fr J6501 (Storm Wtr Mgmt) to J4013 (Welch Prop Storm Wtr Ponds) 4610 Trf fnds fr J8307 (Sidewalks Asmnts) to J4610 (2006 Sidewalk Repair) 7212 Trf fnds fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J7212 (H52 & 65 St NW Interchange) 7213 Trf fnds fr J2200 (Street Rehab) to J7213 (Capacity&SftylmprovMarion&Eastwd) 7245 Trf fnds fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J7245 (H14 & CSAH 22 Intrsctn) 7712 Trf fnds fr WRP Bond Proceeds to J7712 (Gravity Interceptor) 7727 Trf fnds fr J7229 (Westside TID) to J7727 (Cnstr Badger His Dr<WCrcIDr>50Av) 7743 Trf fnds fr J8204 (Future Asmnts) to J7743 (Recon 7th St NW<13Av>Cascade 7746 Trf fnds fr J8204 (Future Asmnts) to J7746 (Recon 11 Av NW<6St>10St 7747 Trf fnds fr J2601 (Abatement Fnd) to J7747 (Recon 2 Av SW<Ctr St>1 StSW) 7749 Trf fnds fr J2601 (Abatement Fnd) to J7749 (Recon 1 Av SW<2StSW>Ctr St 7749 Trf fnds fr J8204 (Future Asmnts) to J7749 (Recon 1 Av SW<2StSW>Ctr St 8205 Trf fnds fr 422 (Sales Tax) to J8205 (WQPP) 9712 Trf fnds fr J8204 (Future Asmnts) to J9712 (Recon 7 St NW<NBdwy>Cascade 9719 Trf fnds fr J7229 (Westside TID) to J9719 (Widen 50 Av NW<Nickls>Vlyhigh) 9815 Trf fnds fr J2200 (Street Rehab) to J9815 (Recon Bendel Rd NW) 9856 Trf fnds fr J4844 (MSAS Reserves) to J9856 (Cnstr 41Av<48St>55StNW) Net Funds Transferred 450,000.00 3,610,000.00 250,000.00 100,000.00 645,000.00 10,750.00 150,000.00 4,500,000.00 82,000.00 300,000.00 12,500.00 12,350.00 55,640.00 372,465.00 574,000.00 186,873.00 360,000.00 250,000.00 19,000.00 $ 13,116,532.56 3. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to put into effect the provision of this resolution as of November 30, 2006 Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 11 th day of December, 2006. President of said Common Council City Clerk Approved this day of ,2006. Mayor of said City (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: fqs 12/11 /06 ENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works FITEM DESCRIPTION: Sewer Rate and Plant Investment Fees for 2007-2009 PRE R. Fr ese Id The absence of sufficient Sewer Utility reserves for the construction of trunk sewers has prompted staff to review revenue options to fund the sewer projects approved for construction in 2006-2008 and those programmed in the future. The staff determined that a comprehensive, long term capital funding strategy and plan was needed to address the current funding shortfall and to better position the Utility to have sufficient revenue for future expenditures necessary to fund sewer projects and plant expansions. This Plan was presented to and discussed with the Council on 11/13/06. The following are actions the Council should consider: COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions to address the projected revenue requirements for the Sewer Utility for the period 2007-2009: 1. Adopt a Resolution establishing revised (OPTION 1) 2007-2009 Plant Investment Fees for Non -Residential Meter sizes greater than 2" at the 2" meter rate and either adopt (OPTION 1) maintaining established residential Plant Investment Fees or adopt (OPTION -_..:..-a 7nn7 Irmo nt".,* ina.r"lment Firs for Residential 5/8" Meter at $1.500 for 2007-2009. vmbu.vvI-�aw..w..-----.---------------__ OPTION 1 OPTION 2 711A Proposed zoo? Proposed 2008 Proposed 2009 Proposed 2007 Proposed zoos Proposed 2009 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500$1;500 "$1 500 $2,inn $280D $350D $2,100 $2,800 $3,500 $4,500 $6,000 $7,500 $4,500 $6,000 $7,500 1" $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 1-112" $15,900 $21,200 $26,500 $15,900 $21,200 $26,500 2" $33,600 $33 $44,800 ' . $33,fi00 , $56,000 .:.. , , $33,600 $44,800 $56,000 ;0003 ' `,'433,600' ;33,606 $33 6010 $44,800 $66,000 2. Adopt a Resolution establishing revised Sewer Rates and Plant Investment Fees for 2007-2009. The sewer rates shall go into effect in January 2007 with the customers February 2007 billing that reflects their usage in January 2007. The revised Plant Investment Fee would be effective for all new building permit applications received after 1/1 /07. The Council's decision on Item # 2 affects the proposed 2007-2009 Sewer Rates in the following manner: J3 OPTION # 1: Residential Sewer Rates Imnact if PIF canoed at $2,500 (2009) 1 2007 2008 2009 .568 Monthly .78 ox- �,ti,..R = 6w`S COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Memorandum Date: November 17, 2006 To: Stevan Kvenvold Dale Martinson Richard Freese From: Lyle J. Zimmerman I would like to express my opinions regarding the single family residence Plant Investment Fee. Preliminary numbers used in the rate study done in 2004 showed that a single family residence plant investment fee should be approximately $18,900. This was based on a worst case scenario of around 200 new SFR per year. Using more realistic numbers the fee should be around $6,500. That is based on approximately $62,000,000 for expansion out of the $75,000,000 for plant projects, an average rate of 4.5% over 20 years and 750 SFR per year. The following is what MCES charges for new SFR. For non-residential customers they have a very involved procedures manual that is used to calculate the fee. Each member community is responsible for collecting the fee and MCES has several auditors on staff, who monitor the collection of these fees by each community. Using Metro as a reference is all right, but since it is not known what goes into setting the fee, we should not restrict Rochester to being no higher than Metro. Metro is very a different utility than Rochester since they are a district serving many communities: Year Metro Rate 2006 $1550 2007 $1675 There numerous ways by which non-residential PIF's are calculated with some being very complicated as in Metro's case and others fairly straight forward as in Rochester's. Doing something like counting plumbing fixture units or counting bedrooms or some other method does not add any fairness into how a PIF is assessed to anew property. A large house may have a high PIF but only have two people using a small quantity of water and consequently a small portion of the plant capacity. There would be a lot of games played like only roughing in additional baths and not finishing off bedrooms until after inspections are completed. I believe what Rochester and most other communities do by charging a flat rate for a single family home is as fair as any. Affordable housing is a concern but I am not sure that the Sewer Utility should be subsidizing growth in order to provide affordable housing. Using another method for SFR can be implemented but it will greatly increase staff time and will not necessarily be any fairer. The current rate study shows that capping the PIF at $1500 does not substantially increase the user's rates but fairness is a concern. Since the rate should rightfully be over $6000 for the current plant expansion the rate payers are already subsidizing a lot of growth. Now that we are adding the financing of SAC projects the rate payers are going to be subsidizing even more growth. I believe that capping the PIF at $2500 is more than fair and should not be changed. Since a new septic may cost as much as $15,000, having a PIF of $2500 for wastewater treatment is a real bargain. I have talked to several service organizations over the last year about the plant expansion and always talk about finances. I have not had any one express a concern about the PIF for single family residences, but have had some regarding the commercial rates. Roca'STER - AREA_ tk CHAMBER ^F YCOMMERCE December 1, 2006 Mr. Dennis Hanson Council President City of Rochester 2004 24 %z Lane SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Hanson: In October the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce, the Rochester Area Builders, and the Southeast Minnesota Association of Realtors joined to form the "Grow Rochester" Association. The Association was formed in order to bring together the three largest member organizations in Rochester. Their mission is to promote the growth and development of the Rochester area through advocacy, education, and awareness The Grow Rochester Association fully supports changes to the Plant Investment Fee which was discussed at the November 13th Rochester City Council Committee of the Whole meeting. Changes include lowering the fee on 3" and above Commercial Water Meters for new construction to the same fee as 2" Commercial Water Meters. By lowering the larger water meters, Rochester will have a greater chance of securing a large commercial business than with the present Plant Investment Fee. In 2009 Under the current plan a meter larger than 3 " would have been $608,800. The revised plan will lower this fee in 2009 to $56,000. This is a savings of $552,800. Another change is capping Plant Investment Fees on new residential construction at $1500.00. Under the present plan this would have been capped at $2500.00 in 2009. This swings of $1000.00 willmakehomes more affordable in the Rochester community. Having affordable housing in our community is vital to the growth and economy of Rochester. The Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce strongly encourages the Rochester City Council to adopt these two changes to the Plant Investment Fee at their December I 1 th meeting. Sincerely, dx,�, va4. John Wade �// John Eckerman President // Vice President — Government Affairs 220 South Broadway < Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904 - 5072BB.1122 ,. Fax 507-282-8960 Website: www.rochestermnchamber.com •, email: chamber@rochestermnchomber.com \)y 108 Elton Hills Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 507-282-7698 Phone 507-282-6351 Fax RABQrochester abuildets.com rochestetareabuildes.com Affiliated with the Builders Association of Minnesota and National Association of Hortebuilders December 6, 2006 Stevan Kvenvold City Administrator City of Rochester 201 4" Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Kvenvold: In October the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce, the Rochester Area Builders, and the Southeast Mimlesota Association of Realtors joined to form the "Grow Rochester" Association. The Association was formed in order to bring together the three largest member organizations in Rochester. Their mission is to promote the growth and development of the Rochester area through advocacy, education, and awareness. The Grow Rochester Association fully supports changes to the Plant Investment Fee which was discussed at the November 13`h Rochester City Council Committee of the Whole meeting. Changes include lowering the fee on 3" and above Commercial Water Meters for new construction to the same fee as 2" Commercial Water Meters. By lowering the larger water meters, Rochester will have a better chance of securing a large commercial business than with the present Plant Investment Fee. In 2009, under the current plan, a meter larger than 3" would have been $608,800. The revised plan will lower this fee in 2009 to $56,000. This is a savings of $552,800. Another change discussed was Plant Investment Fees on new residential construction. Of the possible changes that could be made, the most appropriate seems to be capping the Fees at $1,500. Under the present plan this would have been capped at $2,500 in 2009, This savings of $1,000 will make homes more affordable in Rochester. Having affordable housing in our community is vital to the growth and economy of Rochester. The Rochester Area Builders strongly encourage the Rochester City Council to adopt these two changes to the Plant Investment Fee at their December 1lth meeting. Si y, r'Gyl John cGume Ton�an r - President Government Affairs Director Rochester Area Builders Rochester Area Builders REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: :ESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES G. ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). MEETING DATE: 12/11/06 ITEM NO. G BY: a) An Ordinance Rezoning Land From The R-3 Zoning District To The CDC -Fringe Zoning District, And I As The Zoning Ordinance And Land Development Manual Of The Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known I City Of Rochester, Minnesota. Said property, is located between Third and Fourth Avenue S.E. and between Fifth and Sixth Street S.E. /'y'. ; - 0�q � �j f �?�1 b) An Ordinance Creating And Enacting Clause (E) To Subdivision 2 Of Section 60.175, And Amending And + I Reenacting Sections 61.111 And 61.115 Of The Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating To Zoning Certificates And Sound Amplification Permits. j i,' c) 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. i 3.4. MISCELLANEOUS 0�"& COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR EDA ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/11/2006 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NQ. Reports and Recommendations Finance _Jy�.� ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Resolution Establishing Reimbursement Bond Procedures to Comply D. Martinson with IRS Regulations Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended require governmental bodies to declare intent to bond before spending money that will be reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds. Failure to comply would likely prevent us from issuing tax-exempt bonds to pay the costs of the project. The regulations allow the governing body, in this case, the EDA, to authorize a staff person to make these declarations of intent to assure timely compliance with the regulations and keep appropriate record of such for bond preparations. Some time ago, the city council approved a resolution authorizing the City's finance director to complete these declarations on behalf of the City. We are recommending that EDA's assistant treasurer position be similarly authorized for EDA projects. The City's finance director is currently appointed to the EDA assistant treasurer position. The attached resolution authorizes the assistant treasurer position or other EDA employees that it may later so delegate to make the EDA's Declarations and specifies the form and timeline to comply with the IRS regulations. Also attached is the form of the first declaration to be issued, that for the bioscience project building. Recommended EDA Action Approve the resolution establishing procedures relating to compliance with reimbursement bond regulations under the internal revenue code. EDA ACTION: Motion by: second by: to, REQUEST FOR EDA ACTION MEETING 'SI DATE: 12/11/06 A SECTION: Reports and Recommendations .. _M DESCRIPTION: Design Contract HGA Administration PREPARED BY: Doug Knott JP/v The Bio Business Architect Selection Committee recommends the firm of HGA to design the Bio Business Center and associated parking improvements. The total design fee is $1,479,000 ($1,062,000 for the Bio Business Building and $417,000 for the parking and other infrastructure improvements). These fees are based on a total construction budget of $20.4 million for the Bio Business Building and $8.1 million for the parking and other improvements. The design fees for the parking and infrastructure will be paid from the proceeds from the $8.0 grant that the City received from the MN Department of Employment and Economic Development. The design fees for the Bio Business Center will be paid from bond proceeds to be issued for the project. The Bio Business Center consists of an 8 to 9 story building containing 130,000 to 150,000 square feet of space. Depending on the final layout and design, as many as 380 spaces will be added to the existing Third Street Ramp. The intent is to complete the design by mid to late summer of 2008 with a August/September construction start. If for any reason the City decides not to proceed with the project, the HGA contract can be terminated, compensating them for the work completed. The Architect Selection Committee consisted of the Mayor, Council President Hanson, Sandy Keith representing the RDA, Gary Smith representing RAEDL representatives from Mayo Clinic, Richard Freese and staff from the City Administrator's office. A three step selection process was utilized. Qualification statements were solicited from nine design firms. Three firms were ultimately selected for interviews, with HGA being selected. While this was a qualification based selection process rather a bid, HGA did have the lowest fee of the firms interviewed Economic Development Authority Action Requested Authorization to enter in to a contract with HGA in accordance with the terms outlined above with the appropriate Economic Development Authority officials authorized to sign necessary documents. _DA ACTION: Motion by Sewnd by: to: REQUEST FOR EDA ACTION A SECTION: I ORIGINATING t Reports and Recommendations Administration ITEM DESCRIPTION: Purchase Agreement Mayo Clinic MEETING 10 ' DATE: 12/11/06 ITEM NO. 3 PREPARED BY: Doug Knottlp I` City staff has reached agreement with Mayo Clinic staff on the terms of a purchase agreement for a portion of the site needed for the Bio Business Center project (see attached map). The agreement is contingent upon approval by the Mayo Facilities Committee and the Executive Board. The purchase price is $290,000, payable in cash at closing. The sale price is based on an independent appraisal prepared for the City. Closing is set for April 2, 2007. The subject property is adjacent to a contaminated site. The purchase agreement gives the City the right to enter the property for purposes of undertaking soil surveys and environmental investigations. The City can terminate the agreement if: there are problems with the marketability of title; we elect not to construct the Bio Business Center project; or, our investigations reveal environmental conditions that make the project infeasible. Mayo can terminate the agreement if the City fails to proceed in good faith with the design and leasing of the Bio Business Center. The agreement also contains a buy back clause for Mayo. If the City has not started construction of the Bio Business Center by April 2, 2008, Mayo may repurchase the property at the original sale price, free and clear of any liens and encumbrances. Funding for the purchase will come from bonds issued for the project. Because of the nature of financing arrangements, the project will be purchased and held in the name of the City of Rochester Economic Development Authority and any approvals should come from that body. Economic Development Authority Action Requested: Approval to enter into a Purchase Agreement with Mayo Clinic for the purchase of 217 First Avenue SW for the price of $290,000 with the appropriate Economic Development Authority officials authorized to sign necessary documents. EDA ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: IZ Q