HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/1970_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER hh '�11
COUNCIL AGENDA V oI`
1--4eeti n- C.V6 { June 1, 1970 .
.Regular 2:00 P. M.
A, Calf to Order, and Approval of Minutes. ,
B. Hearings .(7:30 P. Mi )
-I.- Iinprov6n.ents, Allendale Part II (continued from 5-4-70)
�2; Sidewalk Improvement, S side of 19th St. N.W. from 19th Ave. to T. H._52 Fr. Rd.,
Liao Sidewalk Improvement, S side of 13th St. S.E. from 6th to 8th Ave. ,
Loa Sidewalk Improv2ment;-W side of N Broadway from 14th to 16th.Street
5o Sidewalk Improvement, E side of 19th.Ave S. W.'from 2nd to 5th Street
p6! Sidewalk Improvement, Nly side of 13th Ave N. W. from 4th_-St. to 16th-Ave.
7. Land Use Plan, Multi -Family in Area Around Pinewood School
= 8o Variance, Rear Yard at 11 6th St. N. W. "(Boysen)
.9. Variance, Front Yard to Permit.. Parking (Mlethodist Hospital)
.10. Variance, to permit 12 Unit Apartment House at 307-3rd Ave. N.W-. (Meyei)
11; Variance, to permit 2 faraily House at 920--- 6th St S. E. (rjos)
12. Final Plat, Northg2te 8th Subdivision (Woolley & Penz)
13. Final Plat, Penningtonf s First Subdivision (Campus Develop)
C. Organizational Business
1. Mayors Submission of Annual Financial. Report
D. Letters and;Petitions
1; Citizens.0o"n ittee on.taxes to be heard
2. Lester Fiegel, Jr. wishes to be heard re storm sewer on 2nd St. S.W.
E. Reports and Recommendations"
1. Attorney - To=,mship Fire Protection
2.' Clerk- .Childreas Parade 4th of July
-3. Engineer - Adv. for bids on 15th Ave. N.E. RR Crossing
4. Engineer - Prop sidewalk -on S side of Zumb.ro- Drive N.W.
5. Engineer Prop sidewalk on Approaches to.Ben Franklin School
6. Engineer - Prop sidewalk on both sides of 15th Ave. N.W. from 30th to 31sr St
7. Engineer - Prop C & G & sidewalk on -both sides -of 12th Ave N.E. from 14th St N.E.
to N line of Duville lst Add
8.' Engineer-- Prop sidewalk on E side l.lth Ave N.W. & S side of Cascade St
9.- Engineer - Maintenance Aa'reeme t MdD. trunk highways for 1970-71
10. Engineer Se-wer & Water Services to Con:aay Property (East Interceptor)
11. Engineer - Proposed 9th St. S.E. Street Improvement
12. Engineer - Mlaintenance Agreement with County for street lighting
13.. Engineer Advertise for bids .or. street sweeper
14. Finance._- Approval of Bills
15. •Finance - Assignment of Securities
16.. Personnel - PAC Recommendations
17. Personnel - Leave'of absence for pregnancy
18. Planning - Purchase of Refuse Containzrs
19'. Planning - Street Right-of-i;ay Northgate 8th Subdivision
20. Planning--. Annex Land S.of 20th St S.E. & E of C;AH 1
21. Ut;lity - Resolutions
22. Clerk - Licenses and Bonds
F. Resolutions and Ordinances
1. Ordinance passenger & commodity Loading Zones - 3rd Reading
20- Ordinance - Annex bands', Conway property - 3rd Reading
3. Ordinance - Establish Truck Routes - 3rd Reading
4. Ordinance - Subdivision Ordinance - 2nd-Reading
5, Ordinance - Zone Change, Lehnertz -. 3rd Reading f
G. Other Business. ,
:,,� M E ET I N G
!" -
y ,,a.) DAT E
6/l/70
AG!- DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DE?T: —
Hearings Engineer
lTEhi: _.iTEM DESDESCRIPTION; JPREPARED BY-
Part II - .Allendale Improvements
N O: B= I C-------'
is is a hearing to consider the making of local improvements`as follows
:�h g g
Part II of Allendale Improvements (6502-70 Part II) pursuant to
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, as amended.
..-On April 6, 197d the Council adopted a resolution receiving the.pre-
.'.A.liminary report, ordering a public hearing and directing preparation
of plans and specifications for Part II Allendale Improvements.
The Engineer's preliminary report estimated the cost of the improvement
,.to be $562,300, and that all costs would be assessed less whatever
.',amounts tha.t may be received from federal grants.
..The City has submitted an application for federal assistance on the -
sewer and water portion of the project. The amount of the application
was .for $97,400. However, as of -.this date the application has not been
acted on and there is no assurance that funds will be forthcoming.
l I
If the -Council decides to proceed with the project a motion to adopt
the resolution ordering the improvement -would be in order.
--Attachments
Feasibility Report
Summary of Estimated Costs.
Budget and Assessment Schedule
This hearing is -.continued from May 4, 1970 and questions on the improve-
ment were -referred to the Public Works. Committee. The Committee met
with the residents from the area.- The residents submitted a petition
requesting that the street improvement part of the project be deleted.
The City Engineer will have a report available at the meeting analyzing
the possible effects of modifying the project.
} _
ws 4` 6 !'.., V�rl M �PNN: Motion by: �- ��� Second by;.� to
�'
1 r►
,Job
tlo.. '6502=-70 Part
II
Rllendale'Subdivision
:':Summary of"
Estimated Costs and Assessments
Item
Construction
'C-lerical ; Legal
Total Costs
Assessable
-Cost
per
Cosas - Pv R.0' W.
. Contingency,
Per item
Frontage
;:foot-
or
Costs.
Capitalized int.,
or Acreage
Acre
Engineering
Costs
Grading ?, Su.rfacing
$88,307:
$22,202
111,009
13,074 Lin.Ft.
'8.90.per.
Sanitary Se,ier
$37,990-
$21,�98.-
$109,988
8,339 Lin..Ft.-.13.19
per.
Storm ;Server
$103,452
$25,36-3
$129,315 :
55.32 Acres -
1`2337.58
pe
.acre
44atermain 1
$713841
$17,950
89,301
3721 Lin.Ft.
$19.39
oer.
Service Connection
$32,400
$31-103
40-1509
8339 Lin.Ft.
$4.86
per
Right- of-viay
572,312
$9,400
$ 31.712
13,274 Lin.Ft.
$5.99
per
TOTALS
:$456,802
$105,523
$562,325
'dote:
1. For Grading 'and Surfacing the entire frontage abutting the street is considered
assessable.
2. For determining the assessable frontage for Sanitary Setiver and ►.datermain a 120 foot
corner lot exemption is annli,ed.
3. The assessable frontage for Service Connecitons is assumed to be the same as that used
for Sanitary Selaer.
4. The assessable frontage for Right-of-way is assumed -to be 6e sane as that used ' for
Grading and Surfacing.
5. The estimated assessment for a typical lot would be 542.24 per front foot plus $2.337.58
per acre for Storm Seaer.
6. The above estimated assessments are computed assuming no Federal (H:U.D.) participation,
If, however, Federal Funds were made available for the project, the above assessments
would be reduced..
/ 1.7 ,,
• j`
- _ - - � FEQ � CGe
M HI I N-G June 1 1?
rAGENDA SECTION; ORIGINATING DEPT:
JA5-921-05-7,
Ilearinys
City. 3'ngineer's
ITEM=
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY -
NO.
Sidewalk on South Side 19th St. N.T,T. (19th Ave. to T.11. 52 1'r) 111d. )I
C.:_: ' Armstrong
This hearing in on the proposed project titled,
"Concrete Zidetaalk on' tie .South Side of
19th Street.N. W. from 19t1i . Ave nue 1T.W.
to -the T-.Tes.t Frontage �'toad_.of: T.-H 52, T.W.
V
to .det mine whether to. proceed with its construction.
The proposed location -of -this -sidewalk in respect `to the cur'o
line and property
line should be discussed and determined at this hearir_g.
This project was_ initiate'd by .the" Public TTorks Coi mittee.
The estimated cost-is'.$5025.09 of ti•71hich $'4396.88 is estimated
to be' assessed
and $628.12 paid for by City Lands. The. estimated assessment per
.front foot is. $4.21.
If the Council decides to proceed =,rrit:i the project, a resolution
approving
the project and authorizing advertiseLn.en.t for bids to be received
on June-15, has
been prepared for adoption.
C0U, '"40"'E1. 7fG Motion by=�_ __ Second by.. to.
W
oo ko o�Ell
�a�-a F r_ tt MEETING Tin— 1 19
-RE Jra i h' 0� C''�"P.Ui'��_su L T" C DATE �
AGENDA. SECTION; ORIGINATING DEP'T:
Job 6256-135-70
Hearings pity Tnoinee.r►s ')pet. "?31^
ITEM-.; ITEM DESCRIPTION. PREPARED BY:
r O?iCret.e S1dL''•?alk on S. ,aide 13t 1 St: S. �',. - (6th to ut'.i Ave. �. %�rrn, L r n
This hearing is on t'_ne proposed Project titled,
"Concrete- Sidewalk on the, south, side of 13th Street
S.'E. from.6th.• Avenue 5.,. to' Sth.Avenue S.E." '
to detmine u1nether to: proceed 'with! its , construction: .
� , _
� This . -project ��J .7as initiated ti?� o
Public Works Co�,un. ittee.
The estimated cost is $2 g62 of ;which $2203.'7.4 is es tinated to . be assessed
and $455.26 paid for by Iit.y Funds.- The esul_mated -assessment pzr front foot
If_ the Cou=_..cil -decides to proceed ;•ri.th the project, a resolution approving
the project and authorizing auvertisment. for bids to. be . rec.ei ved on June 15t i, .
has been preaare'd for adoption. {
s
CC`UF1C,EL ACY E, Motion by: m Second by:
-
-
cr
ck
i
jil
t-{ t
A y e
Apt_
J �
c AvE
I�! I tF�j
I I I I sd
e� IIIIII �: ��'ti"�•i_ _�(.�=�,_.._ , -
--
.�._,FT1I
�..' AYE 1..,., .��—�' ..�� .'.�+ C•--1:_,�+ t�'--�
1 �►"` AVE 5 E. !�
1 � - _. r-.�""--_•"� •,.-� -=::•sue—:�'• U. -
,\ 1 I
MEETING
IEQUE� � 4 ® DATE June 1, 107
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: JA
�31>
Hearings City Engineer's
ITEM:., ITEM DESCRIPTION. PREPARED 6Y:
Sides?a1':c on ?est Sidc ?orth Bro lu'.7y (l�:.t i. to I&th St.) C. �xrrlstrong
This hearing is on the -proposed project. titled,
: "concrete -Siddwal'=:. on tl?e.??est side of
'�Yorth,13-roa3;ray from--.14tli`Stree t Ieortl
to 16th Street 1 o-Ita :
to, det ui ine T,."tether to proceed with its- conotruction.
This: project ?as initiated,y _tile Pubhc T.Tor?cs. Committee.
The- estimated cost is 52178.00 o.f ;:Thic'z $I�OC:00 is nsti-mat.-cd to be assessed,
..and $270.1110 paid for --by City.Funds . Tn.e estimated assessor nt -per fron foot is $4.77..
If the Council deci 1:ea to..nroceea ;itn tie project, a resoliitioz� approving the
project and aut'?orizing adverti•serient fo-r bids to be receiv..a 1 on June' l5, has
-been p�re.pared- for adoption:..
CGU, Evk, L9 AC Y iC" 141 Motion by: Second b
RL, '
S�LvER
�..�r.J� :a �.���i��-�!
MEETING
DATE: Juan 1, 1971
AGEN.L�A.SECTI.ON;.
ORIGINATING OEPT:
Job 5492-19.E-70
City ngi-aear's
dent.
ITEM:"..
ITEM .DESCR'IPTI0N:
PREPARED BY:��
NO.
c dez' alk_ on the _.ast Siclp19th Avenue- S.T'. {2nd1 to- 5t1.z St".) -
CA. r r tstron
Tili S. arin i, .on 'the proposed. project titled,
.. oncrete Sidewalk -on tile* East Side
:of = �.9tL�. ven�Ue S. t;'. from 2nd Strut
T. to sidewalk •rnplace at 5th' Street
-
to detrlilir_ '711etler to Procn_ed wl.t'_i its, construction.
This Project 7as initiated. -by -tile` Public Works Committee.
_
-The estimated cost is 552��2.00 of which" 54525.1'4 is estimated
to be assessed, and
: $715. 86 pa, i 1 for ':f Oi.ty Funds. The esttiassessment per
froiit 'foot -is S4. ].S.
-If- the Council decides to proceed ziitn-tue project, a -resolution
approving, the
project. an-d autziorizir_r advertiszznet feir_ 'olds to ;e received
on June 15;.has
been•prepared for adoption.
OE'J4 n _d J,1,7rti�: hloTion by; Second b,
a
AVE
MEETIN
F �. . E S �' ? ` "� ^ o.`t p i ! 4,
5 ' r DA1 E G Jane 1,
:�
-AGEND_A-%SECT{ON, - ORIGINATING DEPI:
6-313- 4-70
'�arin gs, City Engineer Dept. A2315
ITEM: ,...`:. T.E. DESC-RIPt1O.N:.
_ - PREPARED 6Y:
Nv 0. S C �.
i.d',•;al,: on- ''?l�. amide 13ti _venue ' r ^ : t R
- �lrra� ron.
_. 1 ....
.This.: i`iearing_-,is on proposed project titled,
--".Sidetialk. on-�iort'aerly Side of .13t1i
nue I-1.??:- frOr14th �itr�et V.?'J. t0
to rrtine wheE�ier to pr- oceed wit,its- construcEio .
-This project. was initiated 'by' Petition of property owners signed by 13-
' f. the 29 o:•iners 'of record,; and representing;- 44. 2°; of the o 7nership frontage.
The:.esti-ated cost is .$6435.00 of :-ihich $5599.918 is estimated to be assessed
- and $8:35.02 paid for by City Funds. . The' -estimated assassr-_e-lit 'per front foot is
::$3. 84.
If:.the Council deci des to proceed -w-ith t'. e project a resolu.tion approving
the project 'and authorizing for 'rids to be received_ on June 15
has been prepared for adoption.
C 0 i'v .-r s Aa b Motion by:�� Second. by;_ ram_ to .. _. .
JU
12- w 12
13..
Y �1 1'3 -
I III 1 i'44 " .•�." -
I _ 16*
H 17
LLJ
19
z
w Co
I.I' ca
co
LL r` _ - ;• 6
/ 7
0 9." 2 4.
p' _ Z 2— 1`g
w e 10. �'-� 3 3 g
,.• ' � i. ' 4
66RE SUB U'TLCTT2 �
SL 9_..
16 .. STREET N. W . IDF� 3
YG
66 14 13 es' 14 m 13 ss' 1--7 2`
I5�I2 12
I5 I
3 66'
> IE II 16 I I 1I �� 7
ff ,.
17 L110 �I 17L 10 ICI. J
18 . 9, r 1 8 9 U.I.7_ 2 I0 /
I _ 9 W c�
Lli
. 19 .x 8 — 19 a. D
W a 7 3 9 / 13 `
20 7 W 4 cQ 8
z - i 2
20 7 78 LLI j I—�66'
W 21 6 21 6 i 5 0�--'�—� ' i 12 /' 0
Q 5 22. 1 5 �. 5, 9 W 6 m!6 -,z I ����
- - 2 2 (}- LD 10 I 1 10
23 4 N L� I
1 4L.I II,Z�Q`� 7 4� 1W� 8 --
24;E' 3 242: 3 to 3212� a8 3` G' —7 7
5
I I I I I I 2'Pr
L- 2156 2_ — 3 L u 5. o\
66 26 1 66' 26 Qjl I 66' 1 M 14 10 i I oG 2 I 66° 4 _L= 21 '
to 14 ---- ST. N. w — to 14 S-T-- N.W. ` r
--.
� 06' :
LLJ L
2 I Z 15 2 I 15 2
3 I� i14_ r `3� 14
;3 4 CO 13Lij
9
5 12 5 ; 12
1/0H111 6 II 6 H II _ E
LU
! w CL
c� :66'r
r'?SHAL_L —
4 e 2 S 7" r". c E E T' . "Do N. " VZ
r
4 13 a > 1-3 I i
47
o
ScHo0L 6 � < r2 S
1
P. I ` -t• 1,Nv June i 1970
10 ': .- tl 0 C ` .�, �•., . s �y .� D AT E
4
AGEINDA: SECTION: ORIGINATING DEP"T:
HEARINGS - CITY PLtU'dNINC _
ITEM_ .:-, ITEM, DESCRIPTION.: .Application To Amend The City's Land Use Plan PREPARED BY:
,� To Designate An Area Around .the Pinewood School As Being Suited z
N O• g,-� . For Multi-Famil . Use. - ,/a e�1
'-//
City Planning Department:
The City Planning -Department recommended that this change be approved with the
., modification that .tWand along Willow Creek be designated as best suited for
park flood plain or conservation uses. .(See attached Planning Department Report.)
City Planning and Zoning Commission: -:
1
On Ma'y,12, 1970 the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered.this application.
1.7c find that part of this area is used as the Willow Creek channel and flood plain
-and as such should generally'be reserved for park or flood plain uses. The remainder
of the area is adjacent to a school and would have good access to parks and other
open areas. It will be sometime before the city can serve this area with sanitary
sewer but this Land Use Plan Amendment will serve as a basis to assign, population
levels to,. -this area to aid in the proper sizing of the sewer for future use. --
Based on these findings we recommend that the Land Use be -amended to show the land
along Willow Creek as being suited for park, flood plain or conservation uses and
the remaining land in this application be designated as being suited for multi -family
use,
Attached:
Planning Department Report
-Dist.! (1) City Clerk -
(2) Planning Department File
L 4 '111 Moiion by: _ Second by:�. �_ �� =a__: _� tO
v ACI
rw-
-----------
OR 31 0.1970
CITY PLANNING DEPT.
ROCHESTER,. M1,NNESOTA r, � J-.�.C.,.' �.,.�� -,. %� ,r.., j :.1.� .: _ �-% �,i ,::
y DZIECTO:j!
Xr�-.
t
The reviou.s document is ima ed_.to the
p g
best qua[itypossib le.
The original document is of -very poor-
qualit'Y.
Scanned, by Olmsted County
Imaging Department-.
a
LAND'USE. PLAN REVISIO`iS FOR PINEWOOD SCHOOL
--and
APPLICATION TO AYNEX THE AREA SOUTH OF 20TH STREET.-S.E. & EAST OF C . S_A. H. #1
We. 'nave -reviewed the .above petition and find the following:
"l. Name-. of Petitioners: J, J. Weichselbaum of 1412 4th Street S.E.; David
r -V- Hunt of 806 Northern Heights Drive; -Dayton Davies
of 533 East Center; R,.E. Toddie of 1431-1st Street
N.W.; Robert J. Dashow of. 1307 14th Street N.W.;
Thomas C. Dashow of 1307 14th Street N,W,
2.. Reason."for-Petition: Extension_ of City utilities and services to the area
-- to be annexed.
3. .`Departmental Review:
City Engineer
Sanitary sewer extensions is the problem with this tract. The upper end
of -the- existing .sanitary sewer is in llth Avenue S.E, 'at 163z Street,. Its
grade is 1002,5. When extended south to 20th Street its grade elevation
will be 1007.6. The ground elevation of the proposed annexation land just
eas t.of this corner ranges from 1008 to 1012,
If the sewer were extended to 22 St. it.grade would be 1011.3. The ground
elevation of the proposed annexation land east of llth Avenue between-20th
and 22nd St. ranges from 1008 to 1013,
If the sewer were extended to the south line of the proposed annexation its
grade would be 1016.6. The ground elevation of the proposed annexation land
between 22nd St. and the south boundary ranges from 1015 to 1022.
.,It would not be possible to cross Willow Creek with the sanitary sewer with-
out constructing a sinhon or a force main with.a lift station, and even then
it would be necessary to fill the proposed annexation land about 4 to 8 in
depth between 20th and 22nd St, and about 1 to 3 feet in depth south of 22nd
St, in order to provide cover for the sewer and give it sufficient depth
to serve buildings.
I do not consider it feasible to serve this tract with extension of the
existing sanitary sewer main in llth Avenue at 162 Street,
It can be served adequately only when the proposed SE Inteceptor Trunk
Line has been constructed to this vicinity.
4. City Planning Department Review:
Land Use Plan Revisions:
Existing Character of Area:
The land is vacant and has Willow Creek running through it, There
is a house on the north edge, a school and some homes on the east
and a suburban subdivision (Southport) on the south. It is located
at the -intersection of a main County State.Aid Highway and a major
township read. The land along 6?illm,7 Creek is subject to periodic
:floodinc. and this fact should be taken into account in any revisions
•considered in this area,
Proposed Land Use:
Multi 'Yamily.Development:
This area.has good access to a major street pattern, It also has
a-s6hool nearby and potentially plenty of park land -or recreation
'land along Willow Creek, The land immediately to'the north along
the east side of C.S.A.H. No. 1 has been designated as being suited
_ ..for multi -family residential use on the ?Z.O,T.P.S. Plan. The area
would be close to other single family residential areas but it
- should riot -prove to be detrimental.
Flood Plain:-
An extensive area of ,land along Willow Creek should be designated as
best suited for flood plain, park or other open land uses. (The
owners application does not make provision for this condition.)
Recommendation:
This department feels that this area would lend itself well to some
type of planned multi -family use. The proximity to the school,
potential parks.or open space and major streets make it desirable.
The only serious problem of immediate concern is the inability of the
City to service the area with sanitary sewer. This service would.
be contingent upon the construction of the east side interceptor
sewer. No construction schedule has been worked out for that as.yet.
With that main condition in mind, which undoubtedly will be resolved
in the future we recommend that the Land Use Plan be amended that
tb designate this area as being suited.for multi-fam,_1y residential
use and a sizeable area be designated for flood plain or park or
conservation area along Willow Creek. -
Annexation: '
General:.
The land is contiguous to the City limits and could. theref are be
annexed. The major p3-oblem is the city's inability to provide immediate
or reasonably soon sanitary sewer service for this area as'was discuss-
ed earlier. There is always a question on whether annexation should
be so completely contingent on the city's ability to -serve undeveloped
land immediately or whether annexation could take place and then a long
range construction plan worked out to get the services to the area. -At
least the city would be able to develop a meaningfui'timetable without
the uncertainty of when annexation would occur.
a
:Rocheste.r Toi'.mship Mould loose a total of 822.59 taxes from this
Property. according to the County Assessor.'s Office. There _.also
would be.a substantial increase made in the assessed value of -the
laird. These matters should be -checked out by.the owners with the
:county Assessor. -
The. land 'could. be designated as a Rural Service District in the city
which -would help. the owners tax picture somewhat.
Comments:
-Since- the Pinewood School is now a part of Independent School
District 535, it would seem reasonable to have it included in the
annexation, this would eliminate much confusion in the annexation
description..and the school would be provided with city police and
fire protection right away.
Conclusion:.
Over the years. a.considerable.amount of.scattered free standing subdivisions
-have been.developed-in this general area. It is reasonable to assume that
with cotitinued growth, as.is projected, that this area. will experience increased
development 1iressure: The main obstacle at this time is the construction of the
east side interceptor sanitary sewer that is needed to open this area for.
.development. As we pointed out we'feel this is simply a matter- of time.
Based on the above findings we feel that this area should be annexed to the -
city.including the Pinewood School property. -
We further recommend that this area be -placed in the rural service district.
June 1, 1970
1101,
AG."NDA.SEC'TION.:.
ORIGINATING DEP•T:
HEARINGS
CITY PLANNING
_
ITEM: _
.ITEM -DESCRIPT-ION. Application For A Variance To Vary The Required
PREPARED BY:
Rear Yard.Iri_The B-lb District As It A lies To The Pro
PP Property Locate
P y
N O'
-At.1-1= 6th Street• N.W.
L-
:City Planning�Department.:
'-The City -Planning Department recommended that this application be denied. (See
`;:'attached Planning.'Department Report.)
��-City '.Plannin:g'"and Zoning Commission:
'On.May 12, 1970 the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application.
..We.find:that due to the unusual shallowness of this lot the owner is deprived of •
the reasonable use of this property. We also find that the adjoining buildings to
:the east are built up to the east property line of this property•and the required*
10'"of rear yard would serve no useful purpose to this owner, in.fact it would
-be"land locked..
Based on -these findings we recommend that a variance be granted to waive -completely
.the required 10 Ft, rear yard,
This will also -allow the owner to provide offstreet parking spaces for two vehicles
that could not otherwise be accomodated,
-Attached:
Planning Department Report
List of Property Owners
Dist.; (1) City Clerk
(2) Planning Department File
u. 6—�CC, 7 E c;,;) ; a M o t i o n .6 y:i,.�..�,�.�,,.,�-�-.._� S e c o n d b y:-•- - t o ..->.,�.�s�.z•.a.�.,�.,,v. _.
v R
J
,
�''•,
-
• �...
Ey 1
1
-
avS�
°
\13
4v�
„�
G��' is
s-ro.P � SLo F'
Ij
lz
ac4t�'
!�t?Y ;M>
UU;,,
APPLICATION FOR- A _VARIANCE TO VA THE REAR YARD REOUIRENT NT IN A B-lb
DISTRICT: .(ASTTHEY'APPLY TO PROPERTY AT 11 SIXTH STREET N.W.)
J.
rWe:have reviewed the above petition and find the following-
1; -Name of Petitioners: Earl Boysen, Harold Boysen, and Rudy Boysen.
2. Reasori.for!Petition: An unusally small lot. Owner cannot construct usable
building and still have adequate parking space unless variance is granted.
A 10-ft. setback in the rear as required by ordinance is landlocked with
_ no access. If. 6 ft, of this locked land were released from the 10 ft.
setback'.a-usuable building could -be constructed.
3...Departmental Review: No objections,
City 1planning Department:
Existing Conditions:
Existing Use:
This property is currently being used as a single family residence.
Existing Lot Size:
-The existing lot is 52,0 ft. wide with frontage on 6th Street N.W..
and it is 44.0 ft, deep. The lot area is 2288 square ft, ;An alley
adjoins the lot on the west.
--Existinc, Zoning:
The lot for which the variance is.requested is situated in the B-lb
District, There are commercial uses to the east and north of it,
Application of 7.onino,1)rdinance Requirements:
Proposed Use:
The applicant proposes to make an -addition onto the east side of the
existing residence, This addition will be a commercial use and
subject to the provisions of the B-lb District,
Setback Requirements:
Front Yard:
Since this lot adjoins an R-2 District to the west the provisions
of Paragraph 30.06 of Ordinance No. 1296 apply. This means that
the front yard setback of the adjoining R-District is applied to
this lot and results in a 14 ft. front yard since Para raph'52.00
allows for modification of the normal required front yard of
. 25 ft,
MA
Side 'Yards :
When in a B-lb District no side yards are.required'so the
proposed addition can extend all the way to the east lot
line. Aside yard would be required along the alley line
..equal to about ft., since the B=1b District adjoins an
R-2 District.
Rear Yard:
Paragraph 30,06 of. Ordinance N 1296 requires that a minimum
rear yard of 10-ft, be established on all lots in the B-lb
District, (This is the yard that the applicant wishes to have
varied and reduced. to 4.0 ft. which.is equal to the rear yard
of. the existing residence building,) An accessory use build-
ing such as a garage can be constructed in the required rear
yard, This was suggested to the applicant but he rejected
the idea and wanted to pursue the variance request.
Buildable Area:
After the yard spaces for commercial use have been applied to
this lot there remains a builable area to the east of the
existing residence of 24.0 ft, in width and 20.0 ft. in depth,
This provides for 480-square ft, of ground floor area on the
remaining portion of this lot. The open area of this .lot is
24.0 ft. by 44.0 ft. or 1056 square ft. The buildable"area
would therefore be 45,5% of the existing vacant Iot'area,
Offstreet Parking:
Paragraph 41.08 of Ordinance No, 1296 provides that one offstreet
parking space be provided for each 150 square ft, of retail floor
space for uses having 2,000 square ft. of floor space or more.
Since this.proposed use has only 2.64 square ft. of retail or
shop space, no offstreet parking'spaces are required,
The applicant wants to construct a garage to the east of the
commercial use which he can do, and in order to be able to
parka car off the street in the driveway area and not have
the car overhang the sidewalk (the minimum required front yard
being 14 ft. and the average length of a 'car being 18 to 20 ft.)
he would like to move the building back 6 ft., which.then encroach-
es into the required rear yard area.and reduces it to 4.0 ft.
This desire creates the request for a variance.
General:
In order to be able to grant a variance it is necessary for the applicant
to satisfy four criteria as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, These
,criteria and a discussion of the circumstances pertaining to this application
are as follows
I
.61.051 - Variance - Findings of .the Board: No such variance of the
provisions or requirements of this ordinance.shall be authorized by
the Board unless the Board finds that all of the following facts and
conditions exist:
"
61.0510 - Exceptional Circumstances: That there are exceptional or
extraordinary cirumstances or conditions applying to the property
in question or to the intended use of the property, that do not
apply generally to other properties or classes of uses in the same
zoning district,
As explained previously the applicant has a buildable depth
on this lot of 20.0 ft. He proposes to construct a building
that is 22.0 ft. in depth. Although there is a difference of
:2.0 ft, involved, we feel there,is ample buildable depth and
area to construct a reasonable building, He can also construct
a garage in the required rear yard area now without need of a
variance,
The applicant also claims that the rear yard is land locked
and therefore unusable. If this building were constructed as
proposed it would be landlocked but then so is the rear yard
'.
in most other situations unless the owner makes provision for
access to the rear yard,area.himself.
We will agree that this lot is small and as such has a limited
development potential but the applicant can build a legal
structure very close to the size he desires on this lot within
the established yard spaces without any variance.
61,0511 7_ Preservation of. Property Rights: That such variance is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in
the same vicinity.
As discussed previously, the owner can construct a substantial
building on this_property without loss of property rights.
61,0512_= Absence_ of Detriment: That the authorizing of such
variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property
and will not materially impair the purposes of this Ordinance or
the public interest.
Since the property is located in a commercial district there
probably would not be any detrimental effects to adjoining
properties from this proposed variance. However, a main
problem might be the tendency to undermine the -effectiveness
of the Zoning Ordinance in general,
61.0513 Not of General Nature: No grant of a variance shall be
author.iaed unless the Board specifically finds that the condition
or.sitiiation of`the snecific piece of property, or the intended use
of said property, for which a variance is sought'is not of so"general
M...of:"recurrent a nature as to.make reasonably practicable the formu-
1ation:of a general regulation for such conditions or situation.
Requests.to encroach into the required rear yard area'are quite
common... The thing that needs to be decided in this case is
whether there is ample buildable area on this lot for a reason-
able.commercial use. It is our opinion that this kind of
.request is of a fairly general nature and therefore it is
not.unique.
- > 'Conclusion: _
The -owner of ..this "property is able to make reasonable use of this property
witiiin:the.lmitations of the Zoning Ordinance. As such we are unable to
find -sufficient -evidence to warrant granting a variance.
-We therefore recommend that it be.denied.
"'�� j l
,a . b�;�'�
t:�'� ✓• 1
ery
MEETING June 1,
DATE
1970f"'"j9
_ a?�l,e
AGENDA -SECTION:-.
ORIGINATING DEFT:
HEARhNG:S.
CITY PLANNING
ITEM, 'ITEM. DESCRIPTION;- Application For A Variance To Allow The 25 Ft. PREPARED BY:
Front'Yard.'Requirement-To Be Waived To Permit Parking Of Cars With j
NO'6.-` in 5_ Ft. The Sidewalk_ Located
-Of On Methodist Hospital Property At
20212212,• And 216 J3rd Avenue-N.W.
City- Planning -Department:
:-'.The City Planning•Departme'nt recommended to deny this application. (See attached
= Planning -.Department -Report.)
Cit .- Plannin ,.. and .Zoning Commission:
y. .. g -
.. --
-' On:May-.-1.2, 1-970. the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application,
-A4e.f.ind-that'the-Methodist Hospital owns this property and the property is located
--in'an R-4 District: -.The Methodist Hospital is attempting'to provide adequate offstreet
...parking for its staff and visitors. Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
• :there is no.way'that the Hospital could provide -for accessory offstreet parking on any
other property.'except the block on which the Hospital is.situated. This is because
.the'Hospital-is situated in a B-2 District and any accessory offstreet parking would
have to be adjoining or across an alley and located in an 1.1-2, R-3 or R-4 District.
None of these conditions can be met other than changing the zoning districting of the
Hospital to an.R-3 District and then offstreet parking could be on other lots within
300 Ft, of the Hospital.
Based on these findings we recommend that the provisions of,Paragraphs 41.12.and 41.032
of the Zoning Ordinance be varied to permit the use of these lots for a parking lot.
We further recommend that the required minimum front yard setback 23 Ft. be observed
along 3rd Avenue N,W, and that no parking stalls be established in this area.
Attached:
Planning Department Report. {
List of Property Owners.
Dist.: (1) City Clerk
(2) Planning Department File
CGQJ `]C, EL aWC Motion oy: Second by.. >_a� to
3�
z
LL
5 th ST. NW
Mif- T1,PD1,
�W
W
1
_APPLICATIONFOR A VAR iANGE TO ALLOW THE 25'. FRONT YARD REQUIRE- tCNT TO 'BE WAIVED
TO PERMIT PARK CING OF CARS WITHIN -5' OF THE SIDEWALK, LOCATED ON THE 19STHODIST
HOSPITAL PROPERTY AT 208, 212, AND 216 THIRD AVENUE NORTHWEST.
We.'have reviewed -the above application and -have found the following:
I.:' 'Name of Petitioner: Rochester Methodist Hospital
2. Reason for Variance: The Petitioner requests that the 25' front yard require -
went be waived to permit.parlcing of cars within 5' of the sidewalk. This
property was purchased to provide more off-street parking for people working
at the Methodist Hospital and the 25' front yard requirement reduces the
capacity by about 20%. This variance will enable the Hospital to help solve
.,the critical need for more off -'street parking.
3. City Department Re op rts:
1
City Planning Department:
The ApRlication: In reviewing the application as filed we find that the addresses
given are for the 300 block on Third. Avenue N. W. when they actually should be
for the.200 block. The application requests,a variance from the zoning ordinance
_(Paragraph 41.093) to permit offstreet parking in the required front yard
(Paragraph 23.04 which should.be 24.04) and it should also have requested a
variance in the distance requirement for accessory offstreet parking from the
use it is to serve.
The proposed-offstreet parking lot is located in an R-4 District and will be
accessory to the Methodist Hospital, The hospital is approximately 730 -feet
away from the parking lot.
Findings: A review of this site in the field indicates that the property is
already being used for an offstreet` parking lot without a permit. The area is
covered with crushed rock which does not provide_ for a dust free surface unless
given other treatment. It should also be noted that the application states
there would be a 20% loss of offstreet parking spaces. Our calculations indicate
a los's of eight spaces from 64 to 56 or 12.5%. Looking at it another way the
applicant is proposing eight more spaces.than are permitted or a 14.3% increase
in the amount of parking. There are no barriers or bumpers along the west property
line and'as a consequence cars are parking on the sidewalk to some degree.
General: In order to be
applicant to satisfy four
criteria and a discussion
are as follows:.
able to grant a variance it is necessary for'the
criteria as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. These
of .the circumstances pertaining to this application
61.051 Varianc_e.- Findings of the Board: No such variance of the provisions or
requirements of this Ordinance shall be authorized by the Board unless the Board
finds that all of the following facts and -conditions exist;.
61.0510 Exceptional Circumstances:. That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the
intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to other properties
or classes of uses in the same zoning district.
OF
-2-.
Using property for -an offstreet parking lot is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance
subject to.the limitation that no parking is permitted in the required front
.=yard (Paragraph 41:093) and. it must be no -further away from the use to which
it is accessory.than 300 feet. In this particular case these standards would
'provide- space on this lot for four rows of cars with fourteen cars to the
_.row -for a total of 56 cars. The applicants plan has space for 64 cars.or
-eight more-than.is' allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The distance that this
::proposed paring lot is.away from the hospital is approximately 730 feet when
should -be no -further than 300 feet. There is a greater distance of 430
"-feet-. than what is permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. It must be pointed
..out that these standards have been in existence for five.years and the hospital
....certai'nly must have been aware af.them at the time this land was acquired for
.this .purpose.
:This department is unable to find sufficient evidence that exceptional circumstances
exist in this.case.
61.05I1 Preservation of Property Rights: That such variance is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by
other propertiesA n the same zoning district and in the same vicinity.
Since this property can now'be used for an accessory offstreet parking lot,
subject of"course.to certain limitations that also apply to' all of the other
properties in this same area the granting of this variance would have the
effect of giving this property owner the right,to do something that no other
property owner could do in this district. This'would'amount to preferential
treatment in this -case..!
61.0512 Absence of Detriment: That the authorizing of such variance will not
be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair
the purposes of this Ordinance or the publi.c.interest.
It appears to this department that the matter under consideration. could be of
a wide -spread general nature. Accessory offstreet parking lots are permitted
as a conditional use in Paragraph 41.12 if the parking lot i.s adjacent to or
across an alley from the B or i1I District. This proposal does not meet the
standards for authorizing a conditional. use for offstreet parking since the
property is not adjacent to the B-District use it is intended to serve and
furthermore no application has been made for such a conditional use.
4. Conclusion:
Based on the analysis we have made in conformance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, we are unable- to find a basis to recommend ;;ranting -the requested
variances in this case. If it is felt that in general -this type of use should
be permitted, then possible consideration should be given to amending the Zoning
Ordinance to do the following;
1. Allow offstreet parking in the required front yard in all districts.
2. Extend the maximum walking distance required for accessory offstreet
-parking area.
3. Allow conditional uses for offstreet parking to be anywhere in an R-2,
R-3, or R--4 Dis'trict just so long as it is within the minimum walking
alstance.
'i.. 20
'AVn, C"� a7/tir:l'a'^L ii`� Julie, 1, 1J/U
a j
AG'ENDA�SECTI.ON:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
HEARI?�G S
CITY PLANNING
ITEM-*
.ITE M�D ESCRIPT IONW A lication To Vary Tre Provisions Oi Paragra T
pp y P
23.04 &-2.3'.0.41" Of Zoning Ordinance,To Permit A. Twelve (12) Unit
PREPARED BY:
_
Apartment House .At 307 3rd Avenue
�N.W.
.:.City -Planning-Department:
The City Planning Department has recommended that this variance be denied,
;...(See attached Planning Department Report.)
-:-City. Planning- and -Zoning Commission.-.
On l`4ay:1Z, 1970 the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application.
We find.that the -.existing structure was built for nine (9) apartment units and
three-(3) sle.eping.rooms and as such complies with the provisions of the Zoning.,
Ordinance, except.for some off.street parking spaces that are situated in the
..'required front -yard area. The lot is of such a size that the owner already has
,developed.it to its fullest use as an apartment building.
We find -that this application does not satisfy the basic criteria for granting a
.variance -as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance,and we .therefore recommend that this
-application'be denied.
Attached:
Planning Department Report.
',List of Property Owners.
Dist.: (1) City Clerk
'(2) Planning Department.File
r�; �jlL AV 10 Motion 6y:�E Second by:. rO _ - - -
3 _
ed
co
Tll
IJCa
14
• ' - .. G� �.. �8--"�•,q..`. A'�T 1 �-i Pr� fit? t•a .� ( v
NJ
� - .. C •—�=�'i rt'c:'cc'T /�i`i�c�>�iJ_ C� / J �� / /jam'.
J- --'Ill 41—
sod •% + \ R� ^,3 - .,Qn
/-
92
AN
:. �.
� VIN
_ Cp
5/1
CN
ICb
PC
• � der ;�/i�.'fL �1 f- �c �;J �� P �ZC'� � /
l t `
i
44
A '
^ The reviou.s document is imaged-.to the
p- _
best quality possi ble.
The original document is of -very poor -
quality.,
Scanned by Olmsted County
Imaging Department'
.APPLICATIOi•1 FOP, A VARIANCE TO VARY THE PROa'ISIONS OF PARAGIUKI 23.04 & 23.041
N1ZIBE2: OF- -D_H_PLLING: UNITS .P.EP24ITTED) OF ORDI LANCE. NO. 1296 LOCATED AT .307
TI•tIRD'AVE i,IJE-N.. V..
-'We Have -rev ewed the: above application to vary.the provisions of Paragraph.23.04
amid 23..041. to`: -permit a 12, unit apartment : house -at 307 Third Avenue N. W., and
-find- the ' f-ollowinoc =
`1.' Name, of ..Pe-titione rs: Chester Meyer, Mabel Meyer, and Robert- C. Neil
2. Reason: for Petition; This location contains'12 rental units. Nine of such
-units have'_kitchens and three are without kitchens and land owner is unable
to -rent- rooms to.suitable tenants unless they have kitchens. If units cannot
:have'kit:ch&ns; they are availab e for rental only to young sin le people.
`. =who:.have.:_,a,"tenancy to cause more disturbances by noise and otherwise than _
would ::a harried- couple or family unit . -
Ci ty:Department- Reports: _
a. :City Plannin¢ Department:
The eonments of the Building Inspector: from our staff report of April 19,' 1967,
on this'same:'matter sums up the existing conditions very gall, -(see copy attached),
It should also be.pointed out that there are five offstreet parking spaces'
shown on the'plot-plan that are located illegally according to the provisions
of Paragraph 41.093 of Ordinance No._1296. Additional spaces should be provided
and the existing illegal spaces -abandoned immediately.' It would help if the
legal spaces were Jesigywated and marked so that illegal parking would- not take
place.-
This'building was constructed under 'the provisions of Ordinance No. 1296 and
the builder, who also is one of the applicants, was fully aware of the limita-
tions of the Zoning Ordinance.
A similar application for a variance was filed -by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Neil on
April 14, 1967. This was considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission
and 'rec.om_mended to be denied.. (Attached copy of the City Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation.) The Common Council accepted the C.P. &.Z.C,
recommendation and the variance was denied on May 1, 1967
4'. Recommendation:
There is no basis for granting se variance•under the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, and, therefore, this department recommends that this variance
be denied.-
_June 1. 19/U
ZR'NDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEP•T:
HEARINGS:_.'..' ,.:,': CITY PLANNING
ITEM* I-T E-M D E-S-C R-I P T-ION:- Application For A Variance To Allow A Two Family P R EPA RED B•Y:
Dwelling In The',R-1. Distr ct.At 920 6th- Street' S.E.NO
I �'
City Planning Department: •'
,The City Planning Department.recommended that this application be denied. (See
attached -City` Planning Department Report.)
.-`-.City. Planning' and Zoning Commission:
-May'12,7, 1970 the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application.
We find. -that the space f�s� an apartment exists in this house .and it has been.
- rented
as an -apartment in. -the last few years. The owner.is in -need of the extra income
arid- none. ,of the. adjoining property Miners objected.
.:Based.on these -findings. -we recommend that this application be granted approval..
Attached•,. ,
Planning�Department Report
List of Property Owners
Dist.(l)- City..Clerk
�(2) Planning Department File
�i`
aF �•i t! �� o Motion by: Second b to
Al
Ke-
A
<s
APPLIE CAT10.1 FOR A VARIAYCE TO ALLOW A KULTI-PAr•_ILY D,dELLINL G Iv Aid-R-1 D I STR ACT.
--We.have reviewed the above petition and find the -following:
.1.`.Name. of Petitioner:' Bertha Kjos,
2. Reason for Petition: Needs .income ,
3: Department Review: No objection received.
�......—..._..,—. .
4. City�Plannnn- Department 'Review:
B-ackground; :
This property is situated in in R-1 District. It has dimensions of 50 feet
by 90 feet and 4500 square feet of area. There is a nice two story home
located on this lot. The applicant.has been renting out. an spart,ment for
.aboutlthe last four (4) years and this situation came to light now because
a housing registration is needed. Since the property is in an R-1 District
and has a -•lot area of only 4,500 square feet we could not authorize the
use of this property even though it has been used as a two family d-welling
for the past four (4) years. Under the Zoning Ordinance the present use 'of -
the property is illegal.
Even under the old zoning ordinance where two family dwellings were permitted
in the Residential District the lot.area had to be 60 feet of frontage and
7000 square feet of area if platted after 1940 and 44 feet of frontage and
6.000 square feet of area if platted before 1940. This property woul6 not
have qualified for two family use even under the old ordinance.
General: In order to.be able to grant a variance it is necessary for the
applicant to satisfy four criteria as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. These
criteria and a discussion of the circumstances perta nir-_g to this a pli:,,tioa
are as follows:
61.051. Variance - Findiras of the Board: No such vari.arice of the provisions
or.requirements of.this Ordinance shall be authorized by the Board unless the
Board finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist:
61.0510 Exceptional Circumstances: That there are exceptioual or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions pp alying to the prop-rty in question or to the.
intended use of the property., tha;-- do not apply generally to other properties
or classes. of uses in the sale zoning district.
The use of this property is limited to a single family dwelling by virtue of
it being located in the R•-1 District. Other properties in this same area are
limited to single family use.
The mere fact that the goner wishcs to have an aparELmicnt to rent can hardly
be considered an e centiohal ci.rcumstaice, even. though we may be inclined to
be sympathetic to c.-;ncr's stated need for income.
61.6511 - I'reservatio.1 of Proper._ Rights: That- shod variance i5 necessary for
the pre s^rJati.onvarid enjoyi-acent of uklstant=_a'l property ri-iits Uoss,2sst d by otl:ter
properties in the same zoning disLriCt. and in the sam-e vicinity.
This pr""opexty. can. be. used -for a single 'fami.ly dwelling, and as su I the property
rights`ar"e preserved..
61.0512 Absence of Detriment: That the; authorizing of such variance will
:.not. be'" of substantial 'detriment, to adjacent property, and will no.t materially.
irtpa_ir -t:he purposes "of thi.-s Ordinance or the,public interest.
It: would__'piobably be "dif:fIcult to establish that the addition of one more
dwelling unit -in this single family'residence "would be detrimental to the
area:. There -would be some increase in activity in the -area and probably
-the :Zack"of-offstreet parking space would be the biggest single problem.
,The ftiat"t.er - of, detrir:en't could certainly be argued, but we feel that it would
='not be', substaritial in this one instance.
61.05.13: Tot- of - a Gerie-ral Nature: No gran__t of a variance shall be -authorized
unless the-Board.'specifically finds -that the condition or situation.of the specific
piece 'of"property, or the intended use of said property, for which variance is.
:.sought' is' not:-of_.so general. or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable
:.'the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situation.
Undoubtfcdly, there are many ow ers of single-family residences that are located
in R--l; Districts who would like to add dwelling units to their buildings for
incone�"reasons. :The zoning ordinance limits these ;ues. This request is of"
a"recurring and general nature and it is already regulated by specific scandals
in. the".Zoning Ordinance.
Conclusion: Based as the -above findings it: is. the conclusion of this department
that. a; variance is not justified under the Zoning Ordinance and we -,.there -Fore-,
r.ecoaunend that the appl icatior_' be denied. As .mentioned previously, wie ray be
inclined to -be sympathetic to the applicants stated need for income, but
unfortunately grara-tin; such a use variance would be contrary to -the basic
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
_S7 Fe"?. -COLS rul
M t Dt TE QP I I N June 1, 1970
A
AvENDh SECTION,:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
HEARINGS.
CITY PLANNING
ITEM,
N 0.
ITEM. -DESCRIP-TION- Application For Approval -Of The.'Findl-P,lat Of
NorthgAte Eighth -Subdivision.
PREPARED. BY:
'Q.! ty - P lanning Department:
;the City. -Planning Department recommended;that this Application, -be -ranted approval.
(Se'e atta"ched. Planning Department Report.)
City Planiing.and Zoning Commission:
On May'12,, 1970'the City.Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application.
tqe firid-that.this final plat complies with all local regulations pertaining to the
subdivision -of land within the City of Rochester. It also conforms to the City's
.-land Use.Plan and the general development plan for this area.
Based on :these findings we recommend that this final -plat be.granted app,.=oval.
-Attached.
Planning'Department Report
If this plat is approved there are -recommendations from -the
U
Planning Commission, Planning Department and Finance Committee
relatiVle to acquisition of street right -'of -way, under the Agenda
Section, "Reports and Recoirimendat ions Item
--Dist. (1) City Clerk
Planning Department' File - -------
U, k V_-y motion by: Second by: 0
s -
or c`],j c
1.
I�Em
N 2ZZ
251A AVENUE w
--69200 -
A -y+oo �aa oa.. 40G a— na0o--=ISC22e'-� O
-
of
_ � FO � °i �.' _ 2 ,� 1�•r'.. IL � ::i• ""�,. �-1� "� : -r �p:�J cat
. _- wiTlwi�lo� : � ° ov �� - � ° Y :V\` � "�}; ,• n ,V`t ° tim V
20699—
7-19
a�a:
me a - - - _ -
hq
iz
e✓° a r 1 3. ' N
1 The "r_evious doc-um-ent is ima ed..to the
p g
6est',quality possible..-- The original document is of"very-poor-
qual-ity.
Scan-ned by Olmsted Co u'n.ty'
Imaging Department
APPLICATION'. FOR- APPROVAL OF THE }? - fl-c 1�: PIAT OF N ORTHGATE EIGHTH SUBDIVISION
=-Name.-o.f. -Petitioner: Lyle Woolley and' Lowell Penz
` City Planning"Department Review:- We have considered the final plat. of Northgate Eighth
-:S.ub.divisi`on 2iio.we'.find that this plat- complies with all Local regulations pertaining
the; subdivision of land within the City of Rochester. '
The. only,,problems are "in 'regard to acquiring the .additional right-of-way needed for
20th Street,-Y., W. and 25th Avenue N. W:
`There also s" a problem concerning extending. 20th Street N. W.-to the west beyond the
went line of 'this plat. The City of Rochester has -an accepted dedication of 66 feet _
:for_ street and'utility rights'. Until this street is extended it may be desirable
to crake'. Provision 'for a temporary c.ul-�de-sa.c .on the west end of 20th Street -N. °W. '
Conclusion; _: We -recommend that -the final plat be 'grantee approval. The items:
men.tioned,` above -are outside of the control -of these owners -and will have -to be -resolved
by .others:. ..
T
if -
ii
if-
In. reply to yqur request,;for our review and conmmant3 on, the above matter -
we submit the following:
This plat is acceptable in respect to'street alignment and street names.
However ,it .does not include full,street right-of-way -oni the -boundary streets. -
Although cif tholding acceptance of tha plat for this reason may not be warranted
because this owner has ro POT ger to dedicate this right -of -x-ray, acceptance of
,the
plat places immediately this responsibility on the City!;Government. If the owners
of this necessary- right -of -%gay do not make this. dedication voluntarily 'it may take
unlimited .time aad expense to acquire it. i
If this plat is approved at this . tine the owners should be advised as follows:
1. The owners proposed plans are no acceptable it all respects- an the storiz
seweroutlet, watermain continuity, sanitary sewer ;on' 25 th Avenue, and •street
{,
grade's.
-2. Construction of t'ce local improvements cannot Be planned or undertaken until
(a) The full rig?Lt-of-.ray widths on 20th St.. and 25i'th Ave 'lave been acquired:
�t r c^ ri ^�-r
(b) A, development Plan of the connecting streets in t:�ce �izt. � rA} i{ � �L� ��} � 7is
plan is adopted, right-of-way acquired, and cons tru` �,,�`�s _ s 1 `o1 f ' er
outlet contracted concurrently, with time constructionorthgate 3t,c.
(c)- The problems of platting and assessments of the se al properties south
of 20th St. are resolved: 197E
%
CITYPLAN EPT.
jj P,OCHESTL_R, �iJINNIESOTA
!,
v PaoP 2
nning and Zoning Coriu-nission Report continued
City Pla
In addition to the above.infornation for the plat,o�;,ner I.wish to point
;._.out to the nlanninj Board and the Council that acceptance of this plat places
"a definite oblijation on the City to require the continuation of 20th St. N.1:
-westerly into the.Carpenter-Grieve tract to a connection with the street
.. system in that tract.
_ ..
C', A. Elrr�Z, tron�
City Engineer
R `:�'� -DATE rune t, lu/tt
AGENpA;-SECTION: TCITYINATING D`EP'T:
it
HEARINGS _ PLANNINGi
ITEM: - ITEM DESCRIPTION: .Application �For Approval Of The I,inal Plat Of . PREPARED BY:
1Pennin ton's First _Subdivision �
Planning Department: (January 22, 1970)- {'• _
The City Planning Department recommended that this final -plat b•e granted approval
..'subject to it being put in.final document form. (See a'ttached"P,lanning Department "
Report of: January 22, 1970,) l '
`'.`NOTE: -The final plat documents were filed with the City Planning Department on
May 19, 1970 and they -are in proper form to be acted upon.
_City Planning and Zoning Commission:
The City Planning and .Zoning Commission recommended approval of this plat on -January
28,-1970,:` (See attached City Planning -and Zoning Commission recommendation.)
Summary of Previous Action Taken By Council:.
1. -On February 2, 1970 the Council accepted the.recommendaticn of the City Planning
and.Zoning Commission and set a hearing for February 16; 1970,
-..2.' On February 16,, 1970 the hearing was held. The final plat documents were not -
on -file with the.City Clerk so the-Councii took no action. The Council declared
that .•rhen-the plat documents are filed with the City Clerk,.a new-heaking will.
be scheduled.
Action Requested: -
Council can now-hoid the.'.necessary public hearing and proceed to approve the plat,
Attached: 0.
City Planning Department Report i!
City Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation
Dist,: (1) City Clerk
(2) Planning Department File Ji
I
8�" � � E•\° �. ;fir ..
.:��o Mot ion •by:�,� �. Second by: fo: _-
UNFLATT ED
.0
`soh= � •j _-_-_�'�� _. � -
-!Nr
TEP
A
IS
USH'
�
Rio=;��l
: 'd
n.
R
- „�-<_o -
� _ N��i.s
Ali
Fix
x.-
1
oil's
CFO;
ny,
Oil 171:
_ -
APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF THE PEN! INGTON FIRST -SUBDIVISION
We,_have.reviewed the above application and find the following;
Name- £ Applicant:- Campus Development, Inc: .
Department Review:'.
ii., ota Highway Departments The 21' easement apparently is for street
purposes and as such would allow for only lOZ' driving lanes. Although this
roadway will apparently be a private drive rather than a public street_,
assurances- should be made that this drive will still provide -for safe and
orderly movement of pedestrians and vehicles. `The type of development planned
for this subdivision wil-1 create a relativelyhigh vehicular volume.on-tile
drive.,. Public safety should be assured.r.egardless of the status of this
drive,.especially in light of previous site -development sketches which showed
end -on parkitzg along a major.portion of the drive. Twelve foot lanes and.
parallel parking would seem to_be.necessary to provide the desired .degree .of
safety.
City Planning Department Review;
We have .reviewed the final plat application of Pennington First'Subdivisi.on-
and we find.,the--following:
1. The area included in..this-final plat is only a -part. 'of the area which was
approved as the preliminary plat -of Pennington First Subdivision. .This
change has apparently been made because the petitioners plan.at this.time
to build only phase 1 of the "Town an' -Campus" coxmmunity development project
that was approved. by the Common Council on Tune 16, 19U9. Although we
..wo.uld prefer to see all of the .area that was a part of the preliminary plat
included in. -tile final plat-, it is not -a necessary requirement that this
proceedure be.followed.
2.- The plat still needs to be put into final hard shell form and the required
signatures still need tq, be added to the plat, . These must be done btf-ore ap-
provai"is granted by the' -Common Council.
3. Concerning•the co=ents of the State Highway Departm8nd, the 21 fog:
easement which they thought was. for.street purposes.is actually for.utility
purposes only and therefore is not a traffic flow problem in' -this plat.
As for the problem of traffic congestion due to only - .a single access to
41st Street, this same, situation was pointed out at the time the Town
and: Campus developmentplan was considered. Because teat plan- has already
been approved, hove er; it would seem almost impossible that. any change can
-be required at this time by the City.
Conclusiod:
We recommend that this final plat application of Pennington First Subdivision be
granted approval, subject to the plat being put�izito final hard shell form and subject
to the required signatures bei-no added to the pl.att.
�.>'��z� •� �
his ���Em Ie
Motion
•by: ,. sm
Second
b.y; ��
_r_� �O• _ -,.�—e <�,�_
s _ Tt; t Ii I IT ; sAY CC:dC'a1, I
:SUB.J?CT: ' '•STOP�'i- Si:1;1 R DPJ�I^LAGE Ord TRUST r —"SRTY 2,110:PI AS FIRST NATIONAL Imo' NU
TI.UST OIt. rLiZr;1, TRUSTw
IS - PLANilE.J TO, WIDEN S1:CC4AD STR:srT SOU Trllax:ST5 W1EST TO 23rd AVENUEo ALONG-
WITH THIS PR0Jf--,CA IT IS ALSO 2LANNE:11, TO PLACE STORM .SEi-jM FlIPSo CURBS AND G:UTTEPSp,
'AND- NECESSA Y . DRIVE?vA-YS,,
- TRB -PIAN CALLS FOR OMSTOMI SENER OUTLET ONTO T11- 1RIUSl: PROPERTY9 AT 21 t
AVENUEz A-PPR0XrMp%a1'zLY 150 FrET DEEP* THIS IS' IN THE FOXM OF A Wl7 o D i._AM:T .R
PIE'1: GT?AD1,'.ALL,Y RISIZ ABOtrL T E GROUND UNTIL IT TEP�IIDLATES.
THE, DMI NAG; AR.F.,A AT TLIC PRESENT TIME TAKES TIM T'OMul OF Tt•10 DISTINCT PA IIS. CONS
IS AT YHE INTERSECTION Or- 23rd AV; NU-. AND 2nd ST. THE OT1 ER IS AT TAG iNTERSECTIO p1
OF 21st AVENUE AND 2-nd STREET. THIS IMEMIS ITIAT TEI E DRAIMAGG AREA UNDER VNE; NEW
PLAN WOULD INCREAS!s FOR THE FL0;7 DO!aP1 THE 21st AVIsNUiE DRAIN SYSTr 4, AND., AS
POINTED.OJT PREVIOUSLY9 TUAT DRAIN IS TO BE CENTRALIZED IN THE TRUST PROPERTY.
AN ALT131MAT'1, PRO.t O ~.AL IS AS F0LLO?-3S:
FIRST: PL'%CE AN PMPROVED DRAIN TO T111. NO RT11 AT 23rd AVENUE AMID RUN TFMT SYMEM
PAST VE EMISTING BUILDINGS TO T[HE FIELD, IT tdUULD BL A PPROXIc•LATfELY 150 FEET
AND SUPPLANT TIM :EXISTING DR-t\IN 14TTR Till: I'l'P.OV::i1!E?ST K'11,2 ITS NEt,MESS SAND
SLIGHTLY ADDIT10,NAL L II'Mli.
SECOND: G-ONTINUE. THE 'DRAIN 1111PE FAST ON 2nd STREET TO.J01M AT 21st AVENUE,, EATICI-;
WOULD EL11-IMATt, TI1_:: N—FED FOZ TI113, DRAIN NO RT;1 FRO;d 21st AVENUEo THIS IS VERY DE-
SIRABLE BECAUSE IT iELlYINA E'S TIE ILATER DRA1'''4TM DGWIN THE OPEN - FIELD ALO:G'THE
GOiX R.AtvGE AND. GREATLY LAIP 0vus THE Pi:OPIMTr? FrIM !I � SIAIND POINT OF F?.:ta.OD CONTROL
AND P1rLL U T ION o IT ALSO i12ANS T LAT IN1 Tfl FUTURE THEME tdOU r t) ;10T DE In-40 Si S E.MAS
GOIZ TO CASIGADr CRU] Gi1LY T1,70 BLOCIKS -i" I'OM EACH OTILFER; 111K] FUTURE SYSr rM 1n:`_ID
PA 7T 2
I:Xa AID Nt1h3i FP.G9 23rd AVf�iU FIGiJK�: Oft. II.I,�JSd�2A s'S THE PROPOSED PIAPie
IT IS Fri ALI2iD `ItiiT 1t1TS IS A CIF3;'G�: I;d.1111r. �'K FS"id?' 1'iAiIS� HOtiI'�PE:;� Ta IS
ALSO FELT TH, IT IS IN �+U::B ST Ii�IEKESTS TO B E COi1C�:P, E YIIn M P10.111hs
IN WERY. W7AY THE IAND DIRECTLY ADJACu�IT TO THE CITY. THC PROPOSED PTJsN
i.�'}OULD, GREATLY ASSIST DRYIMG OUT THE IAIND AND LEAD TO QUICKER iDEVEL,OPIMIENT
FOR CITY DYIEI,LINGSo
RESP -CT:' SUBMI7TLD.
Witty C:.
CID 7'
ri
co
L l i
-] 4_
i,l N I — 'r
--. r a)_-
�
r W f
•��/ U �- r _ `66 m _. 66 — m — 66
•jLJ_I
ORD
_ \ l - — — a
CAIt ro N
Nd
o co
o
DEF Rr.p o•. s6 LO-HED W
j R�. P:
JF tb I - _ -. XL N _� rn 7 IJ W N W.
ryl
1 -1 rn O O U
W.
V � v �" .. ir!Pt . 361r Rc-P I ' m � _j d
36� - r---- �, 18 AV E . N . W.
(n F
co
O_�i! _
--� �_ '^�` d W _. A r'. „A .•W
i .__—ter _ — f V -' 1 �\ t1 � •f.1' Ilt I - ..
Ln
�6, R
s �- __ _t.
MEETING June 1, 1970
t ER� � F0E3 CO3U' ]i0i_- �-C`9' al DATE
AGENDA'SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEP'T:
`._Rep -arts and: Recommendations
City Attorney
.ITEM--
ITEM DE5CRIPTLON-
PREPARED BY:
NO•E-f.`=:
Fire Protection for Adjacent
G.11..S a.nson
r~
This off ice.'has, been meeting with the attorneys for the Towns of
=Cascade , Haverhill, 1.1arion and Rochester for the purpose of drafting
.<."a:contract for the extension of fire protection by the City Fire
:.. Department" to. the surrounding Towns:
The contra ct.wi11 not be completed until after the June 1 meeting
of the Common Council.. Therefore, it is recommended that the City
extend the existing Fire Protection Emergency Agreement until June-30,
:..T970.. The "effectivedate of the contract being prepared will be July 1,
,1970.
�7lUn?ts _, A C 7 Pi. nt Second by_ � to
^ rF�Ja �`���v01 (+��� [1'�'DATE ,yt� _Ta�Le 1, 19
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINAT4NG DEPT:
T?eco:1'_ endaLlons �; t.� ;°11ineer
ITEM= ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED 6Y:
N [1•. Cons't,ruct 1-5 t'•1 Avenue . .'t 'RR Crossing ..�-.' �
lrmstron
The Pu'olic Works Comm,ttee recommen ds that a resolution be adopted
advertising for yids to be "received::on. July :bt'� for the: folio ping project
Construction of a'Grade -Crossing on, j5th Avneue N.^.
across t'ze Ciica-o. 1 ort).1D7eotern �?ailraad Tracks."
. r.
Tzis project was. initiated 'by-.thc' Council in 1967 -upon request of
residents. in t'•_-ie vicinity.
r,o Public. Servii Commission held a 1Zearin_; on kug-ust•27t'l 1`64,
and a0pToved the petition of the City, to construct this grade crossing
providing the 13th• Avenue ,'�.+?. grade.-- crossing `is closed to vehicular
'traffiC, and traffic signals are' ins -tailed at t'r? ne.7J15th ^venue
crossIng. I '
The estimated City cost are S_12: fcr the signals and $10, Ci3 for other
construction. $12,090 'gas been Tiuiigeted. for.ti.is project in 1970.
�v%,.y� vo' Motion .6y:�_ 5econ8 by-.
f0
;
t�+ MEETING
r �r �' i C F j :� u� � y. j DALE 3ttrte 1, 1
AGENDA SE'CT1UN; OR:IGINA,TING DEFT:
�ecommendations City- Snciii2er's
ITEms`= ITEM DE5CRIPLI;ON
PRE�A,R_ED BY:
NO. r Sidewalk Construction on -South Side of Zumbro. Drive W. i Alm on
-A petition Tans .received for -- "Sidewalk Construction on the South, 'Side of Ztimhro
,rive i,.?'z.:between 5th Avenue IT: ? •.and.27th -Street T.f^?.''
T'nis petition bas D-ee exam ned, and found to b� in proper form, and is sinned
by 5--df t'_ze 8 o-,=ners.•'of record and, representing 60.95°' .of- the owner' -ship frol? cre.
<✓/L j .3tt1L f` SJ//�✓r .�)I� %�C�?�'G7 �C=
/ !) J r:� �:K LiS /! j ; t J i✓G
.The.. P.ubl c;.'Worts. Committee., recomnends-;:
1. `. That this project. e extended to.'�nclude the block between 27th'and 26th St.
V.r hf �. L�' . �'/!I LG �= r✓ /� 1 L= i i / vi✓ / ��t ' i7-Ira . 13� o'�.: f� .�
2. -That a-ne.a project be initiated;', under .the fol.louing .title;- "Sidewalk'
Construction on the .South Side of. Zu.tabro Drive Nib." bet -,,.Teen -th Avenue
and :26ti Street N..(,Tbb-6352-7umbro t'r. .70)
Dept .4;325
3.., 111e acceptance of the Feasibility- Re -Dort and. the ordering of a haarin8 on tiiis
project.g1,
.Estimated Costs Di s_trib_ution
— Constr.�~ rngr. Int. Assessable
Cost_ ExnV Expense Total Cost Per Ft.
Assessable: 3176. SO --_-, $21.3.40 $3390.20 54- 96, T'ef. Ft.
City: 380.00 533.52 ______ 913.52,
TOTALS $3556�. S,0 533. 52 $.2 3..4F0 54303.. 72
Attac'3ed: `
Feasibility Report \ :
Ocanership List _
Map
Project Budget
e:_5�. N1 ( Pa .�'e: 1 EG w Motion by; Second b
y= .�to.
::i
— — N —
N t- 1
I lr N U) I Co.
Fr' Fri
I - -
_ m
:i l-_
z , m 0`,
i CD -.4 n�
t
i/' T
� l — D
1 o 0
\ �• W N N N
N W -CA
4N
Ul
Ln
y.
N
m.
r co N ELK. -3
W cn
w
4T H. AV E. N
4TH AVE. NX _
. — 5TH `AD,.
N W
-BLKj 4
N-
r 3RD AVE.. N.W. ----
�? i_ MEETINGTi�.ne 1 10',1�
AGENDA.SEC'rION:; ORJGINA.TING DEPTc`
_ Job .6256-Side�aa:
1'.eco_mm2ndatioZs City Fz iiievr Dept '3327
ITE��t:`. ITEM. .DESCRIPTION: PREPARED 6Y:
NO. u,-5 Side�:*ale Approaches to 13en drank din Sczool. ._N-. 'Armstrong:
The Public -f.-I i.s . ,o. emit wee Lee 'that .tLie �ou:icil initiate, ��i t,iout
petitioi. by t_ie o+bra s, .' e:-,follc ring -.local iirinrov:=_tlei-.ts:
i.
r. "Sidewai l k• 'pproac lees . to Len Franklin School".
ode �al'�s nro�ose�i for t:�e �outi� sz�1e of 16ti? .Street ,S.T. fro i 3rd avenue-.
east t ? . traces; Sout,z' side of 16th. Street`Srr:, from one lot west of $th
Avenue to 9th Avenue;.;' ?o,rt.i si�l Of 16t 1 Street from 5t?.,kvenue -to• l ltn --.Venue,
West side -Of .9t t .venue froti 16tn S't.reet s.out.i to sideT.. K "in place at Ben
!ran'_.lin .S.chool; Fast side, of:8th. venue froTn- 15tii Street to 15t_1 Street.
T ii's•_irenrovement is ;also requested by' t?re school administration:
Tempo-tary blacktop. will be instal led in the large undeveloped open areas
such as ;Outs? side Of 16th Street fYOIl tracks east -to One lot ?%eat , Of
8ti1 Avenue and iioi-tii side of 20tz` Street from .3rd :Avenue to 9th Avenue to
concrete'sidewalk. ii-iplace on scaool.prop .erty. This -teznporari blacktop sidewalk
will not be ,assessed to tiie abutting-proper.ti'es.
These concrete and terinorary•black.top sidewalks- twill help establish direct
routes to the school-.
The estimated cost is $24•,7807.00.-of �wiich $1 ,397.Od s estimated to .be .
assessed and $6 41`�. `?0 paid for by.-- 'ty Funds'. 1'�le estimated aSSCSST12nt Dar fr(STlt
'foot. is "A...3
Attached: feasibility Report
Bud"et
Hap
Ownership List
�J F'�4.r L •It E i Motion by-, Second by: a -to
_SLAVE, l -IL
�
�k..r►�� ,� ,����o'.
.�� MEETING Junc 1, 1^;
_,PENU�`DATE:
AGEND_.: A,SECTIONG - ORIGI-NATIJol 6009'-15 :-iiT:
_ Dept. 3328
2co.1^endatior� City -.Engineer's Dept,
ITEM-;;• I'TEM ,DES'CR-IP.T'ION: PREPARED 6Y:
N O•
Cohcr^i e :Sidewalk, on bot1i-sides of 1.5tn Ave ii 1 frog 30 th to 31st St ^..:. 1rTs.tron.�
1 The Public "%lpr' ks Co —iittec recomaiene?j t iat tie Council initi a.te, �,itnout
pattioiz of_tie- owaeis, the follo iin� .local innrovemer�t':
`'Concrete:SideTcalk oh. both sides .of 15tb �lvenu? N.W.
from 30ti Street. to 31st `Stree.t
F Constru"ction- will enable e�zileren "Wno live south and are walking
to Joan Adams Jr. =?ign to ;,call, on sid`ew41k in t=ze final block from t_le
sciIool`. ''1os.t of the. other streets lcadinc, ua_ to -this. block have e, sidewalk
-on atleast` one. -side. This school- ope's enis fall.
."'he estimated cost is $5:533.00 ..of tiiiich $472�s:00 is estiiaated to be
assessed, and $�6.4;00 paid .for qq Ci tp --Funds. The estimated assessD_ent• per .
front -foot is $4.04.
r�ttaclied; reasibility= Report
Budget
Map ,
OT•Tnerslzip List
C011J,11 C L A. �,1 d Motion by: Second b.
Y: t 0
ll_ AYc
N Z
i;
i k `
t
U U
N 1
LUTN£RA9
9 - Av E . .�
>r MEETING J'iee l I9;
AGENDA -SECTION: T ORI.GiNATING DEP'T:
:. Job 4753-12 k7710
o0Oq
ecommendations Enaineerin� Dep t. wept
ITEM:'_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY-
0
NO r: f. emu,-b. Gutter. and' Side Talk on '.uot' sides :of 12t�� ftvenue.'f E.
I: from. 14t_� Street !T.F. to ?"7ort'_7 'inO .?)uville Ist- a .1.1; lrmst�:ona
t_adition.
The Public Wor'_;.s C07,vi ttee recom iends that the Council initi_atu without
petition .of --the -o;•�n' the .follo�7ing. local in,prover_ient-.
"Concrete curb and _gutter :znd side�aallc on both .sides � .
`of_ 12 th Aventie ,iT: T . f rom l4.th Street N. ;?. to the
hotth- line, (5f DuyiI1e' Is Addition:"
j .TiZe sidewalac is i nplace running ea , t from l lth . Avene.0 to 13ta Avenue NFE.
This improvement was left -,off _tn.a- -19.u9 side ilk pro ran• so as to include curb
and gutter with the. sidewalk at -the request ,of the property comers that were at
the 1969 hearing of project #M:-1959.. " T"tie Public Works °tow.ittee, agreed with' their
request -and asked-:.tq. t. it be i nclu�le� in .19.70.
The estimated cost is S13,005.-00� of ; _zic'.n $I1,373.L�0 is estim-at?d to'' be
assessed, =and $ it, ,632..0`J .paid "for -'by 'City Funds:. ' The: estimated assessment per front.
foot is $?. G.
Attached: Feasibility. eport
Fiidge.t
Propertj List ;
?Tap
0UN sign ! � ECf{`4
,. v ,'� Motion by:_M� Second bY: ,y to. _ �,
M
,f
zj
jo
TI
,J.
ACE _..
E
03
i N / it A
fn
Ild
=�.�_I-
�1 I � �n „� 1 , l n I Ij
Z
Uu
.air
j tn- tr r'
_cz
j .
� 3
C f�
C
.71
-
t .
top
-
Y
• , cT s
�:��,,R E` r� � 11'. yL ^ �lr� MEETIN_G June 1, I(
Fi �:JhJES FOr � 4. GeJa'� 1J 6:C a5 � DATE
�_ ... Job
..C:;11C-11A
AGENDA .SECTION:- ORIGINATING DEPT: cascade" Street
'.'e-commendations - City rn.gineer'� Dept. Dept. f`5�76
ITEM: ITEM DESC-RIPTION: — ^PREPARED 6Y:
' Side*,aal?c Construction- on as�t Sicle 1.ltiZ Ave �T;? S. Side Cascade St.
l Ize'Public i?orlcs ,Conizittee-recoends teat t=ze Council initiate, Tai.tiout
.petition of the- owners, the -following local improvement:
. oncr2te. dew alk ont`.ie ast site of llth avenue
from toy_ �1_1s give to Cascad` Street _ .�.?. and on
South side of- Cascade Street N'T?. .fro:; 11th Avenue to-
Sl&ewalk 11lblac2 s?esL Of 12t11. Llven.11e
A. petiti.on_ vas received rn 1767, :'for .the constructi.or_ of a portion of
t_iis project; (on t=ze east side of llth Ave d. ?. from Elton 1Tills Drive to
'Cascade Street :�T.r''� ThiS A2OjeCt TT.a3 recommended by t'_1? Public 1-7orks
Committee to be deferred until other side-.•Tal?cs, were constructed. - It' is now
recoti-imended to include the South side of --Cascade Street f,.rori 1J:tn Avenue to
sidewalk inplace. west of.l2ta :avenue N.TI.
The estimated cost is $9711.00 of-T%O-ii ch $7347.0.0 is-'estimat.ed to 'Ie
assessed and $1364.00 paid for by City "funds. Tiie estimated assessment per
front foot is $4.04.
Council Action '_,equested: teat the Council accept the F�ngineer'"s Report
and order a public hearing.on the proposed project.
Attached: Feasibility Repo-rt. -
Budget
.fa p
0,.niership List
0, 0 l� V'4 t-."r L �-,. q� T E 0"ti Motion 6 y:�.....,t,� n S e' c o n d ,b. y :.._.....
. MEET ING l
��. y �.� DATE'
V.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
recommendatlbn.s City Engineer's kept.
ITEM:.., ITEM DE5CRIPTION: PREPARED 6Y_
_ MaintenanceAgreement _MTT:1.-trunk =Highway 19 70- 71 ^. Armstron.c,
City f',nglneer. recoulne-r.{ls a'p}'�roval..o-S atta64-ad ::ialZter aT7CG 1`lgrieilP_I1t
i th _11i1nesota S1gh?"Iay .'Depaf tmeri, for !-1ty to i1 ainLain Trunl` Hislaways
295 and.63 within the City
leage 3s'-.3.11[,,
_ r&te per mile : s $.120
'Doti, are same as previously.
fj
• � � `v (i�-��.a�- � G�� .. -`tits' �..C«-yt.,���
�.•r"rf5V4s�Motion by: Second b
Y : r _ t 0 ... _. e
�F. a �.; M E E T.i N GTune l � 1970 .
---��,�:3i..dJ � � I:4 ��c'.�C,��, PA, 'j0N DATE •
AGENDA SECTION: - ORIGINATING DEPT:
'?nrs .
''ecom.rend`ati ons EnSi-fieering Dept.-
File,..10.5
ITEM:.~ ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY_
_NO C �� Sewer F T?ater�Services to Conwav Property in S.r. Rochester. C:.�, _err trorin�^
The Public I?or'cs GoiIlittee iias revietred thee request. of 'overt1: Conway.
for City tivater, and'sai?zr services to. iTi s 31 acre tract in Sec 12 .iil the
Lon ,fellow School . Area. The City Enai-leers feasibility Pepor,t attached..
r It is evide_lt..1-ilat the e}istin- se?:'er mains cannot be extended to this
ID
tract. Sewer Service t0 tills area is depende-at upon the 'mostrilCt-iOil of the
�. DrevioLisly studied SE interceptor, SeTtiTCr, On cla preliminary rYl.)ort was
filed in _archh 196 3.
because of current interest in anc?' the need .for Ci ty sanitary see�eraa� in
this ,area by r. v017',7a;'9 t-I- ongfe110i.T School Areag, file proposed _"�r�lory
Site the nlnf'ToTood School area, and other Droperttles in this vicinity, t i
COmTnittee recolP_Il1ends that -tZe. Col-.ic_1•' aut7:lorize the City Er ji naars 1- epartino-_nt
to procr.ed i;Tith the location and design Of :the S�'_. Interceptor Sa ii6ary Se ?er,
and t'gat an ini tial..appropriation Of $20,00^ be authorized for C-ie location
survey. from. the ' 197C Pud et item "SE Area Trun?k, Line Sewer;:
MEETING
Fv�;�►-f�':�R,L�,'ai.��.��-�';� DATE: 6-1-70
Job #6209-.2-69
AGENDA, SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
9th St. S.E.
Recommenda:tiori City Engineer
ITEM_ ,' I.T.EM.. DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY. -
N 0.� Street Im rovements 9th St. S.E.
�. p�/.
The Public -Works Committeerecommends that a Public Hearing
:on,the'following Local Improvement be on July 6, 1970:
TMExtension of-9th St. S'.E' from 3rd.Ave. S.E. to
South Broadway.together with the necessary.utilities"
This project -.was petitioned on Feb. 18;..,1970. A Feasibility
( report_ was fired-.on'March 10th, 1970.
r �'v.��[a �:�e �I eC�vo Motion by:__.Second. .6y:.� .. to: .vy�_
y _
Ju'rie 1, 1�7
MEETING
DATE
A•GEtVpA SECTION; ORIC7INATING., DE PT: - File:
County Lighting
CCGi 7Z�i7dElt'1QI1S ;LZ �iZee-rinJ TJI .' �rGjeCtS S: !1-i�tS
ITEtf� ITEM-;bESC IPTIOIv. _ PREPAR'ED BY -
NO.
r� /mot
L Cc .I 1R *?ay ��",r 1t1� l� ric l ems* CI1L [11t'� n71 S ��d COIIIZty (G
zr.. ro _
T'Ze iUD1iC" f�0i.�a . Committee recou_Ilemcls that Hty tt011le,j L G" �7i?tilOriJ2t7'. t0
prenal `contract, agreen?ent with ^lasted County providing for the 'installat"
:and:r�airteran e o h�gliway lighting at. the follo:?in,; intersections
•'Count: Late Ai d' toad 'E�+ 'and 1'9th St. i (16.Units).
Cou ty S, at,� lid - road' #4 .and. 37th- Ave ;."-I. (14 Units)
(Cre ilo 1 .._t oac�` intersection_)
County Stat'ti f�id "oad ��3 aid #25 (15tn St. ST+i and '1ayo Tood road) (?C Units)
This' a-reeriZeiZt bill be in t',a sake' fGrlR as the agreements we have Slit l
the �ighia3T 7ep.artnent. r ze County :dill pay- or and install the 1i 7<�ts,
-The. City will' provide tiie electric po'?er and ordinary "lain teaiance. Cost of
R.epla.cement 'of poles and fixtures dainaged by vehicles or weather,: not
recoverable from' the re3ponsi `,le par►:y, will also be borne by ta0- COUntV.
CCU, vt.,e' I.:YC (34Tla Motion.. by Second
�. MET N� 6 1170
EQU:�?n 0 C"�•'U�,i,I .a��0 ��'� � DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ^
Reports_& Reco=endations - Finance
ITEM* ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED 8Y:
N O. -�t{ Approval -of Bills J . Andre
The Finance Committee recommends the.list of bills to be paid be
. .approved (excepting. )
�C, U, -j� ryA✓'e�® Motion by:�av_ Second by:. R w�s �x to
M t t.l 1 N (-7 6^1-70
DAT E
AGENDA SECTION .. .-
Reports.and.,_Recommendation
ORIGINATING DEPT:
= E
Personnel .
ITEM: I.TEM. DESCRIPTION: ~'PREPARED
BY:-
N O. ,C � : P,A.G. Recommendations
i t: ,. (L, ,.
:-.Personnel"Advisory CorrLmittee recommends the following-
That .Donald. laees, Plans" Checker in -the Building and Safety Department
be:given a, three step merit increase effective May 16, 1970. This
_ - increases his salary from $991.00'to $1,115. per month,
-'-.:Reasons-:..
H-6 ai as assistant to the department.head in handling personnel and
public- relations -problems.:
-. He serves` in-. an ' advisory- and, administrative, capacity in coordinating,
departmental` policies and, programs
In the- absence of the director he' is, responsible' for' the. operation of
- .. the, department-:
20 That Gordon Sather be appinted to the position of Inspector in the.
Building "and Safety Department at -steep 7F ($78I') He .is to start
work June 152..1970.
3..That Richard Krier be appointed to the position -Long Range Planer
-'of
at: step 20B ($80.) and that his moving expenses be,paid.' This
should''run between $500,. - and $600. He is to'start work June -10, 1970..
A, That the request of Everett Fisk`to reclassify one Account Clerk: II_
position to an Account Clerk III position•be approved. This would
be effective June 1,'1970.
C-1ellU C0LL AVI. ' 12'.JmJE Motion 6y: -x Second by:_ '- ,to:. ��r`
1
'. t.: F`� � 1 1� + � R`� P.� DATEr-
_ June 1, 197(
�'�G„%DA SECTION-:: OR:IGINATiNG DEPT:. ;
REPORTS .AND • RECO*LIENDAT-IONS-" PLANNING
IT.ENt_ ITEM.. DESCR(PFION: : PREPARED BY:
N O• 1 Purchase of Refuse Containers
- M 13,- 1970
.;`-•City. Planning. -and_Zoning Commission,Recommendation:
The-City;Planning and Zoning Commission at a"regular meeting held on May 12., 1970
`'_revieGied the_ "attached recommendation of' -the Committee on Urban Environment, We .
concurl'.i<iith. this'.'ecommendation,
`:Action Requested:
=.-The Common-Council'is_requested to approve this recommendation.to purchase refuse
containers,.. Once'approved the City's Purchasing Agent wi-11 be authorized to make
the necessary purchase.
Attachments: ,
Recommendation of Committee on Urban Environment,
Recommendation of Subcommittee on Urban Design.
Flier.showing type of refuse container;
-This.matter was referred to.the Public Works Commit -tee and Finance
Committee..for further study from'the Council at their meeting of.
May 18,' 1970. . Both of these Committees recommend that the City .
purchase -the refuse containers as originally proposed and that the
modifications _(with black plastic doors and no labels) as.proposed
by the Committee on Urban -Environment be deleted.
Motion 6y: T ms_ Second by. to
),yY $ r 51 rc�5'��^1 j E G:_iL�c
MEETFN
ti Y
.June- `1, 197
g6!NDA''.SECTI0N ;w
ORIGINATING, DEP'T:
REPORTS AND .RECOMENDATIONS
CITY PLANNING
ITEM: `
` ITEM. DESCRIPTION Proposal To'Acquire Street Right-of-.Way.For The'.PREPARED
South,Half of 20th Street; N.W. & The.West half. of 25th.Avenue N.W,
BY:
ice`
NO -�
P1at�of:No�ate
�'
The Proposed Eighth Subdivision , __
Ad'Final
Jonin g g
--
l City Plannin�'Department Recommendatian:.
two
,The Final Plat.of Northgate Eighth Subdivision h'as/streets'':('20th Street N.,W. &
:-,25.th Avenue._N.W.) that have only one-half of. a street'right=of-way... The other .
;Half of these -streets is on property owned by others; In'order to}e able to..
-:..provide full street access to this plat and also sanitary sewer, and,water.service
it. -_is necessary -to have .the complete right -of way, .
'City PandZinorigCommission Recommendation:
On eta , 12 1970 y -the City Planning and Zoning-Commission.considered theneed•for
the'.City to acquire the lands described for street ,right-of-way, We.recommend
„ -that the Common Council initiate the necessary proceedings°to acquire these:
-lands-for public street purposes,
Attached: ..
Planning Department report on Final Plat of Northgate Eight .Subdivision.
If this plat is approved there are recommendations,from the•Plannng.
Commission, Planning Department'and"Finance ,Committee relative to.
-' acquisition of street right-of-way, under -the Agenda Section '-'Reports
and—RcEommenda-tions-° , Item
ILE
Dist. r (1)-, City, Clerk
(2) ."Northgate Eight Subdivision "
):.gNt:s�L A01 3 F0S'�Ie. Motion by: r�� Second by .<_� �—�� to
NW m W CDm.m
N t� •�
V lit
�t��"7 t',fje�- S�}\�-� ,,.,•I �ai �\ \\ mIn J.N N W .Z'N .:l N NJ �.W�
O , -aCrWa OWC6
O O 0 O0� W 'm 0 S1. PA
O. O {
,� �l Y is � %' II tl,.�V��� �� - D - ._ D y (' A L, .tt•
i n �' t i. i Sy rl Tr !� �'� 1 - _ i. t1 p Z 7�•.
13
1�` m ON O m W m W Oto q.z
AV
14
� I
� .I �\� � ram' ` n� � I � �� � 2.�,1� ' 4 % � •. ,W � � -
Z �. �i�. `1 � r +r' 0 , �� �� . 1•- � TIN - � `,•ra \ ,. �•�, `� y '.
93`poU f',er�s
_ June 1, 19"
A.GFNDA.SECT ION.:• ORLGINATING DEP'T:
REPQRtS* AND• RECO4DTENDATI01,17S - CITY PLANNING
ITEM: .ITEM�DESERIPTION. PREPARED BY:
E. Pet.itiori .To Antiex`The Land South of 20th Street S.E. & East of �'�
NO• r"':�� C.S..A.H. No. 1= c�
Cites °Planning..Dq rtment:
"Tine City Planning Department favors the annexation of this property to the City.
(See attached report.) The main problem is that in order to serve this property
'ad'equately with sanitary sewer, its development will have•to wait .until the City
=const.ructs.the east side 'interceptor sewer,
:City,Planni'ng_and Zoning Commission:
'...Qn.May 12, -1970 the -City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this petition.
We.recommend that the property be annexed to the City. We further recommend that
-it-he designated as :a Rural Service District.
Anion Requested:.
-The Council is requested to approve this recommendation and instruct the,City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance annexing this land to the City.
The,petition was filed on April 30, 1970 and the Township Board and County Board
have 60 days, or until June 29, 1970, to file an objection. As of'May__13, 1970 we
have not heard from.the Rochester Town Board on this petition,'
Should the Township Board object to this petition it would be advisable for the
Council to indicate the City's willingness to have the property annexed..- This
action should be filed with the Minnesota Municipal Commission:
Attached:
Planning Department Report
_Dist.: (1) City Clerk
r (2) Planning Department File
This item was referred to Public Works Committee for review in relation
to the need for a sewer trunk line onthe east side of Hwy. 52. The
Public Works Committee and Council Committee of the Whole are recommend-
`--- ..._.-P _±ng-tT-ia t _the _C•i-tT-Hr0 . "•pro_c Se`cT_1tt5 fi"6 �a tom" eke s inn i e �«Ea s t "Tn' e r c e p tom ,
Ck3! J JC i1L vAC,I E`�JNo Motion by:�. 5econd .by:��3_—>��.n zti t°
ui 7-Y
Ll
--------- -
I
__
-: ®� - _ - ------------ 7---------�
APR 3,0J970
CITY PLANNING DEPT.
ROC MINNESOTA
crry
L - DUIECTOils copy
ti
-Thevious docurtient is im'aged-.to the
p re - . .,
best quality possible.
The original document is of very poor -
quality.
Scanned by Olmsted County
Imaging Department"
�'a ^�''�f7�7 (�a�i`i'� -DATE-
J ,0.Ui l�.t !� s � V
AGt,1tDA- SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEP'T:,
Reperts.and
Recommendations
Public Utilities
ITEM=,....
ITEM DESCUPTION: _ _
PREP•AR.ED'BY:
NO.
Approval of Utility Board' Resolutions.
J.- Andre
The Public Utility Board recommends that -these resolutions be -adopted
--as follows:
-...1. Authorizing the Board to.purchase property described as follows
and at a total cost of $12,900,
"New subdivision Commencing at .the Northwest. corner,
South half of lot 6 then South 30 3/4 feet, East
54 feet, South 3 1/4 feet, -East to East line of lot
5, North on the East line of lot 5 and.lot 6 to the
Northeast'corner of the South half'of lot 6 then West to.
the beginning,'.`Lot B new.subdiv:ision."
Attached:. Planning Commission.and Department"Re.commendations. ..
Map •
2. Authorizing the'Board to enter into'a''purchase order r
;contract with Kuhlman Electric Company for furnishing -
(1) 1000 K11A. Pad i.,iounted- Transformer in the amount of
$4,990.00.
Kuhlman Electric Company is'the lowest responsible bidder
meeting delivery requirements.
"v;9Gvd';1tu.. 0ti\10 Motion by: Second totO
_ M E E T I N G
��-�F'•d� '� F"� DATE June_h 197C
a
AGENDA-'SE-Criofi -: OR DE,PT:
.Reports and -Recoinffiendations" City .Planning '
ITEM:_11: fTL- DES.CRIPTa-ON � PREPARED 6Y. �y
Resolution :of •-utfl.ity board -to' purchase. portions of Lots 5 &. 5,
NO. �/- - Block _B, o-i. Block -A_ & B in. the City of Rochester,
28., 1970
City-. Planning -Department: t .
Nhe City.-Plannirig Department found the proposal to ,be generallyir_ accord with
' -'tlie City. s,Adopted Land Use Plan. (See attached City Planning` Report of May 22, .1970)
City-'Pl"arming and Zoning, Commissions
;•On May. 27,-. 1970. the City Planning and Zoning. Commission reviewed the above
.-described-'proposal-'to purchase land for the Utility Department. We find that
.this. proposal:is in accord with the City's Adopted Land Use Plan and wetherefore
recommend-:that`the°land be acquired for Public Utility Department. use.
Action: Request'ed:. ,
If the -,Council is in favor of proceeding with this acquisition it should approve
the resolution of'the Public Utility Board and•authorize the purchase.of this
property.
Attached:
1, Copy, of City Planning Department's Report.
Se Motion '6 y Second ���.����•�,...� 7! ; oy. to
I
: CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Room 22, Summit Building
717 3rd Avenue S. E.
Rochester, Minnesota
55901
DATE:. May 22', 1970
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF UTILITY BOARDS REQUEST TO PURCHASE PORTIONS OF LOTS
5 & b,. BLOCK B OF BLOCK A & B IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER
-TO:-. City. Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:. .City Planning Department
Tom 0. Moore
City Planning Director
Backgrounds
The Public Utility Department has passed a resolution to.purchase the portions
of lots described above, According.to the Municipal Planning Act all such
purchases of land by the governing body must be reviewed by the local planning
commission -when the community has aft adopted comprehensive plan. This being
the -case, this proposal has been channeled to the City Planning and Zoning
Commission for review and recommendation to the Council.
Comments:
The property is occuppied by a small red house. The Utility Board a,ans the
land on both sides of the property and is using there properties for utility
needs. Acquisition of this lot will assemble a sizeable ..act of.land for the
Electric Plant use.
This property is zoned an M-1 District. It is not needed for any other public
-use to our knowledge.
Conclusion:.
The purchase of this property for public utility needs is in accord with
the City's general plan and is not needed for any other public purposes.
The purchase could be recommended for approval.
r
AeOR DINED
9 1970
i��
P`•_�;',I� lair U:
I 5i_c.
i-2 it aj- z07 ZfI/ , .hoc, 0 ,& 711f
I�atl.a1a7�a1
' ,, q
M t t 1 l N C, r 11A I
DATE —��p
��/
'
i
AGENDA. ECTION:~___�_ -�~
ORIGINATING,DEP'T:
- Resolutions.& Ordinances
.Legal
ITEM- DESCRIPTION.
Ordinance Relating to Passenger
PRE'P�ED--BY:
N O. F
_ and Commodity Loading- Zones
��
.-Proposed ordinance relating topassenger and commodity
loading zones
.%amending the Rochester. Code of Ordinances by adding a new -Section
.' .147.221. ( See Attached)'..
:.:'Council approved recommendation of Public Safety Committee on March 16,
1970 and instructed that an ordinance be prepared.
First reading given on April 6,.1970.-
. Second - reading given. on May 4.. '19.70
Third. reading .given ors
Adopted on
ClODU', yii,,'Evo. Motion byre $econd by:
MEETING—
g s
u A i E -
AGENDA_ SECTION.
ORIGINATING DEPT:
- Resolutions & Ordinances.
_
Legal
ITEM=
ITEM DESCRIPTION: __-
Ordinance -Annexing Lands to City
PREPARED BY:y�;
NO. F=
.._ (:Conway Property)
�.
rAn.ordinance annexing to the City of Rochester, Minnesota;
certain
.1.unplatted land not exceeding-200 acres in area, all being in -the
:`Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 106 North, Range
12'West,
..:and in the East Half of Section 12, Township 106•North, Range 14
`.-West, Olmsted County; Minnesota; (Map attached.)
First reading given April 20, 1970...
Second reading given'- Yav 441 1970
Third reading given
Adopted on
M o f i o n by: .Second by:__--__ .t°
MCC' INU A
DATE :
6/1/70
AGENDA. SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Resolutions &. Ordinances
Legal
ITEM:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Ordinance Relating to the Establishment
PRE,rA R �D.EY:_��
N 0. F- J
of- Truck Routes in the City.
a
.rProposed ordinance relating to the establishment -'of truck routes in
;the City of Rochester, amending Rochester Code of Ordinances, Section
..144.100. (Attached) . '
..:-First reading given on April 20, 1970.
econd reading given on May 4, 1970
Third reading given on
Adopted on
I
i
-�Y=
bEi� it n =� IN, Motion by: Second r � -��� to
aJ�ia1t °wi` DATEf_ k1—
AGrtiDA..SECTION: - ORIGINATING DEFT:
Resolutions & Ordir_ances Legal
ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY.
N O. (-_: Ordinance ' - Subdivision Regulations G. Swanson
Th_s- -is a. -proposed. ordinance regulating the subdivision -of land.
It provides-ih detail the information that is required to be included
'on a _plat;,-.an_d the procedural steps to be followed
-;A:.copy of'the,proposed ordinance has been submitted to the Mayor_ and
.` First'. reading _g.iven on 5%4/70
Second' :reading. given on
:Third reading given on
Adopted on
0 0---4je�j Motion by: ��m4 Second by.a,.__ �_�� to: � -
p- MEETING r
6d;EQUEy , UN1041! AC71C I DATE � 9--
: 6/.1/70
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DE PT:
Resol.ut.ions' & Ordinance Legal
ITEM: _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: - PREPARED BY:
N O•Ord-inanc'e - Zone Change (Lehnertz) G. Swanson
- :.:Th•is .is an ordinance' to rezone property at 1533 - 2nd Ave.. N. E.
('Lot:7,. Block-2, Leiferman-Koehnen-Subdivision) from R-3 to B-16
,. (Map attached).."
First :reading given on 5/4/70
Second reading .gi.ven on _ 5/-'�/70 +
_ Thirdreading given on
Adopted on
C 0 U N Cu1. AC1 7210j a motion'by: Second by• ��� � y to:
- : I1-OP,24MION
`. Minutes -of Standing CommitLees 5/25/70
--2..--Uni.ted Fund 'Pace.setter.'Campaign
I,etcer xrom Rochester Solid 1 aste association (referred to Engineering Dept.)
Notice'of :Injury .from fall on sidewalk Brady (referred to City Attorney)
,50 Letter `froi iM3J speed limits (referred to City Engineer)
-L�6o Le°agira 6f 2.i;nresota ILunicipalities - Convention Program
Letter from. 17abasha County Attorney (referred to Utility Dept, &Public Safety)
�C12in for Property Damage Daly-Davitt-Bowak (referred to City Attorney)
- 90, Letter requesting change in ladder approach Hotel Francis(rzf.erred to Bldg. & Safety,
10.6 'Referred -to Planning & Zoning
a. application for plat approval - Bracken head Subdivision
b. application for plat approval - K-Mart Plaza Subdivision
c. petition for annexation of land in Sec.11-106-14 - Doris Toogood & Helen Vine
d.. application for variance at 708-11th Ave. N.E. - Hattie cruse
e. application for waiver of compliance with subdivision ordinance - Hattie Kruse
f. application for approval of conditional use - riayo Foundation
g. appeal from decision of Zoning Inspector - Leonard Lampland
h. appeal from decision of Zoning Inspector - Robert Neili
i. application for zone change-vRochester Sand & Gravel
j. request of Vogal_ Outdoor. .Adv. for permission to park porta-panel
11. Letter from White Liberation iTovement re walk
.1. Review Allendale Project at 2:00 P.M. (Residents to appear)
'Considerations: a) Area to be assessed for storm sewer;
b)• -Total Assessed cost; c) Request of some property owners
toabandon street construction and install only sewer and
water; d) Status of Federal Aid Application . {0,-,.,, Q z
• /-Yin"""''�-.^w-"�t ��� �,�! .v, `.r,T�G.�ih'.-r..:.�t�f. �..2, �_-.�'.��»S� .� Lr+:l G.i-2. GL-t F.
.. VVLeK IrJ T'��v �.,.rJ,� �.-.n.e.�i-vj LI..eVd_Q ,,E:. ai ^ .s.•- �„r�(J7Le,..,.,: (L,.rl �'L l•Jf }r1./.2.a.:,.L
`G"`•'�� �3y':.�.�'t,r'• �}-�-a��..p. �'".Q ,C..e !-4-4.
.. ,. /�" ;Fv'6"t'.l' 1f f%.l .t.:/l �L.l.�l(....//)�e� �"/1-Pt..-t �iv Q�e�^�� my V �r^J d-x-^LP 6..4 �•-d `7'N-erY 4-�`LA .'
2. Feasibility report on petition for sidewalks on Zumbro Drive
N. W. and recommend hearing. City Engineer recommends
project. be extended.
3. Summary of City share of costs on sidewalks and curb and
gutter projects.
4. Order bids on 15th Ave. N.E. - Railroad crossing for July 6.
i
5. S.E. area sanitary sewerage: a) Conway's request for sewer,
and the Pinewood et al annexation -petition merits a reconsider-
ation of last months decision'of Public Works Committee on the
route of sewer line to Doughboy-Parkside Trailer Court area.
A feasibility report on this sewer project is required by
July lst for Municipal Commission. b) All of the activity in'
this area demands that the S.E.,Interceptor Sewer.project be
activated. City Engineer requests that authorization be
-given to proceed with the location survey on it.
C �,<sc.a-we.O;� e—/l-• 'L�'� ._C.' s��-�t=�..-.9.-�, t� ��'•�'� .T� c`..•�_ct-.°.t_� /Z-E-c.o-rr,.-.rte-rc.G•c•I � ^4-Y�c.
"t v-cAt- 1i1 Liit r -.� 11
�J�'�' i\. ..;..d--e_.�l.e�yi..> �,<..r.,..y� GW:_...V..G�� .Y.-•t..' - /C^; G `}
- V •. U (///( ..'U ��..e^--x:.iY ��l��F-lam..-� h•�:'1
':6. Refuse 'Containers - Referred from Council.
:Brush dump relocation ( Gray)
1� �^ n .
�-dot.. . : �--i'u .24 iL.�..:..�.; :,.3-:L.r� k�^a�!/ .7-•C..�j7+V :� _tom`
=8_ Revi-ew-Northern Hills Subdivision problems and Pe nz' requests.
:.:9. Review. costs and assessments on loth St. S.E. from 15 Avenue
::.S . E. to east boundary 'of Slatterly Park. Penz has petitioned
for.this:cbnstruction.
`Finance Committee - 3:30 P.M.
1. Purchase of Refuse . Containers . G%,,y, ��` . �0i, to -I./z11
/L�-t,r.-r-�.-.-�.e_,r..,..,�,.�e.s�-�"--a e�.r�.,.w�ri--t.�' • �'.1 � Gar+_. �ww� .
2. Necessity to acquire street right-of-way if Council approves
final plat of Northgate Eighth Subd. Hearing on Fina,l-Plat
June 1.t�-, �,L�-w--e c
NZc
Committee of Whole - 4:00 P.M. (NOTE TIME CHANGE)
1. Final review -of one-way pair .before 7:30 P.M. hearing.
%� --jt..: •GJJ�.._.r..••r.-C4.+�)./f `-".a�'vW�-e�� �I -y- .1'2.r��-G % 4�! .rY� UJ�C f� Cv/'�✓.-^C�'.5+��� .
1,47
2. Review of Central Computer Proposal (City=Utilities-County.)
/./1.C�� �i�y`_y;,:.-:�'�r G.C-%`c,?:✓f�.�.c.-�:...`'� !'� Ap:LL-�i'�, `�/���// /�� _'?1�
G�`..2.Gt!„s._r� G,.�_ -CG�_ n.. L.�.,t..c1,�t-�� < G� c..-.�� l�°�'u''.�,✓� — �!�!�.,,K.�-,-'�.G�-f Ac:sc.Y
3. Set date to meet with home builders re: Regulations on Side-
walk -Ordinance.
To: Mayor, Council and Department Heads
From: Administrative Assistant
Subject: United Fund.Pacesetter Campaign
. Officers of the United Fund Board have requested that the City
".of.Rochester participate in the United Fund Pacesetter campaign.
,.,The City would be one of sixteen firms or agencies that would
.'.-solicit contributions or pledges _from its -employees -prior to the
General campaign which would commence in October..
The Pacesetter campaigns would be conducted from June through
-,August, depending on the circumstances and desires of the
individual firms.
"The purposes of the Pacesetter campaign were indicated to be as
follows:
1. Stronger feeling of 'participation in supporting
community, state and national service programs.
2. Better campaign through special -attention...
3. Provide a success story for main campaign.
4. Enhance the understanding of United Fund agencies.
5'. Provide a feedback for future United Fund improvements.
6. Opportunity to be a leader.
Under this campaign the United Fund organization will be working
closely with the sixteen firms from start to finish. The Pace-
setter campaign would require no more than two to three weeks.
It was"indicated to the officials of the United Fund that the
City would participate and cooperate in the Pacesetter campaign.
It was further indicated that the month of August would be the
most advantageous time for the City. The exact time has not
been set. --
5/26/70
7
L E. A'G.'. U_ E T. -LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA -;--T-JNICIPALITIES
7
M I N. H E S T Atfi ANNUAL CONVI-2-:TTON,
0- .
.MUNICIPALITIES
3300, University -Avenue S'E.. -
-Duluth.Arena-Auditorium June 10, 11, 12, 1970
Minneapolis, .-:Minn., 55414
Phone: Ar e a --6.12 373-9592'-
T6'.the Mayor and.Council7
/o' the rti-
rb.Y
WC, -have just completed ..the program for the 56th Annual Co.ve,.-.1ion and believe you
n d will-1--fi -it it, fferes t.ir.g f ro7,,i several ports, f viel-.r (see outline attached).
F i r.s' L', t h c. S'P' ju ay. e, r s' offer an unusual_ ra:-.,gr� r.f informed comment on topics of top
priority to municipal o ve r -. i T") ;,-,,n(-- of the gubernatorial candidates
Thursc.'ay morr-Ing a League first' a-L—.:J opporturii-ty for thoughtful dis-
cuss -ion.. -,, ;, c)
'...,�t,co, second;.: -,,d the Le—Islative Corfercnce, our lecrlsla-
in •the workshops a.--
tive. progran'-for'1971 will be discussed a-:d f ;r-d maximum participation
4.
Third,. on, tf�ie, 6ifte tal nment side, the Duluth Most Committee is planning to take
full advanta*6"e" '-int e'rnational flavor of their city, with harbor tours and
hors d. oedii,�'6'sa'r:ipli'n g Wednesday evening. Thursday evening, the Minnesota
Municipal,-.,,. 16s t's' neception before and a dance following the banquet, while
Seymour_ wild:�n' tertain at the ba'nquet itself. The ladies program includes
..a gaLhr tour f ternoon, with a city tour and luncheon scheduled for
Thutsd;�X�,
Advance registration and housing forms maybe found in the April and May issues
.of Minnesota '-Iunicipalities. If you send in your registrations before June 3,
you .'w"ll save $'2
.0-1 each registration fee. Housing registrations should be sent
as soon. as s . -Pos'i b -Te - t b the Convention Housing Bureau, Duluth Chamber of Commerce
T (o t e, the "Rad !ssq.!--.. and i1o'li.day In,-_ are already full).
We urge at tli' Vou:plan no%.." to be -,;ell represented, and look forward to seeing
you in,jbti*luth,, June 10-1.2..
Sincerely-. ours
Dean. -A. Lund
Executive Secretary
7:
DAL/cac
Encl: Outline
14V
66
Cl
_j
League .of Minnesota -Municipalities
-
.56th Annual Convention.- Duluth Arena -Auditorium
:=Out line .of Convention Program
Wednesday, June
10
Morning
"Myths"and Realities of the Housing Problem"
--Anthony Downs,..Real Estate Research Corporation
"Financing Local Government --Role of the States and Federal
--Government"--John Shannon, Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental.Relations
Noon
"Youth in Rebellion--GThat Do They Want" --a panel with Paul
Cashman-, University of Minnesota, and state college
officials
AfAf ternpon
Concurrent Workshops: .
•What's Ahead in Municipal Finance Small Municipalities
Labor Relations -in :the Public Service Problems of Municipal
Meeting -Needs for -Low. -and Moderate Expansion and
Income Housing Development
Utility Regulation Environmental Improvement
Staffing for Fire Suppression Data Processing
Harbor Tours
Evening,Hors
D'oeuvres sampling (Jeno's Jamboree)
Thursday, June 11
Morning. . Gubernatorial Candidates speaking on municipal problems
Noon and
afternoon Affiliated Association Luncheons and Meetings
Minnesota Administrative Assistants Association
Minnesota Assessors Association
Minnesota Association of City and Village Attorneys
Minnesota Building Officials Association
Minnesota City and Village Engineers Association
Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association
Minnesota Chapter, Municipal Finance Officers Association
Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association
Minnesota Municipal Liquor Stores Association
Minnesota Association of Mayors
Minnesota City Managers Association
Minnesota Association of Civil Defense Directors
Minnesota Public Works Association
Minnesota Street Superintendents' Association
Evening Reception and Banquet -- Presentation of the-C.C. Ludwig Award
Seymour Davis, Entertainer
Dance
Friday, June 12
Morning Legislative Conference
"How the New Federalism Operates in the War Against Crime"
Clarence Coster, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
-Noon
510 20 th= Street N. E. - Rochester, Minnesota 55901
.507-288-3868
May., 2`6,,-' 1970
Rochester -Officers:
Mr:.Walfy Mestad ..
...Director ;-
The: Honorable Mayor Dewey E... Day
510.20th St:'N._E.
and Members of the Commons Council
c/o The City Clerk of Rochester
Miss Cheryl Ranks
_ 10 0 ' -City' Hall
Director`of Present '
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
Day. Problems
2030.-31 st Pl: N.W:
Dear Sir
:Mr.'A."c. Hiatt
Director of Finance
We, the White Liberation Movement, respectfully request
2610 22 nd St. S.E.
-permission to walk the street's of Rochester on July:18,
.19-70, in connection with our, march for AWARENESS 'on. , that
Mr. Ivan Koves `
date .
Dir, of Research
1221 20 th St. N.W;:
The route is planned as follows : beginning .on. Third
_
_Avenue at Mayo Park, proceeding north to First Street S.'E..,
- Mi. Scott Dreblow
west to First Avenue S. E., north to Silver Lake Park, west
Director of Public
to Broadway, south. on Broadway to Fourth Street S. E., east
Relations
to Third Avenue, then north back to Mayo Park.
819.1 st St. N.W..
The walk shall start .at l p.m., and last approximately one
Mrs. Wink May'
hour. Estimated participation is three -hundred persons,
Director of
no vehicles.
Black History
14 9th St. N.W.
Please refer any questions concerning the walk, to me:
Miss.Diana Stock
A. L.� Hiatt
Secretary
2610 S.. E. 22 .Street
126 10th Ave. S.E.
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
'Phone -'residence - 288=2538
business - 286-6455
Respectfully,.
.�?;,� r •, y .
A. L. Hiattri
7 �