The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/18/2006_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA h(_ COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS O(D GOVERNMENTCENTER 151 4TH STREET SE MEETING NO. 32 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGL 1-2 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER DECEMBER 18, 2006 7:00 P.M. C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 3-4 1) Petition for Local Improvement — Pedestrian Walkway and Bike Path 2) Petition for Extension of Watermain to Serve Property at 7600 Highway 63 South 3) Presented Plaque to Amy Blenker for Services 5-6 D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes 7-8 2) City of First Class Research 9-10 3) Request for Funding/Rochesterfest 25th Celebration 11-14 4) Completion Agreement — Eastwood Golf Course 15-16 5) Amendment to Eastwood Development Agreement — Clubhouse 17-18 6) Continuation of River Reporting Gauge — South Fork Zumbro River at 37th Street NW 19-20 7) Request to Initiate Annexation of 100% surrounded property in Cascade Township 21-22 8) Agreement with the City of Rochester to spread biological solids on Airport Property 23-24 9) Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. 25-26 10) Agreement between the City of Rochester and the Federal Aviation Administration to lease space in the Air Traffic Control Tower Building 27-28 11) Change Order #1 with Schwab Company for 2006 ARFF/SRE/Maintenance Building Expansion 29-30 12) Licenses and Miscellaneous City Activities 31-32 13) Approval of Accounts Payable 33-34 14) Wal-Mart Donation 35-36 15) MnLINK Gateway Server Site Agreement 37-46 16) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Council Agenda Monday, December 18, 2006 Page 2 of 2 47-48 49-50 51-52 53-54 55-56 57-58 59-60 61-62 63-64 65-66 67-68 E) 69-70 71-80 81-112 113-134 135-144 17) Initiating the Sale of General Obligations Waste Water Revenue Bonds 18) Supplemental Agreement #8 Gravity Flow Interceptor Phase I, J7712 19) Supplemental Agreement #46 Project #9408 (J2247) T.H. 14/52 Design Build 20) Maintenance of Traffic Credit T.H. 14 / 52 Design Build Project #9408 (J2247) 21) Release of Responsibility/Haul Roads Project 49408 (J2247) T.H. 14 / 52 Design Build 22) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Thomas G. Davis Property (for M&B #06-15) 23) Pedestrian Facilities Agreements — Christopher J. McLeod and Heidi M. McLeod Property (for M&B #06-15) 24) Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Rochester — Awning within 2°d Street SW Right of Way adjacent to 201 Building 25) Revocable Permit — Lots 12 & 13, Block 1, Northern Heights Subdivision — Gentling Properties 26) Rochester City Lines Contract for 2007 27) Agreement for Park & Ride Lot / Bethel Lutheran Church HEARINGS 1) Adoption of Proposed 2007 Budget and 2007-2012 Capital Improvements Program 2) Appeal of Decision of the Animal control Review board on Potential Dangerous Dog Designation on the Dog "Taz" Owned by Bondar and Alexey Leontovich. 3) Amendment to GDP #219 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley Subdivision 4) Amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley Subdivision 5) Final Plat #06-17 to be known as Rochester Towne Club Villas, by Platinum Development Group F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 145-146 H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OPEN COMMENT PERIOD ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN CITY ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE: 1� ITEM NO. A PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: v Letters and Petitions REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION City Clerk MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Local Improvement - Pedestrian Walkway and Bike Path PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr A petition has been received from residents in the Northeast area of Rochester requesting that a Pedestrian Walkway and Bike Path be constructed on the north side of CR 22 between 16`b Avenue N.E. and Alberta Drive N.E. The petition contains 107 signatures. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED LA motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Clerk /1 4z ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Extension of Watermain to Serve Property at 7600 PREPARED BY: Highway 63 South Judy Scherr A petition has been received from Robert Robinson, representing Tri-State Cold Storage/R & K Express at 7600 Highway 63 South requesting City water services to the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to refer the petition from Tri-State Cold Storage/R & K Express requesting City water (� ervices to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study. i✓ COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: TRI-STATE COLD STORAGE R & K EXPRESS December 13, 2006 Rochester Public Works 201 4" St. SE Rochester, Min. 55904 Mr Mike Nibur 7600 HWY 63 South Rochester, Mn. 55904 This is a letter to address our conversation on Dec. 11, 2006, As to the Feasibility of having a water outlet for warehouse sprinkler installation. Some of this property is already in the City Limits. We are basically interested in knowing if this will work. Sincerely, Robert Robinson Contact Robert Robinson Or Keith Robinson Phone: 507-285-0202 R & K Express. 507-286-1317 Tri State Cold Storage. Fax: 507-286-1119 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA REM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS MEETING 5 DATE: 12/18/06 D-1-27 WE ►1 00TFVi21 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) City of First Class Research 3) Request for Funding/Rochesterfest 25th Celebration 4) Completion Agreement — Eastwood Golf Course 5) Amendment to Eastwood Development Agreement — Clubhouse 6) Continuation of River Reporting Gauge — South Fork Zumbro River at 37"' Street NW 7) Request to Initiate Annexation of 100% surrounded property in Cascade Township 8) Agreement with the City of Rochester to spread biological solids on Airport Property 9) Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. 10) Agreement between the City of Rochester and the Federal Aviation Administration to lease space in the Air Traffic Control Tower Building 11) Change Order #1 with Schwab Company for 2006 ARFF/SRE/Maintenance Building Expansion 12) Licenses and Miscellaneous City Activities 13) Approval of Accounts Payable 14) Wal-Mart Donation 15) MnLINK Gateway Server Site Agreement -16) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action 17) Initiating the Sale of General Obligations Waste Water Revenue Bonds 18) Supplemental Agreement #8 Gravity Flow Interceptor Phase I, J7712 19) Supplemental Agreement #46 Project #9408 (J2247) T.H. 14/52 Design Build COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 0 Page 2 December 18, 2006 20) Maintenance of Traffic Credit T.H. 14152 Design Build Project #9408 (J2247) 21) Release of Responsibility/Haul Roads Project #9408 (J2247) T.H. 14 / 52 Design Build 22) Pedestrian Facilities Agreement — Thomas G. Davis Property (for M&B #06-15) 23) Pedestrian Facilities Agreements — Christopher J. McLeod and Heidi M. McLeod Property (for M&B #06-15) 24) Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Rochester — Awning within 2nd Street SW Right of Way adjacent to 201 Building 25) Revocable Permit — Lots 12 & 13, Block 1, Northern Heights Subdivision — Gentling Properties 26) Rochester City Lines Contract for 2007 27) Agreement for Park & Ride Lot / Bethel Lutheran Church COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l DATE: 12/ 18/06 CONSENT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY OF THE FIRST CLASS RESEARCH ITEM;II -I r PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The attached letter from the Charter Commission requests that the City of Rochester retain an individual to research the implications for the City of Rochester when the population of the City reaches 100,000 and the City receives a designation of a City of The First Class. The individual would be retained and work under the direction of the City Attorney. I have reviewed this request with the City Attorney, and we believe that an appropriation of $10,000 would be adequate to complete the task. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appropriating $10,000 from the 2006 Contingency Account to the City Attorney's budget to fund the City of First Class research project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: W, Memo To: Members — Rochester City Council From: Randy Stayer, President Rochester Charter Commission CC: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator Date- 11/16/2005 Re: City of the First Class — Research Opportunity The Rochester Charter Commission has taken an interest in the City of Rochester's anticipated designation as a city of the first class, a designation that will likely occur after the 2010 federal census. Cities of the first class are those cities in Minnesota that reach a threshold of at least 100,000 in population. As such, meeting the criteria for becoming a city of the first lass is straightforward. In preparation for that designation, the commission has established a committee to review issues that will impact the City, Olmsted County, and Independent School District 535. Preliminary research by the commission indicates that there are several hundred instances in Minnesota statutory language that reference the Gass of a city and potentially affect aspects of city governance, procedures, and relationships with the county and school district The charter commission recognizes that there are certain issues it may wish to consider preemptively as the city prepares for this eventuality. issues such as the continuation or reformatting of the civil service commissions and a review of additional park department authorities seem appropriate for the commission's consideration. Within the category of early considerations, the commission may begin review of the partisan ballot question yet in 2006. The commission also recognizes that there are many other issues that will need to be reviewed, considered, and possibly acted upon by the respective governing bodies of the city, county and school district It appears however, that the greatest impact will be on the city proper. Nevertheless, given the complexity and volume of legislative language pertaining to cities of the first class, it would seem prudent to coordinate research activity between the three bodies. The charter commission sees this as an excellent opportunity for the city to recruit and hire a temporary individual. This might be a law student or recent law school graduate or someone with similar skills and/or interest Their activity would specifically relate to the research and proposal of suggested recommendations regarding the impacts of the city of first class designation. We suggest that the person work under the direction of the city attorney while also being allowed sufficient opportunity to work actively with city administration and the charter commission. The commission seeks your advice. I look forward to meeting with all of you as we begin these preparations and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Randy Rochester Charter Commission CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ADMINISTRATION REM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/ROCHESTERFEST 25 CELEBRATION MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD Rochesterfest is requesting $20,000 to assist in the 25"' Celebration of Rochesterfest (see attached). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appropriating $20,000 from the 2006 Contingency Fund for the Rochesterfest 25h Celebration. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by 0 No Cdebmfim d. city October 5, 2006 Steve Kvenvold City Administrator 201 4a' Street SE — Room 266 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Steve, Rochesterfest Celebration of a City June 16 to 24, 2007 will mark the 251b celebration of Rochesterfest. The Fest provides a fun atmosphere, entertainment and camaraderie for the citizens of Rochester. Thousands look forward to many of the events each year. The in -kind services that have been provided by the Park and Recreation Department as well as Public Works are substantial! We appreciate not only the donation, but also the attitude with which it has been given each year since 1983. In order to ensure a quality event, which provides mostly free entertainment for everyone, we are asking for financial support in the amount of $20,000. One of the items the funds would cover is the cost of security. It has become necessary to provide not only police but also additional private security so that everyone can feel safe in our wonderful city at the Fest. Thank you and the Council for your consideration of this request from the Celebration of a City Board. Sincerely, Co4leBwn Executive Director P.O. Box 007 • Rochester, Minnesota 55903 • Phone (507) 285-8769 • FAX (507) 285-8718 email: carole.brown@rochesterfest.com • website: www.Rochesterfest.com CONSENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: COMPLETION AGREEMENT - EASTWOOD GOLF COURSE MEETING R DATE: 12/18/06 ITEM NO. G. NEUMANN The City entered into a Development Agreement (DA) with Platinum Development for the construction of a collector roadway (Towne Club Road) and a New Nine at Eastwood, including a maintenance building and driving range as part of an overall land swap transaction. Under terms of the DA Platinum was responsible for the construction of the roadway and those golf course facilities and the cost thereof, with the City responsible for a payment of $1,575,000. The construction of the New Nine by Platinum was substantially complete in September of this year and the land transfer was completed; the City has had ownership of the New Nine since that time. The transfer was subject to a punch list of items that Platinum continued to be responsible to complete and for which the City withheld some of the required City payment. Platinum has been performing that work on the New Nine into November. At this time those punch list items and the DA requirements and obligations of Platinum relating to the New Nine have been completed to the satisfaction of the Park and Recreation Department Superintendent and this office. Both Platinum and the City staff believe it would be useful to approve a "completion agreement" that acknowledges that Platinum has fulfilled their construction obligations for the New Nine and that the City has fulfilled its payment obligations. There were a few items for which some things that were described as Platinum's responsibility in the DA were undertaken by the City, instead of Platinum, with a price reduction credit for the City (lighted ski trail; purchase and installation of golf course tee markers, flags, benches). These are clarified in this agreement. As a result we are recommending that the City approve and execute with Platinum an agreement to, essentially, formally close out the New Nine construction portion of the DA. Overall the City staff has been very pleased with the contract performance of Platinum and the golf course architect that they retained, Jim Felton. We believe that the New Nine that they have constructed and transferred to the City will be great addition to the City of Rochester Golf program. Council Action Requested. Approve the "Agreement As To Completed Obligations Of The Development Agreement". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:_to. AGREEMENT AS TO COMPLETED OBLIGATIONS OF THE ROCHESTER TOWNE CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2006, by and between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("City"), and PLATINUM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("Platinum"). WHEREAS, on or about August 24, 2005, the parties executed a Development Agreement concerning Platinum's proposal to construct a new nine hole golf course in the area of the City's current Eastwood Golf Course. The Agreement calls for the transfer of the new nine hole golf course to the City in exchange for the existing front nine holes of the Eastwood Golf Course that would be transferred to Platinum for development purposes. The new development is generally known as Rochester Towne Club; and, WHEREAS, since August, 2005, Platinum has engaged in considerable construction activities needed to implement the DA. In addition, some informal arrangements have occurred between the parties as to each party's obligations under the DA; and, WHEREAS, the parties believe it would be beneficial for them to express their agreement as to those provisions of the DA have been completed to the parties' mutual satisfaction and the agreed -upon changes to the DA. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and Platinum agree as follows: 1. Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the DA address Platinum's responsibility to design and construct the nine new golf holes, driving range and maintenance building at the Eastwood Golf Course ("New Nine"). Platinum has performed its respective obligations under Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the DA subject to two conditions. The first condition involves Platinum providing a $20,000 credit to the City for the City's Section 9 payment obligation. The City intends to use the $20,000 credit to order and install the golf course accessories, which was a Platinum obligation under the DA. The second condition involves Platinum providing a $10,000 credit to the City for the City's Section 9 payment obligation in light of additional improvements made by the City to the driving range. 2. Section 31b of the DA addresses Platinum's obligation to pay the costs for the construction of the golf course, maintenance facility (not to exceed 1 0 $250,000), ski trail and driving range. Platinum has performed its obligations under Section 31 b. The parties agree that the City has selected the option under the City's Section 9 payment obligation to have the City reconstruct the lighted ski trail resulting in a $40,000 credit to the City. 3. Section 9 of the DA addresses Platinum's responsibility to install one eight - foot by nine -foot culvert for golf carts under Towne Club Road. The parties have determined there is a need to revise the culvert location and design. As such, the parties agree that the City's payment of $31,800 for the engineering costs for the revised culvert location and increased culvert length constitutes full and complete payment for such items by the City. 4. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, Platinum has completed its construction obligations and has no further construction, maintenance, repairs or correction responsibilities for the New Nine golf course including the maintenance building and driving range. 5. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, City has no further payment obligation to Platinum for the New Nine golf course, maintenance building or driving range. 6. This Agreement relates solely to Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 b, and a portion of Section 9 of the DA. All other provisions of the DA, including those provisions in Section 9 not addressed herein, remain in full force and effect. 7. Except as provided in Section 6 herein, it is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF ROCHESTER By Its Mayor Attest Its City Clerk 06 PLATINUM GROUP, INC. M DEVELOPMENT Approved to Form: City Attorney STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) The foregoing agreement was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by Ardell F. Brede and Judy Scherr, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) On this day of 2006, before me, a notary public within and for said county personally appeared personally known to me to be the of the corporation, and who executed the foregoing agreement on behalf of the professional association and who further acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This agreement prepared by: Rochester City Attorney's Office 201 Fourth Street S.E., Room 247 Rochester, MN 55904 K/Plati nu m ParComplete 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING [� DATE: 12/18/06 CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: AMENDMENT TO EASTWOOD DA - G. NEUMANN Under Sections 26 and 27 of the Eastwood Development Agreement (DA) with Platinum, they have an option to secure land to construct a new clubhouse provided that they have made a commitment to construct a new clubhouse valued in excess of $2 million. This is an option in the agreement and it has never been a mandatory requirement that they construct a new clubhouse. That option will expire February 24, 2007. Platinum is currently working with a number of parties that have expressed interest in being involved in the construction of a new clubhouse that meets the requirements in the agreement. They have requested a six month extension to allow them time to see if they will be able to proceed to construct a new clubhouse pursuant to terms of the DA. The Park and Rec. Superintendent and this office are recommending approval of a six month extension. It would be beneficial to the City to secure a new clubhouse that is funded by private parties but which makes provision for the golf pro shop and golf course operations. The alternative, if that cannot be accomplished, would be for the city, at some point, to fund a new replacement clubhouse in the City CIP. Given the current funding constraints in the CIP it would be difficult for the City to fund a new clubhouse construction. Council Action Requested. Amend Section 27 of the Eastwood as follows: "Owner's commitment, as evidenced by meeting the conditions found in par. 26 (b) above, must be made within 24 (deleted 18) months of execution of this Development Agreement or the City shall be under no further obligation to convey the Clubhouse property to Owner." %OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to: i) City has reviewed and approved the design of the Clubhouse & Proshop. ii) Owner has received an approved site development plan and all zoning related approvals for the new clubhouse. iii) Upon substantial completion of construction of the New Nine and provision of a letter of Credit to cover any warranty/incomplete items. iv) Owner has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that financing is in place to commence and complete construction of the clubhouse. v) Owner has secured a building permit for the construction of the clubhouse. vi) Owner has entered into an owner contract for the construction of roadways and utilities for the development property. vii) Not more than 18 months has passed since execution of this Development Agreement 27) Clubhouse/Proshop — Following conveyance of the Clubhouse Property as outlined in par. 26(b), Owner may at its sole cost and expense construct a building and parking area to be used for a new clubhouse, golf operations and banquet/restaurant facility ("New Clubhouse"). Owner may obtain the commitment of one or more persons or entities to construct, own, and operate the New Clubhouse. The New Clubhouse shall have a minimum value of at least $2,000,000.00 and shall be located in the area of the existing clubhouse, or another location mutually acceptable to the City and Owner. Owner's commitment, as evidenced by meeting the conditions found in par.26(b) above, must be made within 18 months of execution of this Development Agreement or the City shall be under no further obligation to convey the Clubhouse property to Owner. If Owner satisfies the conditions of par. 26(b) and accepts the conveyance of the Clubhouse Property, building construction shall commence and be completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. If construction is not commenced or completed within this 12 month period, Owner shall reconvey unencumbered fee title of the Clubhouse Property to the City at no cost to the City. If building construction commences the following conditions shall also apply: c) Owner shall create a Condominium Plat separating the golf operations portion of the building from the remaining portion of the facility. d) The City shall have authority to review and approve the design details and construction documents for the Club House. The New Clubhouse will include space for a golf pro shop and golf operations space consisting of 2,000 sq. ft. total, excluding bathroom facilities. e) The building shall be designed such that each entity (Golf Operations and Club House) can either be self sufficient or incorporated into one facility. 17 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONTINUATION OF RIVER REP FORK ZUMBRO RIVER AT 37TH STREET NW Administration TING GAUGE - SOUTH MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 ITEM NO. D- PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN In the fall of 1992, the City was advised by the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) Office that the funding which they had been receiving from a department of the Corps of Engineers for the river gauge at 37th Street NW would be discontinued in October of 1993. The new policy of the U.S.G.S. with regard to the continuation of such river reporting gauges would be to request some cost sharing participation from the local community in order to keep such river reporting gauges operational. The U.S.G.S. has requested that the City of Rochester or any other local governments pay '/2 of the annual maintenance costs of this gauge plus the annual electric and telephone costs. This originally cost the City $4,400 per year for maintenance and $551 for telephone and electric. The U.S.G.S. has requested increased funds annually from the City due to inflation, equalization of charges among their gauging station network, and equipment upgrades. The total funding request for maintenance from the City for October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2007 is $6,860 per year. It was $6,660 for 2006. During 1992, 1 discussed this matter with Emergency Management, Public Works and Rochester Public Utilities representatives. All of those departments strongly recommended the continuation of the 371h Street river gauge to assist in forecasting flooding levels and in maintaining a comparative level of flood elevations in Rochester. Knowledge of flood elevations is important to planning flood control measures. In checking with them in September of 1999, they again recommended continuation of the gauge. While the extensive flood control project will protect the City up to a 170 year flood event, there is always a small chance that some extreme flooding conditions could exceed that design capacity. RPU has agreed to pay 1/2 of the City's continued maintenance of this river gauge. The remainder of the City costs would be recommended to be taken from the flood control account. Approval of the City to agree to pay '/2 of the annual maintenance expenses for the periods of October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007, plus the telephone and electric expenses for the river gauge at 37'" Street is recommended by this office. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval for City to enter into a joint funding agreement for the 37t' Street river gauge as described above. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: wood by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agends initiate annexation Township City Administration property MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 A in May, 2004, the City and Cascade Township entered into an Orderly Annexation Agreement for a number of 100% surrounded properties within Cascade Township. Under the terms of the OA Agreement, those properties were annexed to the City as of January 1, 2006. At this time there is a parcel that should have been included and annexed under the OA Agreement, however; the legal description of this parcel was not included as part of the OA Agreement. The parcel is located directly south of the 37`h Street Baptist Church, along Bandel Road NW, and is owned by the church. Therefore, at this time staff is requesting the Council to initiate annexation of this 100% surrounded parcel by annexation ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to initiate annexation of the 100% surrounded property within Cascade Township, located along Bandel Road NW, and owned by the 37`h Street Baptist Church. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map x ^x, y - . t � yR€xM 2 `.. fir•€ r. i 1 �`� s4C' p� �i ... I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 "GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport O _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement with the City of Rochester to spread biological solids on PREPAREDALeqve Airport Property. Steven W. The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Renew the Agreement between the City of Rochester and the Rochester Airport Company for the spreading of biological solids from the Water Reclamation Plant on 1250.00 acres of Airport Property. The City of Rochester/Water Reclamation Plant shall pay the Rochester Airport Company $168,750.00 or $135 per acre annually. This is a two year agreement from l/1/2007 through 12/31/2008. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' DATE: 12/18/06 " AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport ITEM NO. 1_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation PREPARED BAY:Smices- W __ ve . _ __ The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. to provide plans/specifications and overall project management for a restroom remodeling project in the Terminal Building at the Rochester International Airport. TSP, a local architect and engineering firm, will assist and work as a sub consultant under McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. The fees for these services will be provided as a lump sum, not to exceed cost of $54,300. #6942 Funding: 70% State 30% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ;solution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk execute the Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts Transportation Services, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 7 DATE: 12/18/06� i AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Ion Consent Rochester International Airport D , ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement between the City of Rochester and the Federal Aviation PREPARED BY: Administration to lease space in the Air Traffic Control Tower Building. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Renew the Agreement between the City of Rochester and the Federal Aviation Administration to continue to lease approximately 4,426 square feet of floor space in the Air Traffic Control Tower. This leased area is forAir Traffic Control and Airways Facilities Sector Field Office and equipment. This is a five year agreement which is effective 10/1/2006 and continues through 9/30/2011. This agreement reflects a 17.5 % increase over the previous agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: tesolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second r. -AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Consent I Rochester International Airport ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1 with Schwab Company for 2006 ARFF/SRE/Maintenance Building Expansion. The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 ITEM NO. Steven W. Legve Execute Change Order #1 with Schwab Company for 2006 ARFF/SRE/Maintenance Building Expansion. This change order involves numerous work items that are detailed on the attached documentation. The net effect of this change order is a payment to Schwab Company of $7,930.55. AIP Project #3-27-0084-23-06, State Project #5501-149, City Project 46988. Original Contract Amount: $2,524,500. Funding: 95% Federal 5% Local -OUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Change Order 41 and all associated documents with Schwab Company. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 04- t DATE: 12/18/06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: REM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK (2 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: Dale Kukla The following licenses and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance and fees. SINGLE GAMBLING Church of Saint Frances of Assisi 318 I i m Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Raffles May 4, 2007 HVAC CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE Carl E Johnson Plumbing and Heating Inc 12724 160a' Street Milaca, MN 56353 Ery Smith Services Inc 1225 Truax Blvd Eau Claire, WI 54703 Ryan Mechanical Inc 1547 Haycreek Valley Road Red Wing, MN 55066 MASTER INSTALLER LICENSE Terrance C Johnson DBA Carl E Johnson Plumbing & heating Inc 12898 160' Street Milaca, MN 56353 Randal Ryan DBA Ryan Mechanical Inc N929 825, Street Hager City, WI 54014 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: tw LICENSE AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVIES PAGE 2 DECEMBER, 18,2006 NLASTER INSTALLER CON'T Noel G Smith DBA Ery Smith Services Inc 2903 Sunset Drive Eau Claire, WI 54703 JANUARY 1, 2007 RENEWAL LICENSE Bus 1 HVAC 125 Master Installer 186 Pawnshops 3 Pigeons 3 Sewer & Drains 83 Sidewalks -Asphalt 14 Sidewalks -Concrete 105 Signs 30 Taxicabs 1 Telecommunications 13 Theatres (Motion pictures) 3 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses and miscellaneous activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK DATE: 12/1 ITEM NO. b-iz ITEM DESCRIPTION: ACTIVITIES ADDITIONAL LICENSES, & MISCELLANEOUS CITY IGERBER PREPED 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. DANCE -No Liquor Blue Moon Ballroom 2010 U.S. Hwy 14 East Rochester, MN 55902 Fred and Myrna Gommels COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses and miscellaneous city activities. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agenda I Finance Department Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve the following cash disbursements: Investment purchases of Accounts payable of Total disbursements $17,171,283.61 $9,204,486.86 $26,375,770.47 (Detailed listing of disbursements submitted separately.) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to: MEETING ' DATE: 12/18/0� -t3 Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i DATE 12/lg/06 33 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police D L j J ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wal-Mart Donation PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson Wal-Mart has donated $2500 to the Police Department to be used for the Police Athletic League's "Shop With a Cop" program. The intention is for the Police Department to accept the donation and in turn donate the funds to the Police Athletic League. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Police Department requests approval to accept a $2500 donation from Wal-Mart and also requests approval to reissue these funds to the Police Athletic League for the "Shop with a Cop" program. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to: i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: MnLINK Gateway Server Site Agreement ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester Public Library MEETING DATE. 1 2I ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Audrey Belcher MnLINK is Minnesota's Library Information Network. The MnLINK Gateway is a portal into nearly all of Minnesota's library resources. This gateway allows the people of Minnesota to login using their local library card and to request that materials from around the state be delivered to their local library. This expanded interlibrary loan brings the request process directly to the library user as they select items and place their "Get It" request online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Rochester Public Library is one point of entry. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Request a motion authorizing the signing of the MnLINK Gateway Server Site Agreement. Second by: COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: to: Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date_ 12/16/06 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Consent Agenda ITE`t! � �� Rochester Public Utilities ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on December 14, 2006 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: - to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with Starr -Technical Risk Agency, Inc. for All Risk Property Insurance. The insurance agreement to be for a twelve month policy period commencing December 31, 2006 and expiring December 31, 2007. The amount of the twelve month premium to be $313,897. - to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for Commercial Automobile and General Liability Insurance. The insurance agreement to be for a twelve month policy period commencing December 31, 2006 and expiring December 31, 2007. The amount of the twelve month premium to be $129,633. - to approve a resolution to approve issuance of Electric Revenue Bonds for the emission reduction project at Silver Lake Plant for approximately $34,000,000, financing of electric system improvements at $14,000,000 and refunding the Series 2000 Electric Revenue Bonds for a total principal amount, including costs of issuance and other related financing costs, of approximately $90,000,000. - to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Clyde Bergemann Environmental Elements Corporation for the purchase of scrubber/baghouse equipment for Silver Lake Plant unit 4 not to exceed $11,427,000, and that the Mayor and City Clerk execute the agreement. - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Merit Contracting, Inc. for partial roofing of Silver Lake Plant in the amount of $137,242. - to approve a resolution to approve four CapX 2020 agreements with the City of Rochester, and that the Mayor and City Clerk execute the agreements. - to approve a resolution to approve the 2007 RPU electric and water capital and operating budgets. - to approve a resolution to approve an 8% increase in electric rates effective January 1, 2007. - to approve a resolution to approve a increase in wader rates effective January 1, 2007. /5% x/1 i �� ✓`cZ t 4 is<% .w 'L /c _,� ." .4N' �'-'� C�.E.� ( �.2"-- L+LC.Zt 4a L[t6h/ L; GENERALMANAGER: 4",7 (i COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seoond by to: FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 4. Meeting Date: 12/14/06 SUBJECT: Insurance Quotations for 2007 PREPARED BY: Curt Kraft, Director of Corporate Services Mamy Billings, Manager of Business Services ITEM DESCRIPTION: Listed below are the recommended insurance quotations for obtaining all risk property insurance, general liability, and automotive insurance for 2007. ALL RISK PROPERTY INURANCE: The C.O. Brown Agency received three proposals on RPU Property Insurance. The first one is from AIG, the second is from Starr -Technical Risk Agency (Hartford Steam), our current property insurance provider and the third is from AEGIS, who provides our umbrella liability coverage; they have started a new program to offer property coverage to utilities. The three carriers based their quotes on policy limits that were decreased from $ 200 million to $ 150 million, and the deductibles remained the same. Their quotes were based on values adjusted by 8% to better reflect current replacement costs. The coverage from all three carriers are very comparable, therefore the staff is recommending to accept the lowest premium submitted by Starr -Technical Risk Agency. PROPERTY VALUE PREMIUM 2005 $ 209,390,000 $ 532,177 2006 $ 224,850,000 $ 420,000 2007 $ 231,449,000 $ 313,897 The above coverage does not provide for acts of terrorism. LIABILITY AND COMMERICAL AUTO INSURANCE: Staff recommends maintaining the same structure of coverage for liability and auto insurance, having the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust provide the primary coverage up to $ 1,000,000. In 2006, RPU will be receiving a dividend from the League of $7,200. Staff also recommends maintaining AEGIS to provide blanket liability coverage with limits from $ 1,000,000 up to $ 20,000,000. 2005 2006 2007 League of MN Cities $ 118,328 $ 123,571 $ 129,633 AEGIS $ 69,385 $ 71,361 $ 84,123 Date FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 5.a. Meeting Date: 12114/06 SUBJECT: Emissions Reduction Project and Financing SLP Unit 4 PREPARED BY: Wally Scblink, Director of Power Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: Beginning in 2003, a team of RPU staff and consultants have been working on an emission reduction program that would result in significantly reducing both the rate and the total amount of emissions from Silver Lake Power Plant Unit 4. The Utility Board approved going forward with the permitting, engineering and design activities at the July 25, 2005 meeting. Since that time staff has refined the feasibility study and the related scope, cost estimates and schedule. More importantly, staff negotiated an agreement that would set the design parameters and other obligations that the utility must conform to in the implementation of the emissions reduction project. Staff reached an agreement and at the May 30, 2006 Utility Board meeting the Board approved the agreement. At the June 2006 Board meeting an engineering services agreement with Utility Engineering was approved and they, along with staff have been working diligently to proceed with the significant activities that are required to make the emission reduction plan into a reality. Also at the June meeting staff presented a detailed scope, schedule and budget for the project. We are now prepared to request that the Board formally approve the project and to also approve a financing plan that will allow the utility to issue electric revenue bonds to pay for the Emissions Reduction Project as well as other necessary infrastructure capital development. Attached is a scope document that outlines the project, a letter from the financial advisor supporting the bonding plan as well as a memorandum from the RPU General Manager detailing the issues related to this financing and refunding of our 2000 bond issue. The total principal amount of the Electric Revenue Bonds to finance the emission reduction project, electric system improvements and the refunding, including costs of issuance and other related financing costs, will be approximately $90,000,000. Staff will be at the Board meeting to answer any questions on this request. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board approve and request the Common Council approve a resolution authorizing the SLP Unit 4 Emission Reduction Project. Staff also requests the same resolution approve financing of the Emission Reduction Project as well as other capital infrastructure improvements through issuance of electric revenue bonds and refunding of our 2000 bond issue. 5 FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 5.b. Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Emissions Reduction Project Approval to Purchase Scrubber / Baghouse Equipment PREPARED BY: Wally Schlink, Director of Power Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: 12/14106 Starting in 2003, a team of RPU staff and consultants have been working on an emission reduction program that would result in significantly reducing both the rate and the total amount of emissions from Silver Lake Power Plant Unit 4. We are now ready to make our first purchase of major equipment that will be installed to fulfill the commitments that we have made to provide major reductions in S02 and particulate emissions in our community. The decision was made, based on delivery schedules, performance efficiencies and to take advantage of economies of scale, to purchase the scrubber, baghouse, booster fan, ductwork and support structure as a single package. The request before you meets that criteria as well as the most important requirement which is the removal of S02 and particulate emissions to meet our emission reduction targets. Through our engineers, Utility Engineering, a specification was distributed to 7 suppliers and only one bidder eventually chose to bid on the project. Currently there is a boom in the building of coal fired power plants world wide and the installation of emission reduction equipment domestically that has the suppliers of equipment being very selective in their choice of project participation. In reality, the RPU project is very small on the scale of projects on the drawing board and participation by the bidders reflected that fact. On a more positive note we are very pleased that the bidder that did respond, Clyde Bergemann Environmental Elements Corporation, met all the criteria of the Request for Bid and is a reputable supplier of emission reduction equipment with a track record of successful installations on units equivalent in size to SLP Unit 4. We request that the Board approve the purchase of the scrubber / baghouse as defined in the RFB. Included in the request is the detailed base bid ($8,373,000), Performance Bond ($2,520,000), option upgrades ($334,000) and an escalation allowance ($200,000) for a total approved amount of $11,427,000. This is a budgeted project in the 2007 capital budget request. Attached is a recommendation from Utility Engineering, as well as a copy of the purchasing contract agreement. Staff and a representative from Utility Engineering will be at the Board meeting to answer any questions on this request. i ii * r y n..- �. l FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # S.C. Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Bid for Construction Services Merit Contracting, Inc. Partial Roofing of Silver Lake Plant — Phase Il PREPARED BY: Tony Dzubay, Power Production Engineer RPU 12114106 ITEM DESCRIPTION: In February, 2005, TSP of Rochester, MN was hired through a Professional Engineering Services Contract to assist RPU personnel with the design, bid process and supervision for the partial re -roof of The Silver Lake Plant. Three levels of the SLP roof are included in this project. RPU and TSP have completed the design and bidding process and are awaiting the approval to schedule the work. The request for bids was advertised in the Post Bulletin with a desire to keep the work within the Rochester area On November 21, 2006 four acceptable bids, with respect to the plans and specifications prepared by TSP, were received. The low bidder was Merit Contracting, Inc with a base bid of $118,651. The other bids from Interstate Roofing and Waterproofing, Schwickert's of Rochester and Winona Heating and Ventilation were $149,800, $143,500 and $124,730, respectively. Merit was contacted to confirm their bid was mathematically correct and that all materials and anticipated work was accounted for. The bidder confirmed that their bid was valid and the work could be done for the given price. RPU will require Merit to begin work in the spring of 2007. All work shall be completed by August 31, 2007 per the contract. TSP has worked with Merit on multiple jobs in the past and considers them to be a reputable roofing company and sees no reason to decline their bid. The contract also includes three alternates that were priced out by each bidder. TSP and RPU recommends that Alternates 42 and 3 be rejected and Alternate #1 be accepted for $18,591. Alternate 41 adds another section of roof that would be more cost effective to do while Merit is mobilized on site. Funds for this project have been planned for in the annual SLP cost center budget for 2007. UTILITY BOARD ACT10N REQUESTED. Staff recommends that the Board approve a purchase order agreement in the amount of $137,242 for the construction services for the partial roofing of the Silver Lake Plant through Merit Contracting, Inc. --Grek�ral Manager �. Agenda Item # 7. SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12114/06 CapX Participation Agreement and amenamenrs Gerry Steffens, Manager of System Since June 2006 the CapX agreements team has been meeting to codify the agreements necessary to create a CapX organization as well as pursue the $1.3 Billion worth of transmission construction being undertaken by the CapX 2020 participants. Our legal representative has been Eric Swanson of the Minneapolis office of Winthrop and Weinstine. We hired outside legal representation due to the amount of time required for the participation and development agreements. Three agreements were previously approved (in September) by the Board and Council. They are: 1. The CapX Confidentiality Agreement 2. Southeast Twin Cities -Rochester -La Crosse Transmission Project Memorandum of Understanding 3. The CapX Organization Memorandum of Understanding This FBA requests approval of amendments to agreements 1 and 2. It further requests approval of the CapX 2020 Transmission Capacity Expansion Initiative Participation Agreement dated January 1, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the Participation Agreement) and the Joint Prosecution Agreement Each agreement action is discussed individually below. 1. CanX Confidentiality AuLement The Confidentiality Agreement simply obligates all CapX participants to treat the confidential information of other participants in a uniform manner. The previously approved agreement expires on December 31, 2006. The original schedule called for the permanent participation agreement as well as the four project development agreements to be approved and in place on January 1, 2007. Since the project development agreements will not be in final form until December 22nd and therefore will not be approved by all eleven participants until mid February 2007, the termination date of the Confidentiality Agreement is u being amended from December 31, 2006 to February 28, 2007. There is no monetary component to the Confidentiality Agreement. Once both the Participation Agreement and the development agreements are approved, the Confidentiality Agreement will no longer be required since the individual agreements include the confidentiality provisions. Attached is the amendment to the Confidentiality Agreement to change the termination date. la y Cy6neral Manager Date FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 7. Meeting Date: 12/14106 2. Amendment of the Southeast Twin Cities -Rochester -La Crosse Transmission Project Memorandum of Understanding Since the Project Development Agreement will not be finalized until December 22, 2006, it will not come to the Board and Council for approval until the January Board meeting and the first February City Council meeting. The original MOU covers the maximum potential 2006 project -related costs of $1,060,000 for the 345 and 161 lines proposed to be constructed and has a termination date of December 31, 2006. The amendment changes the maximum amount to $1,272,000 and extends the agreement termination date to February 28, 2007. The maximum exposure of RPU under this agreement is 9% of the total amount, or $114,480, which is increased from the previous $95,400 maximum exposure. Adequate monies for this agreement are included in the five year budget projections and the detailed 2007 budget amounts. 3. CapX 2020 Transmission Capacity Expansion Initiative Participation Agreement dated January 1, 2007 (Participation Agreement) The Participation Agreement replaces the existing CapX Organization Memorandum of Understanding, which terminates on December 31, 2006. It is intended to become effective January 1, 2007 and remain in effect until December 31, 2020 (Section 3a). Any participant can withdraw at any time and their only obligation will be to pay their portion of the approved CapX costs for the remainder of the fiscal year (Section 8a). For 2007, RPU's obligations under the Participation Agreement are expected to be 2.823% (see Appendix B) of an estimated budget of $1,736,130, or $49,011. These monies are included in the five- year and 2007 proposed budget amounts. As participants join or withdraw from the CapX organization, RPU's percentage can change somewhat; but it will not change dramatically unless the large members terminate their participation, which would likely mean the organization would terminate. Provisions are included in the Agreement for this eventuality. This Agreement (draft attached) is still undergoing review/revision by the parties. 4. Joint Prosecution Agreement The Joint Prosecution Agreement is an agreement between the CapX participants that is intended to govern the exchange of ideas, materials, and information in furtherance of obtaining a Certificate of Need and Other Regulatory Proceedings required for the construction of CapX transmission facilities. This Agreement (draft attached) is still undergoing review/revision by the parties. General Manager Date Agenda Item # - 9. SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: Approval of 2007 Electric and Water Budgets Curt Kraft, Director of Corporate Services 12114106 In November, staff reviewed the preliminary 2007 electric and water budgets with the finance committee and the Board as a whole. At that time, there were no changes made to the expense portion of the operating and capital budgets. The Board was presented with recommendations for an 8% revenue adjustment in the electric utility and 5% in the water utility to support the 2007 budget requests while maintaining appropriate cash reserve levels. Noteworthy items in the electric budget include: • The retail revenue forecast for 2007 estimates a 2.3% growth in our customer base and a 3.9% growth in sales over 2006. Wholesale revenues are projected at $ 23.5 million for 2007 which makes up 16% of our overall operating revenues. • Operating expenses reflect purchased power costs increasing by $10 million dollars in 2007, an increase of more than 14%. No change to our fizll time employee base is planned. • Capital expenses show construction beginning on the emission control project at SLP, along with costs for local and regional transmission projects we are participating in. • The budget includes the cost of debt to finance projects from 2007-2009 that aren't part of our regular capital activity. Water utility budget items include: The retail revenue forecast has an increase of 1.4% growth in the customer base, but a 4% decrease in sales for 2007 compared to 2006 due to the unusual dry summer periods. The operating expenses have been adjusted to reflect normal cost increases. Capital costs show standard expansion and replacement activity. The first principal payment occurs in 2007 on the short term borrowing done in 2006. Summary financial sheets are attached reflecting the recommended revenue adjustments. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is requested to approve and recommend that the City Council approve the 2007 RPU electric and water budgets. Ge eral Manager 6ate FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 10. Meeting Date: 12/14/06 SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: 2007 Electric Revenue Adjustment Curt Kraft, Director of Corporate Services ITEM DESCRIPTION: At the last Utility Board meeting, staff presented alternative revenue adjustments that would allow for providing reliable, quality service and maintaining a sound financial position. The Board's preliminary consensus was for an 8% increase in 2007. A notice of the proposed revenue adjustment was provided to the public via the paper of record. Staff recommends that the Board proceed with a recommendation to the City Council for increasing electric rates by 8% effective January 1, 2007 on all the current rate schedules. An 8% increase would increase the typical residential bill by approximately $ 5.50 per month. Staff would also propose that the customer charge for a residential customer be adjusted from $ 10 to $ 11.50, and the general service customer be adjusted from $20 to $ 23, while maintaining an overall increase of 8% in these rate classes. The adjustment to this rate component moves us closer to what our cost -of -service model indicates we should be. Staff recommends the removal of language in the rate schedules related to specific initiation dates for the interruptible rate. Staff further recommends the removal of the Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) and the Co -efficient of Performance (COP) as minimum qualifications for Air Source and Ground Source heat pumps as these factors are related to heating load. The efficiency factors related to cooling loads are more important to RPU and are still part of the high -efficiency HVAC rates. Additionally, for all rate tariffs with a demand component, staff recommends changing the tern "month" used in the explanation of determination of demand and billing demand to the term "billing periods" and adding the statement explaining that billing periods may not coincide with calendar months. This will more accurately describe billing practices. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Approve and recommend to the City Council an 8.0% electric rate increase to all customer classes effective January 1, 2007. 2. Approve a resolution for the following existing and modified rate schedules to be effective January 1, 2007. Residential Service (RES) Residential Service -Dual Fuel (RES-DF) Residential -High Efficiency HVAC (RES-HEF) General Service (GS) General Service -High Efficiency General Service Time -Of -Use (GS-TOU) Medium General Service (MGS) Medium General Service -High Efficiency Medium General Service Time -Of -Use (MGS-TOU) Large General Service (LGS) Large Industrial Service (LIS) Interruptible Service (INTR) City Street Lighting (CSL) Traffic Signals (TS) Highway Lighting (HL) Security Lighting (SL) Civil Defense Sirens (CDS) !� /a ii eneral Manager Date Agenda Item # 11. SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: 12114/06 2007 Water Revenue Adjustment Curt Kraft, Director of Corporate Services v At the November meeting the Board preliminarily agreed that a 5% increase for 2007 was needed to maintain reliable quality service, while maintaining a sound financial position. A notice of the proposed revenue adjustment was provided to the public via the paper of record. A 5% adjustment will result in an increase of approximately $0.56 per month for a typical residential customer. Staff recommends that the Board proceed with a recommendation to the City Council for increasing water rates by 5% effective January 1, 2007. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Approve and recommend to the City Council a 5.0% water rate increase to all customer classes effective January 1, 2007. 2. Approve a resolution to approve the attached rate schedules effective January 1, 2007. Water Service (WTR) Fire Hydrant Facilities Charge (FHFC) Ge66ral Manager Date ri REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/2006 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance Department It � `�] ITEM DESCRIPTION: Initiating the Sale of General Obligations Waste Water Revenue Bonds PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson At the December IIth, 2006 meeting, council authorized sewer rate and plant investment fee increases consistent with the update to the rate study recently completed for the sewer utility. That rate study contemplated the issuance of bonds to finance phase two of the expansion of the sewer utility system. The first phase provided for the expansion and upgrade of the plant, while this proposed financing provides for the new major trunk lines and lift station that feeds this additional plant capacity. We are proposing two distinct bond structures be issued to finance these projects. We are requesting approval of two separate resolutions, one for each bond issue, where we ask the council to authorize the sale and direct us to proceed with the process. A summary of the proposed bonding is as follows: $30,860,000 General Obligation Waste Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A 1. Sold by competitive negotiated sale, through sealed or electronic bid up until 10:00 AM January 17th. 2. Fixed interest rate and 20-year term with approximately level principal plus interest payments over the life of the bonds. 3. Proceeds to fund the upgrade and maintenance of the plant, lift station, and trunk lines and therefore repaid through sewer rates. $20,000,000 Variable Rate General Obligation Waste Water Revenue Bonds 1. Sold negotiated sale sometime after January 17ffi whereby our financial advisors, Springsted, Inc., assist in selection of underwriter and the terms and specifics are negotiated with large, institutional buyers. 2. Variable rate with some final bullet maturity where interest rate is reset weekly, interest is paid monthly and principal payments are not scheduled, but can occur at any given interest reset date. 3. Proceeds to fund tnutkline sewers and new lift station capacity and therefore repaid through collections of SAC charges when paid by developers. Interest payments will be made by rate payers, but will be reimbursed through ENR adjustment portion of SAC charges over time. Both issues would come before the council for final approval when best offers have been received. The first issue would be ready for the January 17s' meeting. The second issue is a bit more complicated to put together and thus is proposed as a negotiated sale with final approval likely at the first meeting in February. A representative from our financial advisors, Springsted, Inc., will be available at the meeting to address any questions that may arise on this item. Recommended Council Action: �. Approve the for the sale of both the fixed and variable rate GO Waste Water Revenue resolutions providing Bonds and directing staff to work with Springsted, Inc. to proceed with competitive and negotiated sale process, subject to final approval by council at a later date. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 0/ 12/18/06 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. - i9 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #BGravity Flow Interceptor Phase I, PREPARED BY: J7712 hi J. Loehr The City previously entered into a contract with Lametti & Sons, Inc. for the construction f a project described as follows: Protect No. M2-42. J7712 "Gravity Interceptor Sewer Phase 1". SA #8: The plan and specification provided an Interim Completion Date of June 1, 2006 for all project work that is located north of 37`h Street NW. The City and Lametti previously entered into seven Supplemental Agreements for a number of plan changes and unanticipated items. The additional items of work prevent the work located north of 37th Street from being completed by June 1, 2006. The Supplemental Agreements inadvertently failed to provide a new interim completion date for the additional work. The plan and specification further provide a Complete the Final Project Date of December 31, 2006. When excavating along the west bank of the Zumbro River a significant amount of buried rubble, tires, metal pipes, water heaters and miscellaneous construction debris was encountered. The engineer determined that the material must be sorted to enable the material to be used as trench backfill. Sorting of the material will prevent the project to be completed by December 31, 2006. Additional costs related to this additional work will be included in a separate Supplemental Agreement when the full extent and cost of the work is known. Public Works negotiated revised Interim Completion Dates and Complete the Final Project Date with Lametti & Sons as follows: The original Interim Completion Date of June 1, 2006 is revised to September 1, 2006 to complete all work north of 371h Street adjacent to the WRP main entrance and to December 22, 2006 for all other underground work located north of 37th Street. A new Interim Completion Date of December 22, 2006 is established to be capable of discharging all existing sanitary sewer flows into the new 84" sanitary sewer interceptor. A new Interim Completion Date of May 1, 2006 is established to complete all sanitary sewer and underground work. The original Complete the Entire Project Date of December 31, 2006 is revised to June 15, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into SA #8. Attachment: SA #8 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12;18/06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA i Public Works 1"�) — l ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement # 46 Project # 9408 (J2247) PR, PARED BY: T.H. 14 / 52 Design Build M. Easley The MNDOT HWY 52 Design Build contract provided for the construction of HWY 52 Mainline, Ramps, Bridges, Frontage Roads, and City Streets, along the corridor, through the City of Rochester. MNDOT and the City entered into a Municipal Cost Share Agreement to provide for the construction and to assign responsibility for costs associated with the work. On a project of this magnitude It is typical that a number of alterations, additions, or deletions to the work occur, resulting in the need for cost adjustments to the contract. This supplemental agreement was prepared to provide for adjustments to the contract for both compensation for additional work completed on the project, and credit for work deleted from the project at the request of the City. Costs represented in this agreement are a cumulation of all remaining construction related claims resulting from the ROC 52 Contract. MNDOT's Project Engineer has submitted Supplemental Agreement # 46 Project # 9408 (J2247) in the amount of a $286,860.77 Credit to the City Share in the Municipal Cost Share Agreement to cover the cost of: 1. Compensation for revisions to planned ROC 52 Storm Sewer plans on the East Frontage Road of Hwy 52 from Assisi Drive to 7t" St. N.W. to eliminate additional storm water discharges into and already taxed local storm sewer system. 2. Credit for the deletion of the extension of the Bandel Road connection to 65" St. N.W. from the ROC 52 contract to enable the construction of a future interchange at 65t" St. N.W. and HWY 52, which required a realignment of the Bandel Road at 651" St. N.W. 3. Compensation for revisions to the 65t" St. N.W. Bridge over HWY 52, and connecting roadway, to provide for the future intersection connecting highway ramps to be constructed with the interchange, as well as, design costs incurred with deletion of Bandel Road and the 65t" St. N.W. revisions. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution agreeing to the terms of Supplemental Agreement #46 Project #9408 (J2247) in the amount of a $286,860.77 credit to the MNDOT / City Cost Share Agreement. HWY 52 Design Build. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/ 6 LGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works lb _ ;(D ITEM DESCRIPTION: Maintenance of Traffic Credit PR PARED BY: T.H. 14152 Design Build Project # 9408 (J2247) L) M. Easley c6, The City of Rochester and the Minnesota Department of Transportation entered into a Municipal Cost Share Agreement for the Construction of the Highway 52 Corridor through the City. The MNDOT Contract Proposal for Highway 52 set forth detailed parameters for the maintenance of traffic, during the course of the construction. As construction activities developed, and in the interest of expediting certain HWY 52 construction activities, MNDOT, it s Contractor, and the City agreed to some deviation from contract requirements, relative to the maintenance of traffic on particular sections of roadway work within the corridor. This resulted, to a limited degree, in the use of City Streets as detours and alternate routes for traffic to navigate through construction zones. MNDOT has negotiated with its Contractor for a Lump Sum Credit to their Contract for construction staging and traffic control allowances during the construction of the HWY 52 corridor. The Department of Public Works has negotiated with MNDOT for a pro rated share of this credit for impacts to City streets used as detours and alternate routes. MNDOT has provided a $60,000.00 credit to the City of Rochester's Municipal Cost Share Agreement be established, as compensation in full for the use of City Streets as detours and alternate routes during HWY 52 construction. By accepting the credit of $60,000.00 from MNDOT, the City releases the State from of any obligation for the restoration of City Streets used as detours or alternate routes during ROC 52 construction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution accepting a credit of $60,000.00 from MNDOT as part of the MNDOT ! City of Rochester Cost Share Agreement; releasing MNDOT of any and all obligation for the restoration of City Streets used as detours and alternate routes during ROC 52 construction. Project # 9408 (J2247) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5< DATE: 12/18/06 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works kz)— DA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Release of Resposibilty I Haul Roads Project #9408 (J2247) PRF�PARED BY: T.H. 14 / 52 Design Build ( M. Easley )>t' During the Course of the construction of the Highway 52 Corridor, through Rochester, certain City streets were utilized for the delivery and staging of materials for Hwy 52 construction activities. The use of City Streets for construction related activities were monitored by the City Department of Public Works and were discussed with MNDOT and its contractor, Zumbro River Constuctors (ZRC), the full duration of the project. ZRC did when called upon, provide for the minor maintenance and repair of City streets that may have been impacted by their use as haul roads and maintained them for safe and convenient use by the Public. In a meeting on April 4, 2006 between MNDOT Staff, ZRC and City Staff it was agreed that ZRC had fulfilled their obligation for the maintenance and repair of City streets used as haul roads, with the exception of: The East Frontage Road of HWY 52 from Memorial Parkway to 11th St. S.W. and again on 22"d St N.W. from Elton Hills Drive to 17th Avenue N.W. ZRC committed at that time to provide for full roadway restoration of these two remaining roadways. ZRC has since provided for bituminous overlays for the full width of the roadways, on the East Frontage Road and 22nd St. N.W. fulfilling that obligation. As a condition of the ROC 52 project closeout the Minnesota Department of Transportation has requested ZRC to provide for a release of responsibility for further maintenance and repair of City Streets used as Haul Roads in the prosecution of HWY 52 Construction. The Department of Public Works concurs that ZRC has met its obligation for the care and maintenance of City Streets impacted by their construction related activities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution releasing Zumbro River Constructors, from any and all obligation for further maintenance and repair of City Streets used as Haul Roads in conjunction with the ROC 52 project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: ,GENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works A--� _a ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreements — Thomas G. Davis Property PREPARED BY: (for M&B#06-15) Mark Baker Pj U Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Thomas G. Davis is the Owner of real property described as Lots 2, Block 2, Willshire Estates Addition, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for a Metes & Bounds Subdivision (M&B#06-15), the Owner has requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address his obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Property abutting Willshire Dr NE. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owner and City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owner. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Thomas G. Davis, for Lot 2, Block 2, Willshire Estates Addition, Olmsted County, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: rar REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 7 f DATE: 12/18/06 ,GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities Agreements — Christopher J. McLeod & Heidi PREPARED BY: M. McLeod Property (for M&B#06-15) .Mark Baker - Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Christopher J. McLeod & Heidi M. McLeod are the Owners of real property described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Willshire Estates Fifth Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota. As a condition of approval for a Metes & Bounds Subdivision (M&B#06-15), the Owners have requested approval of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address their obligations for providing pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the Property abutting Willshire Dr NE. Staff agrees that execution of said Agreement is to the mutual benefit of the Owners and City, and abutting Property Owners. An Agreement has been drafted by the City and executed by the Owners. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Christopher J. McLeod & Heidi M. McLeod, for Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Willshire Estates Fifth Subdivision. Olmsted County. Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/T8/06 tGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. b .aZ4 CONSENT AGENDA I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit: Mayo Clinic Rochester —Awning within 2n,PRFPARED BY: Street SW Right of Way adjacent to 201 Building. M. Nigbur Mayo Clinic Rochester (Mayo) has requested a Revocable Permit for the installation of an awning on the 201 Building that will extend into the right of way of 2nd Street SW. (Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 18, Original Plat to the City of Rochester). The awning will be placed a minimum of 9 feet above sidewalk elevation adjacent to the building on the subject property and will extend 2 feet into the public right of way of the south side of 2nd Street SW adjacent to the subject property. Mayo will be responsible for the installation of the awning. Mayo shall bear the cost to install, maintain and repair of the awning. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. Mayo has executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and liability protection for the City. K �tah_F.k. { I dd COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit with Mayo Clinic Rochester to allow the installation of an awning within the right of way of 2nd Street SW adjacent to the 201 Building located on Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 18, Original Plat to the City of Rochester. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 4GENDA SECTION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 121Tf3/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: — Lots 12 & 13, Block 1, Subdivision — Gentling Properties Public Works Vorthern Heights ITEM NO. ^ _:1-5 PREPARED BY: Gentling Properties, the Owner of the property described as Lots 12 & 13, Block 1, Northern Heights Subdivision, has requested the City issue a revocable permit for the placement of storm sewer under the sidewalk and boulevard within the right of way of North Broadway adjacent to the Owner's property. The intention of the storm sewer is to prevent storm water from draining over the sidewalk. The revocable permit also includes existing business signage, landscaping and a retaining wall. These improvements were originally installed outside of the subject right of way. As the State of Minnesota has expanded the right of way of North Broadway (T.H. 63), the improvements became located within the subject right of way. Owner will install and maintain the storm water and the existing improvements at their own expense. The improvements are shown on the exhibit. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. The Owner has executed a Revocable Permit which includes the standard language for revocation and liability protection for the City. This Permit is subject to receipt of MnDot permit for use of the right of way. LEGEND f GENTLING DENTAL CARE SITE AND GRADING PLAN LOTS 12 AND 13. BLOCK 1 NORTHERN HEIGHTS ROCHESTER MN • � 1 $,�'AFAMI SITE AND GRADING PLAN LAND SL'P.1'£Yfh"G t ENCENL£P.lNG •o: zurG anoo� i r ;A i�0%.a vA%T wmW HO12lKRV EX W ,mw.xa 4tr Wt,.em GP.ILBTER Ntl I Iral� COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit with Gentling Properties to allow the placement of storm sewer in the right of way of North Broadway adjacent to the property, and to keep the existing business signage, landscaping and retaining wall within the subject right of way. This Permit is subject to receipt of MnDot Permit for use of the right of way. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12-18-06� DATE : l AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM NO. t) •Z4 EM ROCHESTER CITY LINES CONTRACT FOR 2007 PREPARED BY: A KNAUER This is a recommendation to approve the 2007 operations contract with Rochester City Lines. This contract provides funding for the regular route deficit. The contract maximum is $2,078,739 based on the estimated deficit defined as expenses less revenues collected by the company. This does not include cash farebox revenues which are counted underthe City's banking services. (The projected operating deficit for 2007 with cash fares included would be $1,952,740. This compares to a company operating deficit of $1,753,024 budgeted for 2006.) Approximately 40% of costs are recovered through program revenues. The contract does not include expansion. The contract may be amended later in 2007 to allow for expansion subject to the State's allocation of funds from the recently approved constitutional amendment dedicating a portion of motor vehicle excise tax to public transit. The contract provides increases for wages, lease and operation of Rochester City Lines' terminal and a significant increase in fuel costs. The contract provides reimbursement for actual expenses less revenues collected. Some expenses are allocated based on hours or miles of operations. The contract is subject to the City receiving State and federal funds and subject to an annual audit. The contract runs from 1/1/2007 through 12/31/2007. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution approving the following contract the 2007 contract with Rochester City Lines in the maximum amount of $2,078,739. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS MEETING - DATE: ITEM NO. T)' ITEM AGREEMENT FOR PARK & RIDE LOT/ BETHEL LUTHERAN I A PREPARED AUER �C . I CHURCH This is a recommendation to renew an agreement with Bethel Lutheran Church at 810 3`d Avenue SE to use their west parking lot for the period 1/1/2007 through 12/31/2007 for a park and ride facility. Under the agreement Bethel provides up to 97 spaces for persons to park and ride the City bus into the downtown. The Lease is based on set amount of $900.00 per month. The spaces are available Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Bethel provides for all lot maintenance including snow removal. The agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days notice. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution approving an agreement with Bethel Lutheran to establish a park and ride during 2007 in the 800 block of 3rd Avenue SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION HEARINGS ADMINISTRATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADOPTION OF 2007 TAX LEVY, 2007 BUDGET, AND 2007-2012 CIP q (^ MEETING W DATE: 12/18/06 S. KVENVOLD The City Council held its required Truth -in -Taxation Hearing on Monday, December 11, 2006. Truth -in -Taxation laws require that the final property tax levy and budget be adopted at a "subsequent public hearing". A summary of the effect of the changes and adjustments approved by the Council during review of the proposed budget has been prepared by the Finance Department and is attached. The recommended tax levy is $37,438,500 and the final budget is $151,192,721. The net change to the Proposed 2007 Budget is a decrease of $1, 946,500. The recommended tax levy is $61,500 less than the preliminary tax levy used to calculate Truth in Taxation notices recently sent to property owners, and in the Proposed 2007 Budget. G�COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve resolutions to adopt the 2007 Property Tax Levy of $37,438,500, the 2007 Total Budget of $151,192,721, and the 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Program. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second Al 2007 Mop BudgM RC .d AP ol o0 oe o0 000 0 0 0 00 0 N _ N O O O O O O O O O O O O m N 0 0 M b m O O O O M O O 0 0 M r O W O O A A M M O O A O O W W R t N b e C T N Orp li h � w w w o eei oe o00 0 0 0 00 0 oM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M 1n oo M oo M bM mo 00 �-r ooN W of m ao m+o J Wi N N M M M M a w w wN o0 00 00 of D o e oei o e _ 00 00 00 000 0 0 00 0 0 O m 0 0 M M 0 C O O M O O 0 0 b M 00 A A NYl OOA O O W W N m C N N .... - A r M M N W Oe at 97t ' E U ... ... w w DD o o 0 m N !V N N! Q Q Q N C OR CD W DD O O O O U W QQ T R a Q Q Q Q Q Ia 0 N ID Q ID O � m to « C L c G to 0 R m ,D m 0 ' i0 m c O fC m 0 -0 n D 91 to io m O 9m mm O m ` u m m C c o m a O $ m m c R V of Ci � c E C a� c = N m m m = c c R E E E o u ° r c R a o n a w 0 E R m 0 �i 9 s 17 O O O O O 00 o voice b l0m b V Ww M lAf CA9 M w wM w wl 6 cm E 0 C T E J m A C m O O � N E m m o L m m c A N o E O W m N 0(Lj 0 N B'O ° s, m .Q a° 0 c E a V m d a a E E S« « 1-G 0 ` V O f �°- N rrd dKQ em A i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 12/18/06 I iblic Hearing ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. City Attorney's Office I F-2� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appeal of "potentially dangerous" designation for the dog owned by Olga Bondar and Alexey Leontovich living at 2901 Bambi Court SW, Rochester, MN. The Animal Control Review Panel met on October 25, 2006, and following a hearing determined that the dog, "Taz", owned by Olga Bondar and Alexey Leontovich is declared "potentially dangerous' under the provisions of RCO section 106A.18. Olga Bondar has appealed that designation and a full hearing before the City Council is required. RCO Section 106A.18, subd. 1(b) defines a potentially dangerous dog as follows: (b) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; or (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without provocation causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety or humans or other domestic animals. Included with this RCA are the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order" approved by the Animal ontrol Review Panel, the August 7, 2006 police reports related to the dog bite incident giving rise to this „earing, and the objection and appeal filed by Olga Bondar. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Following the hearing the council may either affirm or reverse the Animal Control Review Panel's order designating the dog, Taz", as a potentially dangerous dog. The council may adopt the Panel's findings, state its own findings, or direct the City Attorney's office to draft new findings consistent with the order it intends to make. Notice of this hearing was provided to the dog owner and interested neighbors. c &44 -I- ,t r COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Arr BEFORE THE ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW PANEL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: Dog Owned by Alexey Leontovich and Olga Bondar Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order On October 25, 2006, the Animal Control Review Panel (hereinafter the "Panel') held a hearing to consider whether the dog owned by Alexey Leontovich and Olga Bondar should be declared potentially dangerous pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 347 and RCO Ch. 106A; notice of the hearing was sent to Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar and to others affected by the August 7, 2006 dog bite incident. The Panel consisted of Council President, Dennis Hanson and Dr. Mark Wenner; Council Member Amy Blenker was absent. The notice of intent to declare dog as dangerous, letter of appeal, and police report are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are made part of the record of these proceedings. Additionally, Stacey Edwards, the owner of the dog that was bitten, introduced photographs of the injury to her dog along with the veterinarian bill; copies of the photos and bill are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and are made part of the record of these proceedings. Ms. Bondar introduced a certificate of vaccination and letters from workers who were working at her home who described the demeanor of her dog; copies of the certificate and letters are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and are made part of the record of these proceedings. At the hearing, the dog involved in the August 7, 2006 incident was identified to be a four- year -old American Staffordshire Terrier, named Taz, that was sheltered at Ms. Bondar and Mr. i -13 Leontovich's home located at 2901 Bambi Court SW, Rochester, MN 55902. Ms. Bondar testified that she and her husband had just moved to the house. On August 7a', they had workers working at the house. She said that the front door was not locked and that Taz saw another dog running. Her impression was that Taz thought the other dog was running to Taz's yard. She also speculated that because this was a new house to Taz, that Taz was still trying to figure out the boundaries and probably thought that his boundary extended into the street. She said Taz ran out of the house, onto the street, and attacked the other dog. She said that the dog fight occurred on the Street. Ms. Bondar also testified that Taz plays with the neighbor's dog and that this was not characteristic of Taz. Ms. Bondar submitted the veterinarian's report and letters from some workers that had worked at the house and opined that Taz was friendly when they worked there. Stacey Edwards testified that she was out running the morning of August 7, 2006 with her. four -year -old Labrador Retriever, Tess. Ms. Edwards said she ran to the end of the cul-de-sac and turned to run back down it. Ms. Bondar's home is at the end of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Edwards said that after she and Tess turned and started to run back down the street, she heard a dog running behind her and she tamed to look. She saw Taz running and fixated on Tess. She then saw Taz attack Tess from behind. She stated that she was scared and too afraid to reach down with her hands to separate the dogs. She tried to kick Taz off of Tess and when she did that the dogs knocked into her and she fell to the ground. She was not bitten but sustained some scraps from the fall. At that time, Ms. Bondar came out of the house and pulled Taz off of Tess. As a result, Tess sustained bite marks to her rear, as seen on photographs, and Ms. Edwards showed a veterinarian 2 -"\k bill of $190.14 before taxes related to the bite incident. Ms. Edwards stated that this was the second encounter she and Tess had with Taz. The first one occurred not too far before the August 7, 2006 incident. In the first encounter, Ms. Edwards said she and Tess were running and Taz ran down the cul-de-sac to the intersection. When Taz ran up to Tess, Taz leaned up against Tess and growled at Tess. Ms. Edwards said that she did not know where Taz lived and that Taz did not have a collar on and that no owner was around. Ms. Edwards said she just pulled Tess's leash and continued on her run. At this point, Council President, Dennis Hanson commented that he thought Taz had been before the Panel before and Dr. Wenner agreed. Assistant City Attorney Richard Wright had the prior file brought up (D2002-042/0254133) and Council President Hanson and Dr. Wenner refreshed there recollections and recalled that the first case also dealt with aggression toward another dog. It should be noted that in that case, Taz was found to NOT be potentially dangerous. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At the October 25, 2006 hearing the Panel considered the issue of whether Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar's dog should be declared potentially dangerous. 2. RCO § 106A.18, Subd. i (b) defines a potentially dangerous dog as follows: (b) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; or (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without provocation causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety or humans or other domestic animals. I 3. At the October 25, 2006, hearing, the Panel noted that this was the second time that Taz was before the Panel for dog aggression. 4. The Panel also noted that in the first incident with Tess that Taz was displaying dog aggression when he ran up to Tess, leaned up against Tess, and growled at Tess. 5. The Panel noted that in the August 7, 2006 incident that Taz ran off his property, chased down Tess, and attacked Tess from the rear, inflicting damage. The Panel noted that when a dog is running with her owner (like Tess was in this case), it is not considered to be provoking another dog to attack it. 6. It is the proponent's burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar's dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous pursuant to the definition provided above and in RCO 106A.18, Subd. I (b). 7. The uncontradicted evidence is that Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar's dog, Taz, engaged in an unprovoked attack. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Panel pursuant to §I06A.18, Subd. 3(c). 2. The Panel concludes, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar's dog has engaged in conduct that meets the following criteria: (a) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; 3. Based upon the testimony received at the public hearing, the Panel concludes that Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar's dog, Taz, has engaged in conduct justifying Taz's declaration as a potentially dangerous dog. 4 )�k The Animal Control Review Panel of the City of Rochester, pursuant to RCO §106A.18, does hereby determine that Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar's dog, Taz, is a potentially dangerous dog. Asa result Taz is subject to the mandatory provisions of RCO §106A.18, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Pursuant to RCO §106A.18, Subd. 3(e) (see Exhibit D), Mr. Leontovich and Ms. Bondar may appeal this decision by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within 17 days of today's date. r� Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this �. day of October 2006. 5 �d 42� DENMS HANSON President of the Rochester City Council 11",2G 424-03 EVENT REPORT ® Rochester Police Department ❑ Olmsted County Sheriffs Office and Victim SuhSubmittedto Records: ICR - ❑ Film: Number of Rolls ❑ Cassette Tapes: # of Tapes ❑ Digital Photos Downloaded: # of Photos sewed by: ❑ Digital Recording Downloaded: 9 of recordings _ / ❑ Incident Recorded on Squad Car Videotape Squad Car # _ % / Karin AKA TO Edwards E]T1 Black 11-1-60 ❑ Juvenile 27D9 Briar Ct. SW. Rochester MN Phone 285-6531 Business or,.. Complainant First Middle Last Name Mark Godbout ACO DOB ❑Adult ❑ Juvenile Male White Asian DL No. AKA ❑ Female fl Black r-1 Business Rochester Police Animal Control Phone 287-2330 Witness First Name Middle Last DOB ❑ Adult ❑ Juvenile DL No. Residence AKA FJnail El Male ❑ Female El White ❑ Asian El Black ❑ Phone Business Phone Code* Property of Value Value " Indicate one or more: L = Lost S = Stolen; R = Recovered: D = Dama ed Total: li Suspect First Name Olga Middle Last Bonder DOB 2.15-55 ®Aduft ❑Juvenile DL No. H-418-059-297-313 AKA Male ® Female ® White Asian rl Black Cl 2901 Bambi Ct. SW. Rochester MN Phone 289-2452 Business Phone Description Height Weight Hair Eyes Glasses Type Facial Hair Type Weapon Type - Description: LJ Alcohol ❑Drugs School Where Held? Ticket # # 193818 Vehicle ❑ Suspect ❑ victim ❑ Impound License Plate: State: Make: Year. - Model: Color. Initial Investigating Officer(s): M. Godbout ACO 2611 ❑ Patrol Follow-up- ❑ Patrol Sin off Inv Unit Assigned: Follow-up Invests ator(s): ❑ Open/Inactive ❑ Closed/Arrest 171010sed/Exceptional ❑closed/Unfounded ❑ Non -Criminal Copy to: ❑ County Attorney ❑ City Attorney ❑ Other' — ❑Victim Notification Sent upplemenfal Report Officer: Mark Godbout ACO badge 2611 PRELEVDINARY IIvTFORMATION Film: Number of Rolls ICR # 106 - 58833 Cassette Tapes: # of Tapes _ Digital Photos Downloaded: # of Photos Digital Recordings Downloaded: # of recordings _ Incident Recorded on Sauad Vdeotaoe: Souad # This writer Mark Godbout ACO 2611 received a call from Stacie Edwards regarding a dog attack to her and her yellow lab. OBSERVATION / ACTION'S / OBSERVATION'S • I spoke with Edwards and she informed me that while doing her morning rum with her dog a (yellow lab), a dog came out of the front door at 2901 Bambi Ct. SW. • The dog from 2901 Bambi Ct attacked her dog and went after Edwards trying to break up the two animals. • The dog owner at 2901 Bambi Ct is Olga Bondar she regained control of her animal and apologizes. • Edwards informed me that she took her dog to the vet were her dog had several stitches in several different places. • The dog owner at 2901 Bambi Ct was informed by me that the dog must do a ten-day quarantine and I Will report the health of the dog to Edwards on (8-17-06). • I called city hall to see if the animal was licensed to any one at 2901 Bambi Ct. SW. and no one had it licensed wa h the city. •. Olga Bondar is Alexei Leontovich fianc6e and he would not be back from Russia until Sept. sometime: • Informed Bondar that tickets for dog at large and unlicensed dog will be mail to the residence. • I also informed them that a letter to declare there dog dangerous will be mail to them. VICTIM'S STATEMENT Stacie Karin Edwards, DOB 11-1-60 lives at 2709 Briar Ct. SW, Rochester MN, phone # 285-6531. Edwards informed me that while running on 8-7-06 a dog came from 2901 Bambi Ct. Edwards did inform me that Bondar came over and paid the current vet bill she had occurred from the dog attack. SUSPECT'S STATEMENT Olga Bondar, DOB 2-15-55 lives at 2901 Bambi Ct. SW. Rochester MN, phone # 289-2452. The residence was informed about the ten-day quarantine and the letter to declare there dog dangerous. They also informed about the tickets that will be mailed to them. DISPOSITION • I will mail tickets to Bondar for violating City of Rochester ordinance (106A.08 Subd/1) dog at large and (106A.05 Subd.1) harboring unlicensed dog with in the city limits. • I will do a ten-day follow-up on the health on 8-17-06 and report back the health of the dog to Edwards. • I will mail a letter of intent to declare Bondar's dog dangerous. • No further action at this time. Mark Godbout ACO 2611 Copy to Inves Revised to CITY C ERKS () FACE 2M6 NOV 22 AM 10: 16 ROCHESTER. MINN. Date: 11.22.2006 City Attorney 201 4'b St SE, Room 247 Rochester, MN 55904-3780 To Whom It May Concern: Olga Bondar 2901 Bambi Cr. SW Rochester, MN 55902 Tel: 507-289-2452 (h) 507-538-1653(w) I wish to appeal the decision of Animal Control Review Panel (case ICR# 06058833) concerning my dog Taz. Sincerely Oga� Olga Bon_::-- ar REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12-18-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITE. ` PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING `. J! ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to GDP #219 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be known PREPARED BY. as Spring Brook Valley. The plan includes 109.35 acres of land located west of TH 63 and north John Harford, of the Fleet Farm Store and south of the Southtown 2ntl and Southtown Heights subdivisions. Senior Planner December 13, 2006 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 28, continued to November 8 and December 13, 2006, to consider this petition. The CPZC voted 8-0 to approve the GDP subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate development of the Property, Including Sanitary Sewer, Water, Public Roadways, and Storm Water Management Facilities. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for oft -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The location and designation of the "Detention Facilities" indicated on the GDP should be viewed as conceptual until formally reviewed and approved through the Grading & Drainage Plan review process. A regional stormwater management facility will be required within this GDP site. The concept of several small detention ponds along the wet/and(stream may be permitted as an aesthetic feature, but may not fulfill the Owner's obligations for providing Stormwater Management 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve each phase of this development. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required at the Owner's expense along both sides of am new public roads within this development, and along the entire frontage of the Property abutting the west frontage road. In addition, a pedestrian trail shall be extended at the Owner's expense through the sanitary sewer corridor to the west property line Specific obligations will be addressed In the Development Agreement. The developer/owner shall also provide pedestrian facilities between the northern extent of Willow Ridge Drive through Spring Brook Valley to the public road system within the development. 5. Controlled access dedication requirements, and individual lot access to the frontage road will be determined in the Development Agreement Access to Commercial Drive, the frontage road, from the commercial lot shall have a separation distance of at least 225 feet. 6. Specific routing of utilities will be addressed through the platting process and plan review. At the time of development, water main extension and looping of systems must be complefed per the requirements of RPU Water Division. ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: Page 2"Q' RCA December 14, 2006 7. The private road from Willow Ridge Dr SW to this property is proposed for two way traffic. If this connect is approved as a private two way road, the Owner will be required through the Development Agreement process to dedicate public access rights over the private roadway to allow traffic flow between the proposed and existing development. 8. Development will need to be phased to limit the number of trips to <1,200 prior to construction of a second access. Phasing shall be such that access to Willow Ridge Drive SW occurs when the development will exceed the 1,200 trip threshold and not before based on plats or Plan approval. 9. Prior to final plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the developer/owner relating to Ownership and Maintenance of the Wetland and Open Space Areas, in addition to those items listed in condition V. 10. This proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 10 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The GDP indicates a 3.5 acre public park which will meet the development's land dedication. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash in lie of land. 11. The developer must provide a 35-foot wide buffer (no build zone) along the north and south sides of the i property adjacent to the existing residential developments. (Required in the previous GDP approval by the City Council.) 12. The development is limited to one-story detached dwellings along the north side of the development q adjacent to the Southtown Heights and on the south side, south of the private street, adjacent to Willow Heights. The density of development is limited to a maximum of 5.5 units per acre within these two areas. �(Required in the previous GDP approval by the City Council.) � i.,wi Council Action Needed: if the Council wishes to proceed with this application, the Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report. Attachments: 1. Staff report and attachments dated November 30, 2006 2. Draft City Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of December 13, 2006 Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This ftem will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday December 18, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COYXT'I OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commiss'on FROM: John Harford, Senior Planner '• 1 DATE. October 9, 2006; Revised Novemb r 30, 2006 RE: Amendment to GDP #219 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley. The plan includes 109.35 acres of land located west of TH 63 and north of the Fleet Farm Store and south of the Southtown 2nd and Southtown Heights subdivisions. NOTE: The applicant submitted additional information regarding the property and related Decorah Edge information on November 3, 7, and 8, 2006 the date of the CPZC meeting. The CPZC continued the hearing to December 13, 2006 to allow for staff review of the new data. Portions of the staff review and findings have been amended to reflect the revised GDP. Piannina Department Review., Petitioner: RMN Land Development 6601 Weston Parkway, Suite 240 West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 kk Property Owner: RMN Land Development 6601 Weston Parkway, Suite 240 West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of The property is located west of TH 63 S Frontage Road, northwest of the Property: Fleet Farm store, north of 36th St. SW and east of the Greystone development. Proposed Use: This Plan includes approximately 109.35 acres of land. A larger portion of the western 1/3 of the site, in the west and northwest, is proposed to remain undeveloped. Wetlands, including a calcareous fen, have been delineated in this area; some are planned to be avoided and other impacted. Also, there is planned public park in the northeast comer of the residential portion of the property. About 3/4 of the site is proposed to be developed with a mix of low density residential dwellings. The eastern 17 acres of the site is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) and is proposed to be developed with commercial land uses. The commercial area is designated as Phase I of the development. The residential portion of the project has no phasing plan. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 �.,�. PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELLJSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5072 zr� --' ' ----- ...... Page 2 General Development Plan 4219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 Land Use Plan Except for the easterly area designated "G", the commercial area, the And Zoning Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property Designations: as suitable for "Low -Density Residential" uses and the property is currently zoned R-1 x (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. Area "G" includes approximately 17 acres along the TH 63 Frontage Road that is shown on the Land Use Plan for "Commercial" uses and is currently zoned B-4 (General Commercial). Transportation The plan proposes both public and private roadways within the and Streets: development. Primary access is shown at the west frontage road, Commercial Drive, SW, using a circular internal street pattern labeled as Sedge Meadow Court, SW. The frontage road is in the process of being reconstructed to 4e St., SW with completion likely this year. Commercial Drive is designated as a Primary Urban Collector. A second access to the residential area is proposed at the north end of Willow Ridge Drive. This access is proposed to accommodate two way traffic on a 28' wide private street, which would connect to the internal public street system within the project. A single access, and the only portion of this site that will not utilize the frontage road for access to the city street system, is to the south and is proposed at the north end of 7'' Ave. SW. The extension of this road is proposed to be a private street serving a limited area of the development consisting of 24 single family lots. In the previous review the Transportation Planner indicated that there may be an increase of 500- 550 trips per day, for a total ADT of 1560 on Willow Ridge Drive based on a two way private street connection, but with a 20' width. That trip increase was considered acceptable based on the current design of Willow Creek Drive south of this project. Comments provided by Transportation Planning staff indicate that there must be a minimum spacing requirement of 330' between the southern edge of the 33 d St right of way and the northern edge of the proposed Spring Brook Drive right of way. The current alignment does not meet that design recommendation. Also, any access openings onto Commercial Drive must be at least 225' apart. Right-of-way for Enterprise Drive SW is platted to the south property line of this GDP, but is not proposed to be extended into the property. During the review of the EAW and GDP the City stated that "Enterprise Drive need not be connected to the interior public and private street system". Further, "it is important that Enterprise Drive be retained for future land use decisions". An existing right-in/right-out connection to TH 63 is shown on the plans but outside of the GDP boundaries. The MNDOT has noted that the direct connection to TH 63 has been closed and no at grade access to TH 63 will be permitted along Commercial Dr., SW in the future. REVISED PLAN: The applicant has moved Sedge Meadow Circle upgradient of the wetland on the south hillside in order to avoid an impact on the wettand. Sedge Lane S W, the cul-de-sac has been shortened to Page 3 S General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 avoid impact to hydric soils within the Decorah Edge. The applicant proposes to till the 0.04 acre wetland at the intersection of the cul-de-sac and main loop street and stabilize the stream that flows through the western N of the property. Lots and Density: The GDP includes one commercial area of 17.16 acres. Areas D and E indicate a residential density of 9 units per acre, and area F is designated for 15 units per acre. Areas A and B, abutting existing single family dwellings, are designated for single story — detached townhomes: adjacent to Southtown Heights 3.93 units per acre, abutting Willow Heights 2n4 4.38 units per acre. Area C is proposed to be developed to a density of 5.77 units per acre, but are detached townhomes on individual lots. Area F will have a total of 214 units. Area E will have a total of 113 units. Area D will have a total of 57 units. Areas A-C are to be developed as single story detached townhomes with totals of 24, 19 and 15 units. The total number of units for the development is 442 residential units. A 35 feet buffer and access to open space are proposed for the two detached townhome sections of the development. The 35' buffer was proposed and approved as part of the previous GDP in 2004. The lots in Section B against Southtowne 2w subdivision do not appear to meet the standard in 64.111 requiring lots to be 70% of the width of the adjacent lots or 1.5 times the required width of 60 feet. Any residential density proposed above 5.5 units per acre will be required to be reviewed under either a Type II or Type III process. Separate review will be required due to the lack of detail in the GDP for the higher density areas of the plan. (Were the plan of a detail to allow review of a detailed grading plan and site plans the Type I review process would be applied rather than the Type II or III review.) The areas of the GDP affected by this standard are located in Areas D, E, and F. REVISED PLAN: Area A has not changed and includes 24 units. Area B has changed due to the requirements of Section 64.111 and has a total of 16 units. Area C has a total of 15 units. Due to the street realignment Area D will have a total of 76 units and Area E will have a total of 80 units. Area F will have a total of 225 units. There are a total of 436 units in the revised GDP which is a reduction of 6 units. The westerly portions of Lots 1-4, Block 3 are affected by the Decorah Edge requirements, thus the grading plan will be reviewed to determine if the lots are buildable. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways, including the west side of Commercial Drive, the frontage road. Pedestrian facilities should also be provided between the proposed Sedge Meadow Court in Spring Brook Valley and Willow Ridge Drive, SE. Drainage: This property has steep and rolling terrain and drains to an intermittent stream that runs from west to east through the site. The Plan proposes a drainage channel along the stream corridor, as well as two detention ponds in the northeast comer of the GDP. Also a detention area is identified along the drainage channel in Section "C". Page 4 l� General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 A regional stormwater management facility is required within this GDP. The GDP does not indicate the location or size of the facility. The applicant will need to work with the City Public Works Department to determine the design and location of the facility. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required and must be approved prior to final plat submittal or when the property is developed. Wetlands: Hydric Soils and Wetlands, including a state protected calcareous fen, exist within this GDP. Wetlands have been identified on the Plan. The missing wetlands that were delineated are located along the stream channel. Calcareous fens are the result of geologic conditions that permit upwelling of groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. Many rare plants are largely restricted to fens, which cover just over 1,000 acres statewide. A Calcareous Fen has been delineated in the northwest portion of the Site. The Barony Woods development was required to provide certain stormwater improvements to minimize fen impact and control stormwater runoff from the development. This proposal avoids direct impact to the calcareous fen. The applicant will need to determine if future grading or utility improvements will affect groundwater flows in the area east of the fen. The applicant has stated that the easterly two wetlands are not groundwater supported but surface water induced wetlands. The original wetland delineation indicated that all four wetlands on the property are groundwater supported as seeps were observed at each of the four areas. The applicant will need to address this discrepancy. REVISED PLAN: The applicant has not disputed the original finding that the wetlands in Areas D and E are groundwater supported. The applicant proposes impacts to the wetlands within the channel of the stream on the property and to the 0.04 acre wetland at the proposed intersection of the cul-de-sac and loop street. Decorah Edge: The westerly 2/3 of this property is located within the Decorah Edge. The site includes Groundwater Supported Wetlands and soils related to the Decorah identified in the ordinance as the Edge Support Area. The applicant's general development plan indicates avoidance of impacts on the two largest wetlands located on the westerly 1/3 of the property. The three other wetlands on the site appear to be partially or completed altered under the proposed plan. The easterly portion of the drainage channel wetland and the bulk of the commercial area are not located within the Decorah Edge. The Groundwater Supported Wetlands and Edge Support Areas within the Decorah Edge may not be °excavated, altered hydrologically, drained or filled.. " under the ordinance, with exceptions explained in RCO 59.06, Subd. 4. A Site Capacity Calculation is required for this development but has not been submitted. The applicant has submitted a Substantial Land Alteration with the preliminary plat for several locations on the property of which a number are within the Decorah Edge and affected by the new ordinance. Section 62.1105 P states that "land alteration is the minimum amount necessary to develop at the site capacity determined in Page 5 g, l General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley ((l1 December 7, 2006 accordance with the residential density from the Site Capacity Calculation. Subsection Q states that groundwater flows intercepted by excavation must be reinfiltrated or directed to managed wetlands. The applicant will need to analyze the areas proposed for the SLA, especially the areas to be cut to determine if the proposed grades can be amended to reduce the impact in the Edge Support Areas. The applicant will need to identify what measures will be employed to reinfiltrate intercepted groundwater flows or direct them to managed wetlands. The Site Capacity Calculations must consider Groundwater Supported Wetlands and the Edge Support Area of the new Decorah Edge ordinance. Wetlands in the Decorah Edge and Edge Support Areas are subtracted from the density calculation for the R-1 x district, as they are Resource Protection Land. The densities for the R-1 x district are 5.5 (Type 1), 8.71 (Type II), and 15 (Type III) units per acre. The overall density of the site with the proposed 442 units on the 92 acres is 4.8 units per acre. With 442 units and a Type III process the minimum acreage not affected by Groundwater Supported Wetlands and Edge Support Area is 29.5 acres (442/15=29.5). Avoidance of the wetlands allows a bonus to be applied, depending on the percent avoidance. It appears that the primary impact of the Decorah Edge ordinance provisions will be to affect the Substantial Land Alteration and the grading and construction details of the streets and utility systems. (Note: a separate report from Jeff Broberg is included that discusses some of the Decorah Edge factors.) REVISED PLAN: Of the 109.5 acres, 48.21 acres are designated as Resource Protection Land leaving a total of 61.29 acres of net buildable area. With 436 proposed units this development will meet the requirements of the R-ix district density. Individual sections of the development will be required to be reviewed under a Type Ill process given the lack of specific information for Areas D, E, and F. The applicant proposes wetland impacts to a Groundwater Supported Wetland and a wetland/stream in the Edge Support Area. Public Utilities: Several alternatives for water service to the site exist. The lower area of the property is within the Intermediate Level Water System Area. This portion of the water system must be looped from the north to the south systems and must be completed to provide adequate flows for fire protection to the commercial area. The upper portion of the site is within the Willow High Level Water System Area, available at the end of 71i Ave., SW. Builders will need to install pressure -reducing devices as required by the MN Plumbing Code. Water mains must be looped to minimize "dead ends" and the mains must be extended to the property boundaries as required by RPU. The applicant will need to coordinate with RPU Water Division to determine options and engineering issues. A trunkmain sanitary sewer dissects this property, which currently serves the Greystone development as well as development west of 18"' Ave. SW. Service lines will need to be extended from this trunkmain to serve this development. Parkland Depending on the final plans, this proposed development will have a Dedication: parkland dedication requirement of approximately 10 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The revised Page 6 ` General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7. 2006 GDP indicates a 3.5 acre public park which will meet the development's land dedication. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash in lie of land. The Park Department is responsible for 100' of the 1000' of street construction costs for the park site frontage. Additional open space will exist in the western third of the site in and around the two large wetlands. The applicant will need to address long term control and -maintenance of this open space. Environmental This development meets several thresholds requiring a Mandatory Review: Environmental Assessment Worksheet in accordance with MN Rules, 4410.4300. The applicant submitted an EAW to the City in 2004. The City Council adopted a negative declaration, indicating no need for the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. This proposal does not trigger the need for a new EAW. Referral 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Division (email and 2003 study) Comments: 2. Rochester Public Works 3. Wetland LGU, John Harford 4. Rochester Park & Recreation 5. RPU Water Division 6. Rochester Fire Department 7. Planning Department - GIS Division 8. RPU — Environmental and Regulatory Affairs 9. MNDOT Report 1. Proposed General Development Plan Attachments: 2. General Development Plan Narrative 3. Decorah Edge Report 4. Referral Comments Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. A Zoning District amendment was previously approved. The land uses within the GDP are generally consistent with the land use designations of Low Density Residential and Commercial and zoning for the property. Due to the location within the Decorah Edge a Site Capacity Calculation is required Based on the calculations, the proposed development density shown on the GDP for the entire property will be within ordinance limits. Page 7 General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 A Type 11 or Type Ill review process will be required for the development densities in Areas D, E, and F. The Performance Residential standards will apply in the review process with the Type ill review under the Incentive Development standards of 62.600. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. Access and circulation issues exist with the proposed plan, related primarily to off -site connections of the core development area to the major street system serving the area. Upgrading of the West Frontage Road is being completed to a Primary Urban Collector street cross section as pan of the TH 63 South Interchange Project. The primary access for the development will be Sedge Meadow Circle, and all but 24 residential units will need to use this primary access. A secondary access is proposed by a private street connected to Willow Ridge Dr., SW. The LDM calls for secondary access to be provided for low density residential development once the traffic level in an area exceeds 1200 trips per day, or approximately 120 dwellings. The development will need to be phased to limit the number of trips generated prior to completion of the secondary connection to Willow Ridge Dr., SW. Enterprise Drive need not be connected to the interior public and private street system proposed as part of this development. In the event the property changes such that the density increases, number of residential units increases or a more intense (commercial) use is proposed, Enterprise Drive could be extended through this development and serve as an additional access. Therefore, the existing Enterprise Drive right-of-way needs to be retained at this time for future land use decisions. With the connection of the two-way private street and second access, Willow Ridge Drive will operate at capacity according to the previous GDP review. If necessary to further reduce trips on Willow Ridge Drive, the developer could be required to install a traffic -calming device, which could further reduce the number of vehicles utilizing Willow Ridge Drive. Another option is that the City could require the developer to contribute toward upgrading Willow Ridge Drive to the design standards of a Major Residential Street to handle higher volumes of traffic. On and off site improvements will need to be outlined in a development agreement prior to development of this property. Due to the location within the Decorah Edge the applicant will need to comply with the standards of Chapter 59 and related Zoning Ordinance standards for development within the Decorah Edge. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The R-1x Zoning District was previously approved. The land uses within the GDP are generally consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the property. v \� Page 6 General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 Based on the Site Capacity Calculations the development density shown on the GDP is generally consistent with a the densities allowable as a Performance Residential development. The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. The Housing Plan includes, as a standard for physical and social environments of residential neighborhoods "adequate open space and recreational facilities conveniently located to serve residents". Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. Several alternatives for extending water service to the site exist. The applicant will need to coordinate with RPU Water Division to determine options and design requirements. A trunkmain sanitary sewer bisects this property, which currently serves the Greystone development and other developments located west of ie Ave. SW. Service lines will need to be extended from this trunkmain to serve this development. Upgrading of the West Frontage Road is being completed and the street will be a Primary Urban Collector street cross section as part of the TH 63 South interchange Project, which will replace at -grade intersections on TH 63 with an interchange at 40m St and will upgrade connecting roads to the interchange area. Right of Way for Enterprise Drive terminates at the south line of this property and is not currently shown to extend into this GDP. Enterprise Drive need not be connected to the interior public and private street system proposed as part of this development. In the event the property changes such that the density Increases, number of residential units Increases or a more intense (commercial) use is proposed, Enterprise Drive could be extended through this development and serve as an additional access. Therefore, the existing Enterprise Drive right-of-way needs to be retained at this time for future land use decisions. With the connection of the two-way private street and second access, Willow Ridge Drive will operate at capacity according to the previous GDP review. If necessary to further reduce trips on Willow Ridge Drive, the developer could be required to Install a traffic -calming device, which could further reduce the number of vehicles utilizing Willow Ridge Drive. Another option Is that the City could require the developer to contribute toward upgrading Willow Ridge Drive to the design standards of a Major Residential Street to handle higher volumes of traffic. On and off site r. Page 9 a General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 improvements will need to be outlined in a development agreement prior to development of this property. Comments provided by Transportation Planning staff indicate that there must be a minimum spacing requirement of 330' between the southern edge of the 33rd St right of way and the northern edge of the proposed Spring Brook Drive right of way. The applicant has amended the GDP to comply with this provision of the ordinance. Access from the commercial property to Commercial Drive must be at least 225' apart. The development will need to be phased to limit the number of trips generated prior to completion of the roadway connection to Willow Ridge Drive. Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate d the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. 1. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Please see the attached memorandum from Muhammad Khan, dated Oct. 3, 2003 which includes a traffic analysis for this GDP. Roadways proposed within this development include both private and public roads. Right-of-way and pavement widths shown on the GDP appear to be generally consistent with local design standards. The applicant will need to coordinate with the Rochester Public Works department to determine the required right-of-way and roadway widths and design standards. Roadway connections to e Ave. SW and Willow Ridge Drive will need to limit the number of trips that access those roadways to maintain acceptable levels of traffic on those and adjacent roadways. Enterprise Drive need not be connected to the interior public and private street system proposed as part of this development. In the event the property changes such that the density increases, number of residential units increases or a more intense {commercial) use is proposed, Enterprise Drive could be extended through this development and serve as an additional access. Therefore, the existing Enterprise Drive right-of-way needs to be retained at this time for future land use decisions. In the GDP approved In 2004 the Transportation Planning staff indicated that Willow Ridge Drive may function at or beyond current capacit)4 if necessary to further reduce trips on Willow Ridge Drive, n� Page 10 V` General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 the developer could be required to Install a traffic -calming device, which could further reduce the number of vehicles utilizing Willow Ridge Drive. Another option is that the City could require the developer to contribute toward upgrading Willow Ridge Drive to the design standards of a Major Residential Street to handle higher volumes of traffic. On and off site improvements will need to be outlined in a development agreement prior to development of this property. The development will need to be phased to limit the number of trips generated to Sedge Meadow Court to 1,200 prior to completion of the roadway connection to Willow Ridge Drive. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Several alternatives for extending water service to the site exist. The applicant will need to coordinate with RPU Water Division to determine options and design requirements. A trunkmain sanitary sewer bisects this property, which currently serves the Greystone development. Service lines will need to be extended from this trunkmain to serve this development. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. This proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 10 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The GDP indicates a 3.5 acre public park which will meet the development's land dedication. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash in lie of land. Pedestrian facilities should be provided between Willow Ridge Drive and the Internal public street system within this GDP, and along Commercial Drive SW. The applicant should submit a phasing plan given the mixture of densities and grading limitations on the site. The applicant should submit a phasing plan given the mixture of densities and, grading limitations on the site. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land i Page 11 j General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley v, December 7, 2006 subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. Storm water ponds are proposed in multiple locations, on the GDP, along the creek corridor. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted or developed. The applicant will need to incorporate stormwater measures that will comply with the MNDOT comments that increased runoff from this site to the MNDOT right of way will not be permitted. Decorah Edge conditions exist through a significant portion of this Site. The developer does not know the extent of grading on this site at this time although there is an expectation that a Substantial Land Alteration review will be required for several portions of the site. The applicant will need to meet the requirements of Section 62.1105P and O, and show minimum land alteration necessary for development, and incorporate re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows into the grading and construction plans. Criteria G Wetlands and Edge Support Areas (as defined in Chapter 59) will be managed consistent with Chapter 59 and, where applicable, in such a way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, infiltration, and recharge processes taking place; provided, however, that the Council may waive this requirement under the provisions of Chapter 59. The applicant has not sought a waiver from the provisions of Chapter 59 applicable to the Decorah Edge. Any intercepted groundwater flows must be reinfiltrated or directed to managed wetlands. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property Is platted or developed. The grading plan must comply with the requirements of the Decorah Edge provisions of the Wetland Conservation Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes the filling of a 0.04 acre wetland, two stream wetland crossings, and possible stream wetland impacts connected to channel stabilization. The 0.04 acre wetland Impact falls within the Exemption criteria (less than 2000 square feet of Impact Is exempt If that is the extent of the impact to wetlands) of the Wetland Conservation Ordinance. The street crossings of the wetiandlstream may cause an impact that may be acceptable under Section 59.06, Subd. 4E. Potential impacts to the wettand/stream to stabilize the channel and protect the calcareous fen is in the public Interest and consistent with Section 59.13 of the Wetland Conservation Ordinance. Further review will occur with the wetland replacement plan submittal and with the grading plan. Criteria H. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The land uses within the GDP are generally consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the property. A Site Capacity Calculation has been completed. Based on the calculations, the development density Page 12 General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 shown on the GDP is generally consistent with the Performance Residential standards of the R-ix district. Decorah Edge conditions exist through a significant portion of this Site. Based on the proposed densities and topography of the site a Substantial Land Alteration will likely be required. Therefore, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of Section 62.1105P and O, and show minimum land alteration necessary for development, and Incorporate re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows into the grading and construction plans. Criteria I If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a Type III Land Subdivision Permit, the proposed development must satisfy one of the following categories of development: 1. A development bounded on all sides by arterial or higher level streets, streams or other topographic constraints, existing development, land already included in an approved General Development Plan, or permanent open space that limits the inclusion of other abutting lands: WA 2. A development with adequate public facilities and constituting the entire remaining service area of a major public facility improvement (such as a trunk sewer or water tower) that has been identified as a project in the Capital Improvement Program; N/A 3. A development that consists of at least 80 acres in land area regardless of ownership or interest, and consists of all lands for which the applicant has ownership or interest; or This application includes 109.35 acres and the entire property under control of the applicant. 4. A development for which a development agreement has been executed by the owner and the city for the entire property included in the proposed general development plan. The development agreement must have been drafted based on the development of the property occurring as proposed in the general development plan. A Development Agreement has not been executed for this development. Recommendation: This proposal is similar to the previous proposal approved by the City in 2004. The Decorah Edge ordinance provisions do have an impact on the overall design and density. Some of the Decorah Edge features were recognized in 20D4 and incorporated into the previous review. The staff recommends that the following conditions be applied to this GDP: 1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate development of the Property, including Sanitary Sewer, Water, Public Roadways, and Storm Water Management Facilities. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter Into a development agreemen; prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater Page 13 General Development Plan #219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The location and designation of the "Detention Facilities" indicated on the GDP should be viewed as conceptual until formally reviewed and approved through the Grading & Drainage Plan review process. A regional stormwater management facility will be required within this GDP site. The concept of several small detention ponds along the wetlandlstream may be permitted as an aesthetic feature, but may not fulfill the Owner's obligations for providing Stormwater Management. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve each phase of this development. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required at the Owner's expense along both sides of all new public roads within this development, and along the entire frontage of the Property abutting the west frontage road. In addition, a pedestrian trail shalt be extended at the Owner's expense through the sanitary sewer corridor to the west property line Specific obligations will be addressed in the Development Agreement. The developer/owner shall also provide pedestrian facilities between the northern extent of Willow Ridge Drive through Spring Brook Valley to the public road system within the development. 5. Controlled access dedication requirements, and individual lot access to the frontage road will be determined in the Development Agreement. Access to Commercial Drive, the frontage road, from the commercial lot shall have a separation distance of at least 225 feet. 6. Specific routing of utilities will be addressed through the platting process and plan review. At the time of development, water main extension and looping of systems must be completed per the requirements of RPU Water Division. 7. The private road from Willow Ridge Dr SW to this property is proposed for two way traffic. if this connection is approved as a private two way road, the Owner will be required through the Development Agreement process to dedicate public access rights over the private roadway to allow traffic flow between the proposed and existing development 8. Development will need to be phased to limit the number of trips to <f,200 prior to construction of a second access. Phasing shall be such that access to Willow Ridge Drive SW occurs when the development will exceed the 1,200 trip threshold and not before based on plats or Plan approval. 9. Prior to final plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the developerlowner relating to Ownership and Maintenance of the Welland and Open Space Areas, in addition to those items listed in condition #1. 10. This proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 10 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The GDP indicates a 3.5 acre public park which will meet the 0(" Page 14 General Development Plan 0219 Spring Brook Valley December 7, 2006 development's land dedication. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash in lie of land. 11. The developer must provide a 35-foot wide buffer (no build zone) along the north and south sides of the property adjacent to the existing residential developments. (Required In the previous GDP approval by the City Council.) 12. The development is limited to one-story detached dwellings along the north side of the development adjacent to the Southtown Heights and on the south side, south of the private street, adjacent to Willow Heights. The density of development is limited to a maximum of 5.5 units per acre within these two areas. (Required in the previous GDP approval by the City Council.) Notes: • The applicant will need to meet the standards specified by the Fire Department in its memo dated October 12, 2006. • Development densities shown may be reduced following the review and action on the Substantial Land Alteration. • The maximum achievable intensity must not exceed the density or floor area ratio factor for the applicable zoning district and the applicable approval process (61.5338). • MNDOT has stated that there is controlled access along the frontage road, therefore no at grade access will be permitted for the frontage road and TH 63. MNDOT has also stated that the surface water runoff from the property to the right of way may not Increase with the future development. G� W ir LL cl a J 7 In w Z C R O J O T'ovoom LO N 0 = CO) V � r r O M m v m � O a` � c m ca L J N?00co _ rn O N 0 CO LT tp Lo G1 � U C Q C O y O 0 R 000000 O LL 0 0000 N c0 y LO � rO0 O U d �a O w d m N N Q O Q O `L a rn a a Cl) w in a9 to 0) 0)lL LL LU n V ~O. 0 N 16 Z. y d X a)J c co V V C c N CD l9 N 0 O d m o y a 0 a o < L Q m N C O O C m Q o a a c o° d m N m 3 N m R N 'O o 'O 0 d 0 O- 0 ccm Jy�y 0 0 0 d 7 W LL lL .y. LO O) F-' m N, LA co V) Q Q Q r J U') 6 rm N N 5 co A co co O 7 LO In C Cl)LO to N IN T to O W Cn I W JLLJ m C R J C O V Ju w O C d R O C d ` d Q rn E 3 ❑ N lU 0 j O w+ l9 L d in C = Q Q o h +. 47 !� a ❑ c E 7 y .+w Z �Z Cl) R L N Q _ fA 0)M 3= maw ca Cn LU T F LLI F 74—_ Page 1 of IG Q 1 Harford John From: Baker, Mark [mbaker@ci.rochester.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:19 PM To: Harford John Subject: FW: Referral Comments: REVISED AMENDED PP#04-38 John - Copy of email for your records. Mark B From: Baker, Mark Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 PM To: (planning.referrals@co.olmsted.mn.us) Subject: Referral Comments: REVISED AMENDED PP#04-38 PW has no new comments on this revised application. Mark E. Baker Land Development Specialist Rochester Public Works (507) 287-2114 P Pare 2 City Ptmmine and Zonina Commission Minutes Hearing Date: October 25, 2006 Mr. Haeussinger moved to continue Type IPWase III Conditional Use Permit #06-29,. by Williams Family Partnership to November 006. Mr. McGuine seco nded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. 7 . AND Amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development. LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley Subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide 109.35 acres into 66 lots Mr. John Harford presented the staff reports, dated October 9, 2006 and October 18, 200e, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Hanford gave the history of the general development plan. He compared the differences in the originally proposed general development plan and the proposed amended general development plan. Mr. Hanford explained that the Decorah Edge Ordinance is now in affect and showed where it was located on the site. McGhie and Betts supplied site calculations today, but staff will need to review it more thoroughly. He reviewed the calculations with the Commission. These calculations are available for review at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford stated that that applicant has withdrawn their request for a Substantial Land Alteration due to many unknowns with the grading. Therefore, the Commission should not take action on it tonight with the plat. Mr. Harford explained where the wetlands were on the site and whether they were groundwater or surface supported. He indicated the consultant may not necessary agree with him. Mr. Burke asked if the groundwater supported wetlands needed to be avoided. Mr. Harford read from the Ordinance and indicated that the groundwater supported wetlands could not be disturbed under the new regulations. Mr. Burke asked who was qualified to determine whether it is groundwater supported or not if there is difference of opinion. Mr. Wheeler responded that he is unsure if there is a disagreement at this time. Staff can consult with Board and Soil Resources for guidance if needed. Discussion ensued regarding density. Ms. Rivas asked that, considering that Site Capacity calculations and that the information was submitted today, if the Commission should continue the item. el \�-11Y V Page 3 Ciry Planain_ and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearine Datc: October 2i, 2006 Mr. Harford responded that he would suggest that the Commission hear public testimony then continue the items for two weeks so the consultant may get more answers on the questionable items. The applicant's representative, Ms. Kristi Clarke from McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. She showed the general development plan that was approved on February 11, 2004. She described the differences between the two plans (ex. density, 35 foot no build buffer, single family homes, removed the center street, removed the pond, fewer lots, etc.). Ms. Clarke stated that they are learning to work with the new Decorah Edge Ordinance as it was recently implemented. There are some areas on the site that they do not feel are a certain soils type. Therefore, Jeff Broberg and Luke Lunde will be doing some more borings in those areas to clarify. Ms. Rivas stated that they have done a good job of staying out of the natural areas. Ms. Rivas asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Ms. Clarke responded no. Mr. Burke asked what would happen if Enterprise Drive went through. Mr. Hanford responded that Public Works and Planning Staff discussed who would build the street. Fleet Farm did not want the roadway to go through. Mr. Burke stated that there is no stipulation if a roadway would go through at some point. Mr. Wheeler stated that, by not having that connection, it was the reason why there is a connection to Willow Ridge. Mr. Zachary Klaus (residing at 504 33rtl Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. He stated that he has lived in his home since 1960. He indicated that the area indicated as sensitive soil was a sand pit. Mr. Klaus stated that the 35 foot buffer was not supposed to be a "non build" area but a "no disturbed" area. In November of 1952, Dave Bernard used to farm in the area. When the property was sold to Bob Neil to create Southtown Heights Subdivisions, they created a 33 foot buffer. He indicated that Holt Abstract Company should have this filed at their place of business. He indicated that the purpose of the 33 foot buffer was to separate the subdivision from the farming area. There are many young Oak trees in the 33 foot buffer. Ms. Rivas asked if Mr. Klaus found the documentation at Halt Abstract Company. Mr. Klaus responded that he did not check. Mr. Klaus stated that it is a very dry year. He stated that the wetlands are groundwater supported. He expressed concern with the grading plan. He stated that he was recently annexed and had to close his well. He indicated that they perforated his well and explained how far he had to perforate it. The grading plan is below where he had to perforate. Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Conumssion Minutes Hearing Date, October 25, 2006 Mr. Klaus expressed concern with burning occurring on site with the new development. He stated that he knew of residents that were sick when the burning occurred when the City put in the sewer. He questioned what would happen when they begin grading and bulldozing. He stated that a neighbor had to go to the hospital to get oxygen. Since he is asthmatic, he had to leave his home. Mr. Burke stated that they will need to specify their plan for trees and brush when they apply for a final permit. Mr. Hanford explained that the Fire Department issues the permit for burning on site. Mr. Klaus stated that he did contact the Fire Department and they indicated that they couldn't prevent it. Mr. Wheeler explained that the City Council takes action on the disposal of trees and brush plan and that, if the City Council stated that they could not bum on site, the Fire Department could not issue a permit. Ms. Sue Swanson (residing at 3615 9" Avenue SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She stated that she openly appreciated the Decorah Edge Ordinance that was adopted. Ms. Swanson stated that she believes that traffic will come down Willow Heights Drive. At present, there are individuals taking out mailboxes at least 3 times a year. She stated that there are significant safety concerns with the traffic occurring on Willow Heights Drive. She asked that, when the development goes in and if there is an increase of traffic on Willow Heights Drive, speed plateaus be put in at the expense of the developer. Mr. Burke asked if she had discussed traffic calming with the Rochester Public Works Department regarding her current safety concerns. Ms. Swanson stated that it is not a high income location and the neighborhood would have a hard time paying for it. She asked that a new traffic study be done if traffic is impacted on Willow Heights Drive. Discussion ensued regarding load limits and that Rochester Public Works would need to be contacted. Ms. Swanson asked that the Commercial exclude having a strip club being located there. Mr. Chly responded that it would be too close to residential property. He stated that it was his belief that it had to be farther than 1,000 feet from residential property. Ms. Swanson stated that she though the 35 foot buffer to be a Tree Buffer Zone. Mr. Harford read out loud the City Council motion: ko� I 1 I I N Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Reanne Date: October 25, 2006 Councilmernbers Marcoux moved, Hanson seconded, to approve General Development Plan 9219, to be known as Spring Brook Valley -N,th 13 conditions; Number 12 being "The developer shall prrnride a 35-foot wide buffer (no build zone) along the nonh and south sides of the properly adjacent to the existing residential developments", and Number 13'The development is limited to one-story detached dwetGngs along the north side of the development adjacent to Southtown Heights and on the south side, south of the private street, adjacent to Willow Heights. The density of development shall be limited to a maximum of 5.5 uniWacre snthin this area". and instructed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law. and Order. Ayes (T), Nays (0). Motion carried. Ms. Rivas asked if Ms. Swanson was really asking for a "no grading" zone Ms. Swanson stated that she would like the trees to be left. Mr. Wheeler stated that, because the previous GDP is about to expire, the question could be addressed again by the Commission and Council. Ms. Swanson stated that she felt townhomes were inconsistent with their neighborhood. Ms. Wendy Turri (residing at 604 33rd Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She stated she listened to the City Council minutes and stated they stated "no disturb' but the minutes reflected "no build". Ms. Turri stated that there were erosion problems when the sewer was put in. She expressed concern with having a neighborhood of 50 homes on 50 acres and having a new development of 460 homes on 60 acres. Ms. Jennifer Mann (residing at 715 36"' Street SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She stated that the 35 foot buffer was to help the flow of the neighborhood. She would prefer R-1 zoning. She expressed concern with the proposed development impacting traffic. Ms. Mann stated that the trailer homes in Willow Ridge would be impacted by the proposed development and asked that they be notified. She indicated that there are many children in that area and expressed concern with their safety. Ms. Sandra Miller (residing at 3960 Willow Court SW, Rochester MN 55902) addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about developing more land with blacktop and getting rid of trees. Mr. Burke explained that the City has proposed using properties within in City instead of having urban sprawl. It is called infill. Ms. Miller expressed concern with it all being close together. The children in the trailer park have no place to play besides the street. Mr. Burke responded that there would be a park for them to play at Discussion ensued regarding the development process. cos Pugu 6 City Planning and 7_nning Commission Minutes Hearing DateOcLDber 15. 1006 Ms. Swanson expressed concern that the buffer was not properly addressed. Mr. Burke stated that the City Council would discuss the discrepancy and take appropriate action. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke closed the public hearing Mr. Haeussinger moved to con3inue:Amendment to GDP #219:by.RMN Land Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley to November 8, 2006:_ Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Mr. Haeussinger moved to'continue Amended Preliminary Plat #04738 by RMN Land-` Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley Su6divTsfon to November 8,�2006: 4' Ms- Rivas seconded the motion.: The motion _carried 8-0. AND Mr. John Harford presen the staff reports, dated October 19, 2 and October 25, 2006, to the Commission. The sta orts are on file at the Rochester msted Planning Department. Mr. Harford explained that there an issue regarding a s to the site and that there are conditions of approval that the Co fission must addr before taking action on the General Development Plan. The applicant's representative, Ms. Kristi 0 rk rom McGhie and Betts, Inc. (1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester MN 55904), address the Commission. The General Development Plan process now has to show 80 acres e t ugh the property is not owned by the same property owner. She explained that the_ he ounty ineer was concerned with two access points but indicated that they only had contr over their o roperty at which there is only one access point. The access points w e note moved fro the original general development. She explained that she will be workin ith the County Engin r on the conditions. Ms. Clarke stated that the GK Land Use Plan shows the are s Industrial. She showed the floodway boundary. The odway will remain R-1. She stated Nt they comply with the Shoreland Ordinance. Whe showed where the hydric soils were IoXted. Ms. Clarke stated t the applicant is in agreement with the staff-reco ended conditions. Ms. Nancy Br mer (residing at 2217 Cedar Park Ct SE, Rochester IN 55 addressed the Commissio She expressed concern regarding wildlife, dust, and safety. Sh ked that the buffer be large as possible. She stated that she would prefer that the applican ut in Spruce trees t lock the sound and dust. Also, she asked that a chain link fence be put ar d the EON Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes V.;.... T1e,u NnvrmhPr x NM as an Exempt activity (except for reclamat!OIV for the entire site based on staff's findings.. Mr. McGuine seconded the motion Them carried 8-0. Amendment to GDP #219 by RMN Land Development LLC to be known as Spring Brook Vallev The plan includes 109.35 acres of land located west of TH 63 and north of the Fleet Farm Store and south of the Southtown 2nd and Southtown Hetahts subdivisions. AND Amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley Subdivision The applicant proposes to subdivide 109.35 acres into 66 lots for single family development and 6 outlots for future residential and commercial development The Applicant Is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit that will change grades by more than 10 feet over portions of the propertV. The propertV is located north of Fleet Farm west of TH 63 and south of the Southtown subdivisions. Mr. Burke explained that public hearing was closed at their October 25, 2006 meeting. Mr. Pestka asked if the Commission was still lacking materials to make an informed decision. Mr. Harford stated that a revised GDP, without the site capacity calculations, was submitted on Friday, November 2, 2006 and that a revision to the preliminary plat had just been received. Staff did not have adequate time to review the revised plan and circulate to referral agencies for their review. He described some of the changes that he has seen at first glance. Mr. John Harford explained that the applicant identified additional hydric soils in the edge support area. Therefore, applicant has reduced the length of the cul-de-sac. Also, additional borings were done that indicated a 477B soil type does not exist in the commercial area as first believed. Mr. Wallace stated that neighbors discussed a 35 foot buffer to the north being an issue at the last meeting. Mr. Harford stated that the resolution approved for the previous version of the general development plan states that it is a "no build" area 35 feet wide from each of the property lines. Some of the neighbors are of the belief that the City Council approved a "no disturb" area and not a "no build" area. He explained that the issue would need to be discussed before the City Council. Discussion ensued regarding possible disturbance on the site. Mr. Burke asked if the site calculations reflect the revised plans submitted at tonight's meeting Mr. Harford responded yes. Mr. Haeussinger expressed concern with getting changing plans continuously. Plans were submitted on packet day, during the week, and now revised plans at the meeting. He stated that he would like to see the final product with all the requested data and have time to look it over. Mr. Burke expressed concern that all the different revisions haven't been reviewed in detail. Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: November 6, 2006 Mr. Haeussinger suggested that the Commission continue the items to December 13, 2006 with the condition that they submit all the materials in time for staff to review it prior to it being sent to the Commission. Mr. Only questioned the timing on the application. Mr. Harford responded that he sent the applicant a 120 day letter. Mr. Harford stated that staff needs to route the revised plans to Rochester Public Works and RPU and have time to compile the comments to revise the staff reports. Mr. Haeussinger moved fo continue Amendment to GDP `#2a9 by RMN Land Development, LLCto be known as Spring Brook ValleyFan�d Amended Preliminary Plat #04-36 by;RMN Land Development,;LLC to lie known —Spring Brook Valley Subdivision to December-13;.2006. Mr. McGuine'secorfded the motion: The motion carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. John Harford presented the staff repo dated Novembe , 2006, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olms\s! anning D artment. Mr. Burke questioned why the site was uni Mr. Harford responded that it was due to thd height of the tower. The applicant's representative, Don Miller Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Coi Commission make the site friendlier for R Colby Associates (717 Third Avenue SE, e explained that the requests before the nce and construction. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Burke tilt Mr. Haeussinger moved to appr a Variance #06-22' Rochester Public Utilities, with a staffrecommen the motion Themotion cirri 6-0 the public hearing. ,Ign Modification #06-06, by Igs Ms Wiesner seconded . a v .- ••A..I::-i RrvW •4..Fl... � srUes would recivre a wider tinkor even a`bunedtank: ' ONABLE U5B:,The,property can be used for the ground st 'tatbacks f a retaining wall -is constructed; the drive+ivay cements Tor= and higher, , e reservoir and,. `o1 \� DRAFT City Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2006 meeting CONTINUED ITEMS: ► UU0 Mr. John Harford presented the staff reports, dated October 18, 2006 and revised on December 7, 2006, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford stated that the plat and GDP are ready to be moved forward to the City Council. A revised site capacity calculation has been submitted and reviewed. The application is under a Type 3 process for density. Wetland areas have been shown that will be affected by the Decorah Shale. The street entrance to the west side of the frontage road now shows that it meets the minimum requirements. The plat reflects the changes to the GDP. There is a slight reduction in the number of units to 436. They meet the requirements of the Decorah Edge Ordinance. Mr. Wallace asked about the 35 foot buffer between the property and the residential property. Mr. Harford stated that the City Council minutes stated that it is a "no build" zone. The question is whether it was actually intended to be a "no disturb" zone. The question of the intended language will need to be addressed by the City Council. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant removed the substantial land alteration request. Mr. Harford responded yes. Mr. Burke stated that the public hearing was closed at a previous meeting. He indicated that he spoke with the applicant and they stated that they are in agreement with staffs recommendation. Mr. the r DRAFT City Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2006 meeting development A making these In enter into a devi developer's and management (in Improvements (I 2. Grading 8 Drainaget'lan;papprovitl,1' regiif[ed Prior. taFir+al,Plat submittal The location and designation of the""Detention Fa6111164W Jrldicateril oath ; 666 r viewed as conceptual untit formally reviewed and approved throughe Grading` Drainage Plan review prgGees A tegto4ial stamwaterinanggemantfacil tnnl be required within thisrGDP site `The 4orgtcePt of ve I. .9 de entuuk i� l wetfandittrearr ma5r be, Pdrmi 8s a a ;t i tea iitmap riQ I ` at 3: ` ExeCutic phase of this development 4p , Y, ,r3,� "tk# y 4. Pedestrian'facillties are required at theninr's ex}i3e along bath s de s of a public roads within this development, and along the enure foitageaf file , rty abutting the west frontage road tit artd�ittoitra pd®s1jt s alla�� ti the Owner's expensg tllroujo�t> the saniar( gwer eor r$tove' i� 1 e Specific obligaf�onsjrlli Add isse� be�tkgreemenh q J�..�i.:::a,.fw...was: ai'`.nlficw�ifeFaaviirTd Ti n.'c`ti►ts. between tlienorther`nexte 5', Controlled access de n req ret ►en �arkAJA 0 J road will be determined,ii that Deveiopr�ien.lgreenent�c the frontage road, from the commercial Igtshatt hasrre"a`�ep 225 feet. t 6. Specific roudng ofw3ti 'a dr ugh th1 !' L►al.i'�i:w` iK:isiw�waiaF°" e1'i9]fPRG1�R'4 7. The private road front Vilillow Ridge Dr SVN to this 0roged .is tI traffic. If this connection is approved as a private twd%i,, roa required through the Development Agreement process_to_dedii rights over the private roadway to allow traffic flow, between th exlodng development' �120-4 +x' i DRAFT City Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2006 meeting construction of a second a Drive 5W occurs when the before based on, plats or P AIJ 9- Prior to final ptik ubmftal the City that oudihes the t condition #1. 4 10. This proposed develop.' w approximately 90 acres. A Mir form of land. The GDP indicati development's land dedication cash in lie of land. 11 The developer must provide a" south sides of the' Property. adj (Required in the previous ,GDP 112. The development is -limited to the development adjacent to tl a3 The carnea it;-u. CONDITIGNS 1'. Roadway names wilt need to beR mks ,a nhar 1s''�nnrt>e*icimrirsine�uFif acre 2. The Piat shall tie rews d to iden"t iy° additloAi requirements specified i 1 the Ocfohe49`200i 3. Prior to Final Plat submittal the applicant mu private street connection to Willow Ridge Dri access easement shall be granted from UVllla fora private roadway The gassm - 4 -hail a ervi sce personnel €ongterrn irrainteriance;. 4., wetland-1017 secured for DRAFT City Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2006 meeting 5. There are inadequate on, `znffstta, the Property, inciudm�g;Sa itaryS d Management Facilities., No developn Council has determined that alirequi development. Alternatively, the deve making these inadequate public facil enter into a development agreement, developer's and City's obligations re management (ine4#ing any obligatit applicable. 6. Grading and Drainage;approva-Fit requireqand ttaymen tlfa'Stomilliia Management Fee will be appllcable for the entire P�operfiy finless otfiry addressed in a Development Agreement. "in addition, on site sediments control facilities may be required_fof thisdevelop, ineil u• s �„� is ks �' � yw.L � n s*'- . ".. - : ,.. 7. Ownership a4dVaintenanee pf the p used Outlots needs to be addre Final Plat"approva'f R,$ 8. Block 1, Lots 1'3, arvHiociYs�it�bi' ed� ;r 4ae[age,(i A second access is "Oro ded. 4 9. This application is subject to. meeting and ,comply! n vitrth all cond�t�bn of the General Development Pian,for this pfoperf�r ' 10.This application" ssubiettajneet�nl��yng with all regwreme Decorah Edge ordinac ne provlsi'ons 11.The applicant will need tp rXaife* requ,#or Idea c?io the Park Department memidatedeflctobeY'B; 12.The applicant will need tocampiywithfhe:requirementsilltl�tJ increase in stormwater rtmoff front this site eauseef byCii deYelqAN the TH 63 ri lit-ofawa . .. z "a' ., w � v n �W, �'"�. RL-dUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIO.. MEETING 113 DATE: 12-18-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E— / ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be PREPARED BY: known as Spring Brook Valley Subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide 109.35 acres into John Hanford, 66 lots for single family development and 6 outlots for future residential and commercial Senior Planner development. The property is located north of Fleet Farm, west of TH 63 and south of the Southtown subdivisions. December 13, 2006 �D �� GPI{ r„' S fron. �✓e✓ G� k� City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, November 8 and December 13 to consider this preliminary plat to allow for a residential and commercial development. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: 1. Roadway names will need to be modified, per the requirements specified in the November 14, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning G1S/Addressing. 2. The Plat shall be revised to identify additional public utility easements, and other requirements specified in the October 4, 2006 memorandum from RPU Water. 3. Prior to Final Plat submittal the applicant must identify and include in an outlot the private street connection to Willow Ridge Drive; and prior to final plat recording, an access easement shall be granted from Willow Ridge Drive to "Spring Brook Drive" for a private roadway. The easement shall grant rights of access to all emergency service personnel. Long term maintenance and ownership of the private roadways will need to be formally addressed prior to recording of the Final Plat documents. 4. Wetland impacts are proposed with this development. The applicant will need to submit a wetland replacement plan to the City for consideration. Permits must be secured for any wetland impacts prior to submittal of a final plat application. Also, the applicant will need to meet all Decorah Edge ordinance requirements. 5. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate development of the Property, including Sanitary Sewer, Water, Public Roadways, and Storm Water Management Facilities. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 6. Grading and Drainage approval is required, and payment of a Storm Water Management Fee will be applicable for the entire Property unless otherwise addressed in a Development Agreement in addition, on - site sedimentation and rate control facilities may be required for this development. 7. Ownership and Maintenance of the proposed Outlots needs to be addressed prior to Final Plat approval. 6. Block 1, Lots 1-5, and Blocks 2-5 will be limited to 1,200 average daily trips until a second access Is provided. COUNCIL ACTION: Morton by second by: to: Page 2 RCA December 14, 2005 9. This application is subject to meeting and complying with all conditions of approval of the General Develops Plan for this property. 10. This application is subject to meeting and complying with all requirements of the Decorah Edge ordinance provisions. 11. The applicant will need to meet the requirements for parkland dedication described In the Park Department memo dated October 6, 2006. 12. The applicant will need to comply with the requirements of MNDOT that there be no increase in stormwater runoff from this site caused by this development that enters the THC63 right of way. ! � .1 �.h'. yC' (d..-- Ctf,✓'-a..— '/- u<.,.0 -L. �. ,E+<.rr+., sz.... ja` �� ..- r " Mr. Haeussinger moved to recommend approval of amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN with the staff -recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Council Action Needed: The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the sixteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachment., 1. Staff Report dated December 7, 2006 2. Draft City Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of December 13, 2006 Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:DD p.m. on Monday, December 18, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. N< ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT D4.AocxESTEa:m�NN� 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 i� coin,. OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning no •pAD PO � R9 TEDAUGUST�S TO: City Planning and Zoning Comm FROM: John Harford, Senior DATE: October 18, 2006, Revised Decer�Ver 7, 2006 RE: Amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley Subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide 109.35 acres into 66 lots for single family development and 6 outlots for future residential and commercial development. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial Land Alteration permit that will change grades by more than 10 feet over portions of the property. The property is located north of Fleet Farm, west of TH 63 and south of the Southtown subdivisions. Planning Department Review., Applicant/Owner: RMN Land Development 6601 Weston Parkway, Suite 240 West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 SurveyorsfEngineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: RPLI Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - Addressing staff MN Department of Transportation Planning Department— Wetland Administrator Planning Department —Transportation Planning Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. General Development Plan 5., Substantial Land Alteration information BUILDING CODE 5071285-8345 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 50712B5-8232 • HOUSINGMRA 507P285-8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WEWSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071267-2275 i� .`� r' Page 2 Preliminary Plat #04-33 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 Development Review., Zoning: Most of the property is currently zoned R-1 X (Mixed Single Family -Extra) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Lots 1 and 2 Block 1,and a portion of Outlot C are zoned B-4 (General Commercial). Roadways: The plan proposes both public and private roadways within the development. Primary access is shown at the TH 63 west frontage road (Commercial Drive). Additional access to the residential area is proposed at the north end of Willow Ridge Drive and follows a proposed 30' utility easement to the proposed Spring Brook Drive. According to the GDP this access is proposed to accommodate two way traffic on a 28' wide private road, which would connect to the internal public street system. In the previously approved preliminary plat concerns were raised by the Transportation Planning Staff, so this roadway configuration was modified from the original submittal to provide a more circuitous route and to emphasize and encourage use of the primary public road system. The street is proposed to be a two-way. The applicant has not identified the private road on the plat, as was done previously by way of an outlot. The private should be identified as an outlot as is done for the extension of 7 h Ave. Another access is proposed at the north end of 7"' Ave. SW. and is labeled Outlot 'F'. The extension of this road is proposed to be a private street serving a limited area of the development. Right-of-way for Enterprise Drive SW is platted to the south property line of this GDP, but is not proposed to be extended into the property. Comments provided by Transportation Planning staff indicate that there must be a minimum spacing requirement of 330' between the southern edge of the 33 St right of way and the northern edge of the proposed Spring Brook Drive right of way. The current alignment does not meet that design recommendation. Separation requirements (225' between driveways) will apply to all access to Commercial Drive from the commercial portion of the plat. Roadway names will need to be modified, per the requirements specified in the October 3, 2006 memorandum from Rochester - Olmsted Planning GIS/Addressing. REVISED PLAT: The applicant has moved Sedge Meadow Circle upgradlent of the wetland on the south hillside in order to avoid an impact on the wetland. Sedge Lane SW, the cul-de- sac has been shortened to avoid impact to hydric soils within Page 3 Preliminary Plat #D4-38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 the Decorah Edge. The applicant proposes to fill the 0.04 acre wetland at the intersection of the cul-de-sac and main loop street. Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including Commercial Drive. Pedestrian facilities should also be provided between Willow Ridge Drive and the new public roadway within Spring Brook Valley. A pedestrian trail will need to be extended through the sanitary sewer corridor to the west property line. Drainage: This property has steep and rolling terrain and drains to an intermittent stream that runs from west to east through the site. Based on the Soil Survey, slopes range from relatively level on the eastern commercial area to 1-6% in the foot slope adjacent to the drainageway, and 12-30% in mid slope areas on both side of the valley. The Plan proposes multiple cells for stormwater management along the stream corridor in Area C noted on the GDP, as well as detention pond(s) in the northeast corner of the GDP. A regional stormwater management facility will be needed on the easterly portion of the property. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to submittal of the final plat or permits are acquired for other development within the plat. REVISED PLAT: The MNDOT provided comments regarding drainage to the TN 63 right of way. MNDOT states that due to the drainage characteristics and behaviors of the drainage channel drainage to these box culverts, any increased runoff from this proposal in Mn/DOT right of way will not be allowed". Wetlands and Decorah Wetlands are identified on the GDP and the preliminary plat. Edge: The wetland were delineated 1999 and were reviewed again in 2003. There are 5 wetland areas, four on the hillsides and one along the drainage channel. The applicant has stated that the easterly two wetlands are not groundwater supported but surface water induced wetlands. The original wetland delineation indicated that all four wetlands on the property are groundwater supported as seeps were observed for all of the areas. The applicant does not dispute this information. The applicant proposes impacts on two wetlands located within and outside the Decorah Edge. The wetlands include the drainage channel, and another at the intersection of Sedge Lane and Sedge Meadow Circle. The applicant must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act and the Decorah Edge ordinance provisions regarding these wetlands. The westerly 2/3 of this property is located within the Decorah Page 4 Preliminary Plat #04.38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 Edge. The site includes Groundwater Supported Wetlands and soils related to the Decorah identified in the ordinance as the Edge Support Area. The applicant's general development plan indicates avoidance of impacts on the two largest wetlands located on the westerly 1/3 of the property. The three other wetlands on the site appear to be partially or completed altered under the proposed plan. The easterly portion of the drainage channel wetland and the bulk of the commercial area are not located within the Decorah Edge. The Groundwater Supported Wetlands and Edge Support Areas within the Decorah Edge may not be "excavated, altered hydrologically, drained or filled.. ° under the ordinance, with exceptions explained in RCO 59.06, Subd. 4. A Site Capacity Calculation is required for this development but has not been submitted. The submitted and later withdrew a Substantial Land Alteration with the preliminary plat. Section 62.1105 P states that "land alteration is the minimum amount necessary to develop at the site capacity" determined in accordance with the residential density from the Site Capacity Calculation. Subsection Q states that groundwater flows intercepted by excavation must be reinfiltrated or directed to managed wetlands. The applicant will need to analyze the areas proposed for the SLA, especially the areas to be cut to determine if the proposed grades can be amended to reduce the impact in the Edge Support Areas. The applicant will need to identify what measures will be employed to reinfiltrate intercepted groundwater flows or direct them to managed wetlands. The Site Capacity Calculations address Groundwater Supported Wetlands and the Edge Support Area of the new Decorah Edge ordinance. Wetlands in the Decorah Edge and Edge Support Areas are subtracted from the density calculation for the R-ix district, as they are Resource Protection Land. The densities for the R-1x district are 5.5 (Type 1), 8.71 (Type II), and 15 (Type III) units per acre. The overall density of the site with the proposed 442 units on the 92 acres is 4.8 units per acre. With 442 units and a Type III process the minimum acreage not affected by Groundwater Supported Wetlands and Edge Support Area is 29.5 acres (442115=29.5). Avoidance of the wetlands allows a bonus to be applied, depending on the percent avoidance. It appears that the primary impact of the Decorah Edge ordinance provisions will be to affect the Substantial Land Alteration and the grading and construction details of the streets and utility systems. REVISED PLAN. The Substantial Land Alteration application has been withdrawn by the applicant. The applicant has completed the Site Capacity Calculations and it shows that the proposal does not exceed the density limitations for the site. Area A has not changed and includes 24 units. Area B has changed due to the requirements of Section 64.111 and has a total of 16 units. Area C has a total of 15 units. Due to the Page 5 Preliminary Plat #04-38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 street realignment Area D will have a total of 76 units and Area E will have a total of 80 units. Area F will have a total of 225 units. There are a total of 436 units in the revised GDP which is a reduction of 6 units. The westerly portions of Lots 1-4, Block 3 are affected by the Decorah Edge requirements, thus the grading plan will be reviewed to determine if the lots are buildable. Public Utilities: Additional public utility easements will be required in this development. Looping of the water main will be required, along with additional valves and hydrants, as specified in the October 4, 2006 memorandum from RPU Water. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. Spillover parking for much of this site will be determined under separate review of site plans. Lots served via the private road may not be provided with adequate spillover parking. The applicant has widening the private road to a 28' wide surface which would allow for parking on one side. Parkland Dedication: This proposed development would have a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 10 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The revised GDP indicates a 3.5 acre public park, which will meet the development's land dedication. The location of the proposed park is acceptable to the Park Department. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash in lieu of land. A minimum of 2.5 acres must be graded to a slope of 4% or less. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Spring Brook Valley General Development Plan (GDP #219). General Development Plan: The GDP for this property includes the following conditions/modifications: There are inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate development of the Property, including Sanitary Sewer, Water, Public Roadways, and Storm Water Management Facilities. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City In making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation Improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public Page 6 Preliminary Plat #04-38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The location and designation of the "Detention Facilities" indicated on the GDP should be viewed as conceptual until formally reviewed and approved through the Grading & Drainage Plan review process. A regional stormwater management facility will be required within this GDP site. The concept of several small detention ponds along the wetland/stream may be permitted as an aesthetic feature, but may not fulfill the Owner's obligations for providing Stormwater Management. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve each phase of this development. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required at the Owner's expense along both sides of all new public roads within this development, and along the entire frontage of the Property abutting the west frontage road. In addition, a pedestrian trail shall be extended at the Owner's expense through the sanitary sewer corridor to the west property line Specific obligations will be addressed In the Development Agreement. The developer/owner shall also provide pedestrian facilities between the northern extent of Willow Ridge Drive through Spring Brook Valley to the public road system within the development. 5. Controlled access dedication requirements, and individual lot access to the frontage road will be determined in the Development Agreement. Access to Commercial Drive, the frontage road, shall have a separation distance of at least 225 feet. 6. Specific routing of utilities will be addressed through the platting process and plan review. At the time of development, water main extension and looping of systems must be completed per the requirements of RPU Water Division. 7. The private road from Willow Ridge Dr SW to this property is proposed for two way traffic. It this connection is approved as a private two way road, the Owner will be required through the Development Agreement process to dedicate public access rights over the private roadway to allow traffic flow between the proposed and existing development. 8. Development will need to be phased to limit the number of trips to 0,200 prior to construction of a second access. Phasing shall be such that access to Willow Ridge Drive SW occurs when the development will exceed the 1,200 trip threshold and not before based on plats or Plan approval. B. Prior to final plat submittal, the applicant shaft enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the developer/owner relating to Ownership and Maintenance of the Wetland and Open Space Areas, in addition to those Items listed In condition #1. 10. This proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 10 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The GDP Indicates a 3.5 acre public park which will meet the development's land dedication. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash In lie of land. r. Page 7 Preliminary Plat #04-38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 11. The developer must provide a 35-foot wide buffer (no build zone) along the north and south sides of the property adjacent to the existing residential developments. (Required In the previous GDP approval by the City Council.) 12. The development is limited to one-story detached dwellings along the north side of the development adjacent to the Southtown Heights and on the south side, south of the private street, adjacent to Willow Heights. The density of development is limited to a maximum of 5.5 units per acre within these two areas. (Required in the previous GDP approval by the City Council.) Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: Decorah Edge conditions exist through a vast area of this Site. The developer will probably need to propose a Substantial Land Alteration given the proposed densities and topography on site. The consultants will need to meet the requirements of Section 62.1105P and O, and show minimum land alteration necessary for development, and incorporate re -infiltration of intercepted groundwater flows into the grading and construction plans. Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. Blocks 1 and 5 do not assume an intensity of development which must be addressed through the Site Capacity Calculations. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 and 61.226. The staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above - mentioned criteria are met: 1. .Roadway names will need to be modified, per the requirements specified in the November 14, 2006 memorandum from Rochester -Olmsted Planning GiS/Addressing. 2. The Plat shall be revised to identify additional public utility easements, and other requirements specified in the October 4, 2006 memorandum from RPU Water. 3. Prior to Final Plat submittal the applicant must Identify and include in an outiot the private street connection to Willow Ridge Drive; and prior to final plat recording, an access easement shall be granted from Willow Ridge Drive to "Spring Brook Drive" for a private roadway. The easement shall grant rights of access to all emergency service personnel. Long term maintenance and ownership of the private roadways will need to be formally addressed prior to recording of the Final Plat documents. 4. Wetland impacts are proposed with this development The applicant will need to submit a wetland replacement plan to the City for consideration. Permits must be secured for any wetland impacts prior to submittal of a final plat application. Also, the applicant will need to meet all Decorah Edge ordinance requirements. 5. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate development of the Property, including Sanitary Sewer, Water, Public Roadways, and Storm Water Management Facilities. No development will be allowed to occur until the l 0 -k Page 8 \ Preliminary Plat #04-38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter Into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and Ctty's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public Infrastructure, and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable. 6. Grading and Drainage approval is required, and payment of a Storm Water Management Fee will be applicable for the entire Property unless otherwise addressed In a Development Agreement. In addition, on -site sedimentation and rate control facilities may be required for this development. 7. Ownership and Maintenance of the proposed Outlots needs to be addressed prior to Final Plat approval. S. Block 1, Lots 1-5, and Blocks 2-5 will be limited to 1,200 average daily trips until a second access is provided. 9. This application Is subject to meeting and complying with all conditions of approval of the General Development Plan for this property. 10. This application Is subject to meeting and complying with all requirements of the Decorah Edge ordinance provisions. 11. The applicant will need to meet the requirements for parkland dedication described in the Park Department memo dated October 6, 2006. 12. The applicant will need to comply with the requirements of MNDOT that there be no increase In stormwater runoff from this site caused by this development that enters the TH 63 right of way. REMINDER TO APPLICANT.. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public roadways and utilities. • Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application if the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements and acceptance of improvements by the City. Page 9 03 Preliminary Plat #04-38 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. �lf� Page 10 Preliminary Plat #04-36 Spring Brook Valley Subdivision December 7, 2006 Effective May 15, 1999 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 0. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. r ti()>4..- ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Spring Brook Valley Preliminary Plat #04-38 'REVISED' Acreageof plat... ...................................................... 109.35 acres Number of dwelling units..... ........................................ 66 units* Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication................................................................ 1.61 a Fair market value of land ............................................. $26,000 / a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: A combination of land and cash dedication. Land dedication of at least 3.5 acres identified as Outlot C. A minimum of 2.5 acres of Outlot C shall be graded to a slope of 4% or less, cleared of forest vegetation and have topsoil cover of 60 or more. Parkland dedication to occur when the site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development The park site (Outlot C) has +/- 1,000' of street frontage. This is acceptable to the Park Department if the applicant is agreeable to pay for street costs in excess of 100'. If the City/Park is expected to pay for ''Y2 of the street, the amount of park street frontage needs to be reduced to +/- 100'. Applicant should be required to grade and establish turf on all Outlots that will be deeded to City. RECEIVED J2897 I i OCT 10 2006 ):\PARK DEDICATION\2006\SW 2897\SPRING BROOK VALLEY GDP REV.DOC �rK & Necreat'� -� ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION Rochester, MAY- DEPARTMENT October 5, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: GDP #03-219 "REVISED 0&26-06" Spring Brook Valley Depending on final site plans, the development as proposed could have a parkland dedication requirement of ± 10.00 acres. A minimum of 3.5 acres of the dedication should be in the form of land. The balance of the dedication can be in the form of cash in lieu of land. The revised GDP continues to show a 3.5 acre public park. The location of the identified park site is acceptable to the Park Department. The configuration of the 3.5 acre park includes almost 1,000' of street frontage. The City / Park Department to be responsible for a maximum of 100' of park street frontage costs. The balance of the park street frontage to be funded by the development. RECEIVED OCT 10 2006 OAPARK DEDICATIOM2 MSW 2897TSPRING BROOK VALLEY GOP REV.DOC N ROCHESTER Hzl u. TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 10/13/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 105 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for AMENDED Preliminary Plat_ #04-38 for the proposed SprinQ Brook Valley development. The following are Public Works comments on this request: There are inadequate on and off site public facilities to accommodate development of the Property, including Sanitary Sewer, Water, Public Roadways, and Storm Water Management Facilities. No development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal, that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, stormwater management (including any obligations for off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including any off -site improvements necessary to accommodate this - development), pedestrian facilities, contributions for existing & future public infrastructure, the extension of public utilities to abutting properties where applicable, and Ownership & Maintenance of the Outlots and Wetland areas within this development. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. The location and designation of the "Detention Facilities" indicated on the GDP should be viewed as conceptual until formally reviewed and approved through the Grading & Drainage Plan review process. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable off -site public easements is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure to serve each phase of this development. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required at the Owner's expense along both sides of all new public roads within this development, and along the entire frontage of the Property abutting the west frontage road. In addition, a pedestrian trail shall be extended at the Owner's expense through the sanitary sewer corridor to the west property line Specific obligations will be addressed in the Development Agreement. C:\Documents and Settings\plajgarn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK611PP04-38 Spdng Brook Valley REVISED 10-06.doc ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT WORKS PUBLIC Rochester, MN 55904 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6218 FROM: Mark E. Baker 5. Controlled access dedication requirements, and individual lot access to the frontage road will be determined in the Development Agreement. 6. The private road from Willow Ridge Dr SW to this property is proposed for two way traffic. If this connection is approved as a private two way road, the Owner will be required through the Development Agreement process to dedicate public access rights over the private roadway to allow traffic flow between the proposed and existing development. Preliminary Construction plans will be provided separately to the applicant's consulting engineer. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract(s) for the Property and include (rates where indicated are through 7/31/07): Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $3511.71 per developable d• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $2105.70 per developable acre to Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge @ $53.01 per foot of frontage (estimated 4000 feet). Willow Creek Transportation Improvement District (WCTID) contribution based on rates for applicable Zoning Storm Water Management — To Be Determined at the time of Grading Plan approval, for areas that do not drain to a privately constructed on -site regional detention facility. $• Pedestrian Ramps 4.4 First Seal Coat Charge Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer C:\Documents and Settings\plajgarn\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK61\PP04-36 Spring Brook Valley REVISED 10-06.doc The hand to reach for... DAVID A. KAPLER Fire Chief DATE: October 12, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: R. Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Amendment to Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development, LLC to be known as Spring Brook Valley. With regard to the above noted project plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. a) The minimum fire flow for the commercial development area shall be no less than 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. The actual required fire flow per lot will be determined by the size and construction type of the buildings being proposed. The minimum fire flow for the single family residential development area shall be no less than 1,000 gpm at 20 psi. 2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. a) Minimum street width shall not be less than 20 feet clear drivable width. b) Streets less than 32 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking" on one side of the street. Streets less than 26 feet in width shall be posed "No Parking" on both sides of the street. c) Minimum cul-de-sac diameter shall not be less than 70 feet in diameter d) Cul-de-sacs less than 96 feet in diameter shall be,posted "No Parking". 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson — RPU Water (e-mail only) Mark Baker — Rochester Public Works (e-mail only) RMN Land Development, LLC McGhie & Betts, Inc (e-mail only) t �3� we plrJgc, w< rlrlirr� October 4, 2006 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Amended Preliminary Plat #04-38 by RMN Land Development, LLC known as Spring Brook Valley. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. To provide adequate water flows for fire protection of the commercial area the water main must be looped from the north (Southtown Heights area) through this property to the south (Willowridge area). 2. A 20' minimum utility easement is needed for the required 8" water main loop through Outlot `B' to connect into the existing 8" water main stubbed out from the north (near the sanitary sewer connection shown). 3. The preliminary construction plans do not indicate any water main to serve Lot 2, Block 1. 4. Static water pressures within this area will range from 66 to 92 PSI. The builders must install pressure -reducing devices near the domestic water meters in the higher pressure areas as required by the Minnesota Plumbing Code. 5. Revisions to the proposed water system layout are required, which include the addition of valves and hydrants. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm on these locations. Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions. Very truly yours, "4A 1 Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Gary Schick, Building & Safety McGhie & Betts, Inc. RMN Land Development, LLC Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Nov 22 2006 9:00RM MN/DOT 507-2t35-7279 p.2 / Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 Xrw&2900 48h Street N.W.Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Rochester, MN 55901-5948 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moateS@dotstate.mn.os November 22, 2006 John Hartford, Planner Rochester Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Amendment to GDP #219 by PJAN Land Development, LLC to be ]mown as Spring Brook Valley. The plan includes 10935 acres of land located west of US 63 and north of the Fleet Farm Store and south of the Southtown 2a4 and Southtown Heights Subdivisions. US 63, CS 5509 Dear Ms. Hartford: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 6 staff has reviewed the above amendment to GDP #219 known as Spring Brook Valley. Mn/DOT would like to include the following two comments in addition to Mn/DOT response letters dated 10113/2006, 5/10/2006, 6/9/2004 and 4/28/2004: 1. All work done within Mn/DOT right-of-way will require a Ma/DOT work permit. You may contact Tom Streiff, Roadway Regulations Supervisor, at (507) 285-7362, to obtain the work permit application. 2. The storm -water runoff from the development will drain toward the double box culvert Mn/DOT just installed under Commercial Drive, US 63 ramps and US 63 as part of the 40a Street project. Due to the drainage characteristics and behaviors of the drainage channel drainage to these box culverts, any increased runoff from this proposal in Mn/DOT right of way will not be allowed. 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, (fWA..- Chris Moates District 6 Planning Director cc: Kjersti Anderson, Michael Schweyen, Craig Hansen, Thomas Streiff Peter Waskiw, Debbie Persoon-Bement, File DOCS4548175 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507) 285-8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: November 14, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness; Stephanie F FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: McGhie and Betts RE: SPRING BROOK VALLEY PRELIMINARY PLAT #04-38 A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. The private roadway called Outlot "F" that extends into this plat from the south will need to be given a designation. RECOMMENDATION: Name the roadway and use the roadway type LANE and directional of SW. Note: Outlot `F' is an extension of the stubbed off 7 Avenue SW, a public roadway in Willow Heights Second Subdivision. Outlot `F' connecting to 7 Avenue SW changes the roadway configuration and creates a conflict with the definition for Avenue, thus requiring a different roadway type and a roadway name change to the original plat. An RCA will be necessary and a roadway -renaming fee of $900 will be incurred and will need to be paid by the Developer of this plat. 2. Willow Ridge Drive SW, a public road in the Willowridge Plat, will extend north as a private roadway, into the Spring Brook Valley plat. Therefore if the 30 foot U.E. is to be a private roadway it will need to be designated. RECOMMENDATION: If the 30 foot UTILITY EASEMENT is to be a private roadway it will need to be designated as Willow Ridge Drive SW (PRIVATE). REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1/ ' 12-18-06 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC DARING PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #06-17 to be known as Rochester Towne Club PREPARED BY: Villas, by Platinum Development Group. The plat proposes to Mitzi A. Baker, subdivide approximately 5.61 acres of land along the south side of Senior Planner Eastwood Road SE, west of 40th Ave SE into 24 lots for residential development and one Outlot. December 13, 2006 Staff has reviewed this final plat for compliance with the applicable regulations and recommends approval subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the December 4, 2006 letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing division. 2. Dedication of a right-of-way easement is required by separate document over the entire area shown as Outlot "A". This easement shall be recorded prior to recording the Final Plat documents and shall be identified on the Plat. 3. Dedication of Access Control shall be identified along the entire east line of Lot 24, Block f and the easterly 50 feet of the north line of Lot 24, Block 1. 4. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park identified as Outlot B Rochester Towne Club Village. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of Outlot B. Dedication to occur when the park site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development of the park as outlined in the December 5, 2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. Council Action Needed. if the Council wishes to proceed, it should Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings supporting their decision. Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Applicant: This Rem will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on December 18, 2006, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Marion by Second by. to: • •99� i ---- �` Gtr ; m fir`- ia' .I. oa'[5 t i Zb,Z[.6G1 I t N 'a iF 4I6 c n =Fq N JI EF gi[OI 0 {A 8• F Y4 �`a� asn � i aF O a 4 � �aa51j:jE as it 6�j1E" m�ca�� m ¢a'�-•„�yp' F.t Eld d.E1F i3{t n gY Y 1 a'Y€ Y g7 is as i a�F cq RSI N —1 .mm� � •a Ois ik < c m aasni [1 LO lit M W�s�a uj LU can {=j i % Fef d�•E 3- tiCc t ♦'m 0 9d{3 it i E as ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C O UK TV OF www,olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 13, 2006 .. :> L airo? �nrn� room 06 `.re,AF.. t Rdef iff, down RE: Final Plat #06-17 to be known as Rochester Towne Club Villas, by Platinum Development Group. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 5.61 acres of land along the south side of Eastwood Road SE, west of 40th Ave SE into 24 lots for residential development and one Outlot. Plannina Department Review: ApplicanVOwner: Platinum Development Group PO Box 44424 Minneapolis, MN 55344 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave SE Rochester, MN 55904 Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data. Location of Property: The property includes approximately 5.61 acres of land along the south side of Eastwood Road SE, west of 40"' Ave SE. Zoning: The property included in this Plat is zoned R•1 X (Mixed Single Family Extra). Proposed Development: The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 5.61 acres, into 24 lots for residential development and one Outlot. Wetlands: A Wetland replacement plan has been approved for the Rochester Towne Club project. This plan incorporates the approved Wetland plan. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 • GISIADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 �'1b AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 December 73, 2006 Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. Internal roadways will be private. The Plat proposes to reserve a portion of the right-of-way for a southern extension of 401h Ave SE, south of Eastwood Road. Removal of Trees/Brush: Tree/brush removal was done previously with site grading and preparation. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park identified as Outlot B Rochester Towne Club Village. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of Outlot B. Dedication to occur when the park site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development of the park. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this property was approved in September subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication requirements are outlined in the memorandum from the Park and Recreation Department dated July 17, 2006. 2. Fire hydrants (not shown) are required along this plat. Due to the water main being Installed within the boulevard area to minimize street reconstruction the hydrants wilt need to be placed within the platted lots, just south of the sidewalk. Either utility easement "bump -outs" or a wider front yard easement is required to accommodate the hydrant placements. 3. Right-of-way dedication along the east side of Lot 24 shall be eliminated from this Plat, unless the abutting portion is otherwise platted or dedicated or established by other means. 4. The Plat shall be revised to dedicate access control along the entire east line of Lot 24, Block f, and the easterly 50 feet. 5. The Plat shall be revised to widen the utility easement along the entire south line of Eastwood Road from 10 feet to 15 feet. Planning Staff and Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this final plat for compliance with the applicable regulations and recommends approval subject to the following conditions/modifications: Page 3 J�q December 13, 2006 1. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the December 4, 2006 letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department GIS(Addressing division. 2. Dedication of a right-of-way easement Is required by separate document over the entire area shown as Outlof "A ". This easement shall be recorded prior to recording the Final Plat documents and shall be identified on the Plat. 3. Dedication of Access Control shall be identified along the entire east line of Lot24, Block 1 and the easterly 50 feet of the north line of Lot 24, Block 1. 4. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via: Deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park identified as Outlot B Rochester Towne Club Village. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of Outlot B. Dedication to occur when the park site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development of the park as outlined In the December 5, 2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. S. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall pay the E911 Addressing and GIS Impact fees, as outlined in the June 7, 2006letter from the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department G1S/Addressing division. 6. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met via deferred land dedication, as specified in the June 9, 2006 memorandum from Rochester Park and Recreation. 7. The applicant agrees to dedicate right-of-way for the extension of Forest Knoll Drive SE, adjacent to Block 1 with the plat for adjacent property to the south of said block. ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT DATE: December 5, 2006 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Rochester Towne Club Villas Final Plat #06-17 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 5.61 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. NA Density factor............................................................ .0244 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred dedication with dedication to consist of the neighborhood park identified as Outlot B Rochester Towne Club Village. By prior agreement, parkland dedication for the Rochester Towne Club development to be met via the exchange of current and proposed golf course property and the dedication of Outlot B. Dedication to occur when the park site is accessed via public street or when the City wishes to begin development of the park. O:\Park Dedtcatjon=06ASE 2895\ROCHESTER TOWN CLUB VILLAS.DOC Rochester -Olmsted Planning _apartment GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FINAL PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: December 4, 2006 TO: Jennifer Gamess, Stephanie Foster FROM: Randy Growden GIS/Addressing Staff Rochester -Olmsted County Planning Department CC: Jan Chezick; Ed Kuisle, Peter Oetliker RE: ROCHESTER TOWNE CLUB VILLAS FINAL PLAT # 06-17 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: $1920.00 (24 LOTS/ADDRESSES) GIS IMPACT FEE: $ 775.00 (25 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 ROCHESTER TOWNE CLUB VILLAS the GIS / Addressing staff has found no issues to bring forth at this time. kOCHESTER Mz111L TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker DATE: 1217/06 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #06-17, for the proposed Rochester Towne Club Villas development. The following are Public Works comments on this request: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Property and all development is subject to the terms of the Agreement. 2. Dedication of a right -of --way easement is required by separate document over the entire area shown as Outlot `A'. This easement is to be recorded prior to recording the Final Plat so that it can be shown on the Final Plat document. 3. Dedication of Controlled Access is required on the Final Plat, along the entire east line of proposed Lot 24, Block 1, abutting 400'Ave SE (to be dedicated via separate right-of-way easement) and the easterly 50 ft of the north line of said Lot 24 extending from the 40th Ave SE right-of-way. Development Chargestfees applicable to the development of this property are/will be addressed in the Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract C:1Documents and SettingsNplastost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files10DC1 C\FPD6.17 Rochester Towne Club Villas.doc Dec 14 2006 7:59FM MN/DDT 507-285-7279 P.2 JA3 ,Ws V4-- Minnesota Department of Transportation ]Minnesota Department of Transportation - District 6 2900 48'" Street N.W. Office Tel: 507-280-3188 Rochester, MN 55901-5848 Fax: 507-285-7279 E-mail: chris.moates@dotstatc.mn.us December 13, 2006 Jennifer Garness Rochester Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Final Plat 06-17 to be known as Rochester Towne Club Villas, by Platinum Development Group. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 5.61 acres of land along the south side of Eastwood Road SE, west of 40"' Avenue SE into 24 lots for residential development and one Outlot. US 14 CS 5503 Dew Ms. Gamess: Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 6 staff has reviewed the Final Plat for Rochester Towne Club Villas. Currently, Mn/DOT and the City of Rochester are in the early stages of developing a partnership agreement that will address ongoing and future operational concerns on US 14, including the need for a westbound acceleration lane at 40'h Avenue SE. These concerns are amplified with area developments that funnel traffic towards the 400' Avenue SE intersection with US 14. Otherwise Mn/DOT has no further comment with this particular development. Thank you for providing Mn/DOT the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, you may contact Peter Wasldw, Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist at (507) 281-7777. Sincerely, Chris Moates District 6 Planning Director cc: Richard Freese, Director of Public Works Neh-ae Succio Greg Paulson Michael Schweyen Michael Kempinger Rhonda Prestegard Tom Streiff Peter Waskiw Debbie Persoon-Bement File ooc-Aszsoza MEETING ins REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 12/18/06 GENOA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ly ADKINS T G+� G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). �a) An Ordinance Amending The Floodway And Floodprone District Boundaries Relating To A Portion Of Property Located South Of 4e Street S.W., West Of Highway 63 And East Of I I1h Avenue S.W. An Ordinance Rezoning 4.01 Acres Of Land From The I Zoning District To The M-1 Zoning District, And Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known As The Zoning Ordinance And Land Development Manual of The City Of Rochester, Minnesota. Said property is located between Bear Creek and Marion Road S.E., and north of 2430 Marion Road S.E. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: