Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/08/1970_Regular
CITY. OF ROCHESTER: = 70 COUNCIL �IGF,NDA Meeting k3 r,t; .. .. July 8, 1970'_ Regular,, - A. . Ca11. to order- and "Approval :of . 1-•7.inute.s. B. Hearings (7:30-.P M.) ` ,un I. Sidewalk Improvement, both. 'sides of 12th Avenue- N: Ef.- j�✓ze Sidewalk Improvement, East. side of 11-th Ave. N.W-. And south side of Cascade St.-N.W. V� 0- 3" _ . Sidev;a.lk Improvement., South: side Zi-mbro Drive if 'SidewalkImprovement, . apprbaehes to Ben -Franklin school l P :5. Sidewalks; _Improveme- t;. both sides of 15th Ave. rT.W. from 30th.' to 31s St. ,ulei�Q6 p . local Impt ovement, ex -ens ion ".of water ' main at Hutchings Second R eplat , Street Imp -oveigept;- 10th -:Street S.' E ieest of 15tb Ave, S.-E. (Pena), to 8._ Street .lmpxovement,--.9011 Street:; S. E..from. 3rd Avenue..So'E. to -'South -Broadway--,= nal FARM' K-Ma'rt' Shopping Center jy 10.. Fi Ii' 1 1 at, Bracken Igead Subdivision. 1pj �dl o ArendzIents to. -Zoning -Or-dir9nce. (rear yard requirements) 12. Rezoning, Lot s" 12 and "13, Block. 1, northern Heights -'Addition from R-•1 'to B-3.- : 3`, Variance-, front yard -requirement. a;t .207 and 211 East Center.. Street .(city parking. Lets) Variance,. front -..yard re-quirment, at East - side -of-3rd Ave. NiM. between -.1st and tird Street "N,W..'(tiSj70 Foundation)' 15. Variance, 'minimum- lot c7idth (703 -llth `Ave. N.E.) �p �1 -."'- Conditional use; storage .o^f- r-aryned goods At-,=1518 and 1522 Lath Ave.. S..E.' (o1d hangar t�ui_lding) '.6eal. from notice of viclat"�r,n, rrerui:reed -root }-ard_at 307 3rd Ave. N..W' //!/AFLS/Io.PPrn(� CEn/76:_.ne�"�GZ C,rGcrii:rlti,ciial 3iasineu. D, Letters and: <etitions: 1, Letter _froi;a Rochester DPvalcpment Company. E.- Reports Ave,"RecoTmren::laions: 1. Adm., Asst.':: "- establishing position of -City Administrator ( ` 2. . Adm. Ass t:. - request. for -a.-30.2- beer,=1_icense (raipithum ) _ 3.. Adin. Ass-. e Tabulation of bids (sidetiva`l.k replacement projects) " 4-. Adm. Asst'.. Permit to- move garage' (Demtaray) 5.. Adm. Asst. Rezoninc-, .of. the Gri-valay. ,p opezty. 6.. Airport = payryerit for well pump replacement 7. : Airport'- Paint = s.Er'iping agreement T:7ith State= of Mi nnesota= ° - -'8: Airport - relocation of FAA Loca-lizer" Facilit V ` - 94 ._Ci.ty -Clerlt' -Licenses aIid Bonds " 10. E`ngzneer 4_ I erit :.Stec inc-ease EngIneer m F.ina1- consideration o;n one-way street -plan 12; Eng=eer. Sched.uli.ng � of ;o -=.nay street "construction 3. : Engi nee?' Lim.ited parkifig , zones .(1st Avenue 8,14 En.gzneea: .Limited parki.nr zone (605 6th Ave. NIX.) 15. Engineer Sanitary sewer-- a.nd: waf ez "ma"i:n extension: -`n Allendale.. _ 16.., tng veer - Sanitary,, Sewer e. i.eii'sion iri 3rd Ali enue S._ E: 1"1... Engineeer- - -Contract ,for- Local improVement--'(Northerii I.i'lls: lst Sub) 18'. Engineer: St j� .Sewer_ Cons"truction (Nartheir.. Hills is Sub.). 19.: Engineer- Glater :mai22_.erte sion. to P;orther.n Hills Drive .20. Finance ro Award of ,Bids', (Street Sweepdr) _ .21._ .Finance L Arproval of_Bi11S - :✓. 2 22. Request -to purchase Towhip.FireEquspmert �- 23..- _JFinance m Request to- let_ b.ic s for Vacuum `ki it er Repairs. 24. ..,.Music-.:- .Change of� salary for- secretary 25.. Utility.-,-';- .Lease of Hydro 'Eark:.:(Frost Ring, Enterprises.) 26.1_ Utility " ' Release of..Indemnif icat-ion °Agree;nent 27. - .Planning . Appointment .of- 0 eratiorial< Planner _- 28... Engineer"- - Tabulation' of bids; grade:crossing. on 15th--Ave'nue -N =E. Ti 'Resolutions and, Ordinances o = P 1. Resolution .n Conveyance of: .prop-erty-_(708 llth-Ave. N.E )- 2. -E:esolution -- Dedication of'= Sewer=Easement = _. _3. - Ordinance Subdivision -Ordinance (3rd-reading) G. Items Tables :- 1..` Vacation :of : a portion of 3rd Aueo N.1.; (Quality. Homes) H. .Other Business DA -REQUEST FOR COU'NCIL -ACTIO AGENDA vECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Hearings Engineer's ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED' BY- ITEM Gutter and.Sidewalk on both sides of 12th Ave. N. E. C.A. Armstrong NO-i- This hearing.is on the follo�ring .project:• - "Concrete. curb and gutter and sidewalk- on 'both sides of 12th Ave. N.E. from loth. St. N. E. to the North line of Duville lst-Addition", to -determine whether to proceed with the construction. :The sidewalk is inplace running east of llth Ave. to 13th' Ave. N.. E. - This improvement was left off the"1969 sidewalk program so as to include curb and gutter with the sidewalk at -.the request of the.property owners. This project was initiated by'the Public Works.Coiranittee., The estimated cost is $13,005.00 of which $11,373.00 is estimated to be assessed, -and $1,632.00 paid for by City funds. The estimated assessment per front -,foot is $9.06. Council. action: If'.the Council decides to proceed with the project; a mot -ion adopting the prepared resolution and authorizing advertisement for bids to. be received at 2.:'00 P.M. July 20, 1970'would be in order. Attached: Mapo - COUNCIL ACY1(DjA:. Motion by: Second ,by: to: - 1 i ji F r r A. VE to f t _�77F. — F>v (1C f fS j Eli ,' i I F! J' t _I r~Fri 2 'i,. `-.---_.r•-� i -f l� n,• oar ,; �' c,n, f I 1__ -t 1—�y�A�Di7: V _ , !� _ � � 4i � ^'!'__� � - jai, \ \J •. _ '+.. '.� tj _ Zt Tr w, ' I �. i •� ' � t � I { I=U11A t� 4 •.I a C r! .[— All Oil BN JCS wYc { tETo fr _ A .. fir.. - The � previous d�ocu�ment is e ima d..to the p imaged..to 6es,tclual-.1ty poss,i,ble. The original document is of -very poor- . quality. Scanned by Olmsted County Imaging Department kOR COUNCIL pAe pp MtETING ON DA`TE: 7_8-70. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DE PT: Bearings Engineer's. ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: N OB- Sidewalk on East Side of-llth Ave. N. W. & So. side Cascade St. N.Gt. CsA.ArmstronK ?" This hearing is on the following sidewalk project: ..Concrete sidewalk on the. East side of 11th Ave. N.'W. from E?ton'Hills Drive -to Cascade St. N. W-. and on South side of - Caseade St. N. W. from llth Avenue ,to sidewalk inplace West of .12th •Ave. N. W. to determine-whether,to proceed with construction. - A --petition was received in 1967 for the construction of a portion of this project (on the East -side of llth Ave:.'N. W. from Elton Hills Drive to Cascade St. N.W.).. This project was recommended deferred uritil other side- walks were constructed. It is.now recommended to include the South side of Cascade St. from llth Ave. to- sidewalk' in place west" of 12th Ave. N.,•T. The estimated.cost• is $8,711.00 of -which $7,347.'00 is estimated to be assessed.and $1,304.00 paid for by City funds. The estimated assessment per front foot is $4.04. Council Action: If. the Council decides to proceed *.•pith the -project, a motion . adopting the prepared resolution and authorizing advertisement for bids to be received at 2;00 P.M. July �0,_1970, wouldbe in order. Attached; Map. C01-1NCIL ACT1013o Mdtion 'by: Second by:�_ to: I ��.rJ)1J• IIj 1�, j j 1 �� �l`•.��\'-`I�,_ I � � �? - :. . ( .. � ��IfJ ``'/r�ty The previous document is ima ed_.t,o-the p._ - g best quality- possible. The o.r{iginal document is of very poor- .quality. 7-6-713 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING D.EPT: Hearings Engineer's ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: .NO. B-� S-idewalk construction on South Side Zumbro Drive N..W. - C.A. Arcns:tx.onb .� This hearing is on the following sidewalk -project:' "Sidewalk construction on the..South side of. Zumbro:.Drive, N. W. between 5th Avenue N. W. and 26th St.-N.W.", to determine whether to proceed with the construction. This improvement was.petitioned for.by,the property owners,,and the Public Works Committee recommended that the project be extended to include the block between 27th and 26th St. N. W. The estimated cost -is $3,556.80 of which.$3,17.6.00-is-estimated-to be assessed arid '$380.00 paid from City funds. The estimated assessment' per front foot is $4..06.. Council Action: If the Council decides to proceed with the project, a motion adopting the prepared resolution.and-authorizing advertisement for bids to.be. received at 12:00 P.M. July 20, 1970, would. be .in order. Attached: Map. CCU. J.C'fl- AC710J'J-: Motion by: Second :by-. �T to: _� N / I N Cf) co 'E.cnN. -f C. rn I -- ,_�; 0) .w' I m a a) N _14 zCD o / v7 / v — N W }4 N.W Ul cn cn I �. `.� c •. C�\ G� N C c,+ S . / /a �1 V`) I ato _ N 10� to N "—_-__=ram__ ___ \\`\•q��� / N `� \ L- i ro �! r ' a a i �. Lu J � � CD N 5' uitur ',-y_ — — _ YI E SE-tv;�IVT .� I 4T H AV E: N 4TH AVE. N.W. 3RD AVE.. NX AGENDA S_CTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Hearings Engineer's ITE�1= ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: N O• B--7- Sidewalk. Approaches to Ben. Franklin School C.A', A This hearing is on the following sidewalk project "Sidewalk approaches to 'Ben Franklin school," . to determine whether to proceed with the construction. Sidewalks proposed for the south side of.l6th 'Street S. E..- from 3rd-Avenue east to-R.R. tracks; South side of"16th Street S. E. fron one lot %vest of 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue; NoYth side of 16th Street from 6th Avenl_l o iT`th `venue: West side 'of.-9th. Avenue rom-1 t Street .south to sidewa k i7n place at Bea Franklin School; East side of.8th Avenue from 15th Street to.16th Street. This improvement is also requested -by the school administration. Temporary blocktop will be installed. in the large undeveloped bpen areas such as -south side of 16th Street from. R.R.- tracks east -to -one lot .west of 8th Avenue and' north side of.20th Street from 3rd Avenue to 9th Avenue to concrete sidewalk- inpl.ace on school property: This temporary blacktop .sidewalk will. not be. -assessed to the, abutting properties. .These concrete and temporary blacktop sidewalks will help establish direct. routes -to -the school. The estima ted cost i s-$24,807.00 of 'which . $18097.00 is estiala.ted to be assessed and $6,410.00 paid for by City funds.,*.The estimated. assessment per front foot is $4.38. Council Adtion: If the Council decides to proceed with the project,.a motion approving the prepared resolution and authorizing advertisement for bids to be received July 20,..1970, would be in order. Attached: Map.>/ c.s rmstron COUNCEL ACTION: Motion by: Second by.����t�to:�� MEETING DAT E AQENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEP'T: Hearings.Engineer's ITEM: ITEM D'ESCRIPTION:' PREPARED BY: N O•B�, Concrete Sidewalk on Both Sides of 15th Avenue N. W. C.A. Armstrong This hearing is -on the following sidewalk'project-:. "Concrete sidewalk on both.sides of 15th Avenue N.-W. from 30th Street -to 31st St. N. W. to determine whether to proceed with the construction. Construction -will enable children who live south and are walking to John Adams Jr. High to walk on sidewalk in the -final .block from the school. riost .of the other streets leading up to this block have sidewalk on at least one side. This -school -opens this,fall. The estimated cost is $5,688-."00 of which $4,724.00 is estimated to be assessed,.and.$964.00 paid for by City funds. The esti.mated.assessment per:front.foot is $4.04.. Council Action: If the Council decides to proceed with the project, a motion.adopti.no the prepared resolution and authorizing advertisement for bids to be received at. 2:.00 P.M. July 20, 19170, Taould be in order. Attached: Map. a� l COUNCIL AC T 10jja Motion by: Second by; _ � to 1 y_ i .. bb 1.0 Aye' _ t � 7f F I A.Y- ?1!Y . i Lon - L.�1. �1.\ I.N.iti tiy. 1 _o t" .s ��-•• r_-�L --"-.- r•-- �._ �„ •,fir r-- r Ul I'l-U., :':X lei—.�wia. .. - `v/' - • i ON kn o(Z ., AN F ..- % _ 1.{. - "V ` 1 .• _ r j M E E T I N G 7-8-70 . RPE Q .� �. F 0DATE AGENDA SECTION. ORIGINA?ING DEFT: Hearings Administrative Assistant ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: N O,B- j ...Extension of Water Main at Hutching's Second Replat. J. A-ndre This is a hearing on the following -local improvement 'project: "Extension of 6" watermain in 10th Ave._ S. E: from 7th- St.. to 8th Sty S. E. at. Hutching's 2nd Replat." The Public Works Committee initiated this project. The e'stimated.cost is $4,113:00 and it is.all to be assessed. This matter was discussed -at -.the Public Works.Committee meeting June. 29, 1970. After discussion with, the Water -Dept, officials,. the 'Committee _recommends that Hutchings run'a 1,. inch copper service from llth Ave'. S.E., doim'vacated.8th Ave. S.E. and-ba:ck of east boundary -of Hutching'.s..property,,and that the dater project in.'aOth Ave. S. E. be abandoned: S.iiggested;Motion: To .abandon the extension..of w6termain at Hutching's Second Replat.. Attached: Map.. COUNCIL ACTION-: Motion by: Second- by. to; a. ® m � Id �•�i• `S�y �� .. o. ,1110 f� ■�� e i I �� .»..>,. _.�.�. Imo... �.,..�,-• . _ of _ _ •� r� �� � WT KM®:���i � �e1 mew ■r+ MOM Mtn, s BOB •.ta; 6 3 91/2 •ST. SLATTERL SH VE! SI 14 —22 PARK E- L., - R S. E. 1 �A' KI D E 4 I � 10.i/2T. 1 84. DI $ 14 I 4 �.. _LiQ 12 5 5- I I GRACE` . I,i off 'S 10 s MANN G a nVAST. SCHOOL -s6' - a• I �% N?it� q MEETING a l -; C)i�i'�..ACT]�i':. DATE AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Hearings a Administrative Assistant ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY. ' NOB _ /�I Street Improvements. on loth St-. S. E.-.West of 15th Ave.S.E: (Penz) J-:Andre This is 'a hearing on -the following improvement project: f° grading and surfacing of loth St. S. E.. from 15th Ave. S. E. Westerly for a length of 470 feet abutting the Elks Club property' on the North sideVand.the unplatted Penz property on the south - side. This project would terminate -.at the east side of the Park property. which is 220 feet east of Bear creek. This improvement'was petitioned in 1909 by Carlton Pen�,•and a hearing was. held on March 17, 1959. No one was heard•and a motion was passed to proceed with the project. Because the preliminary cost estimate in 1969 was grossly inade- quate and that more than -a year has lapsed since the hearing,'the City Engineer recoa-unended that another hearing be held on this improvement. At the Public Works Committee,Jure 29, 1970, Carlton Penz indicated that he would like -to have the improbement.project abandoned and. the street vacated, instead. 'The committee would favor .a petition _ to vacate this -portion of loth Street.S-. E. if.Penz would assure permanent access to the Water Dept's-.welj.house and park,.property. The Com,ittee-further recommended. that the hearing'onJuly S., 11070, be continued t.o August 3,, 1970. By.this time, Penz will know if he is- going: to pursue this vacation. suggested Motion. To continue to hearing on*said improvement project -until August 3, 1970. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: r, Second by• to: a�•___�.�., $ � r � \ • � . �---� --t— w-.. .-s4 � ` `` C \ Spy �. i T-� T" , 4 L, —' i ' '-.: J � ` - f t' �_-� _ .:.�.4 r• �-. �� jam- �, .. . I t r ARh9iZrS �- 5.����ss�,— ` I• 2 I .. 2 � ifs-B '-REPL" V \ n 81/2. S T. 37 6 .gyp 43 \ \ -IT ------- --- _: _ h,i I w- -.-- t -Q. .tuTr,�1iHG_ 3� \ RFC 1 71, �- —1-6 — LANE" � �} WILLOYD'r5 I SHEFiVEN S� � ,' + i E �n _ BROOKSIDE R.EPL 10 1 S i h. G - BENEDICTS HORACE w >' scFt' au's- ^,AN^I a „NL= SCHOOL sfi '.. �. N-Q= GONDERlifTJ, (4 - 6 78 �- w. "66 - 68 66 - - • -- . S_.E > -P. 2 �'- 6 0. 3+ -66 REQUEST FO" - COUNCIL DATE AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEP•Tc Hearings, ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY` .NO- B-8 Street Improvements 9th Street S. E. J. And.re This isa hearing to consider the following local improvement° " Extension of 9th Street S. E. from 3rd Avenue S. E. to -South Broadway together with. the necessary utilities'. to decide whether to proceed with construction. This project was petitioned on Feb. 18, 1970. Before proceeding.with this project, the Council will have.to consider how they are going to deal with the cost involved. in erossino.the R.R. tracks, and hoer much, if any, of the cost will be assessed to k-Mart.. Suggested Council Action: To close the hearing and suspend any further action until.the problems with -the R.R. Crossing are decided.' - /,I� .• Esc` �(if�ilj�.Loti;.yQ �tsiJ �.�-�� �lt/�-"w✓:2c.s�ri��; _ COUNICIL CT1-0;J: Motion' by: Second by: to: V- C,C 1�:9 •�1� '9 ��r� DATE ..Iul�3, 147f1 -----mac— AGED:DA Sti`TION: —^^ ORIGINA-TING DEPT: ' HEARINGS- CITY PLANNING ^ ITEh1: ITEM pESCRIPrION. . Application for Approval of. the Final Plan for PREPARED 6Y:0.: Q n- K-'tart Shopping Center 1 June 26, 1970 City. Planning and Zoning Commission:, On June 24,-1970 the City Planning and.Zoning Commission.considered the above - described application: We find that'in_general this -plan complies,with.the- ':.provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to-dommunity shopping centers and. to conditions of-approvai of*the preliminary shopping center plan. 'Based on these findings we recommend'that'this shopping - center plan be.approved subject ,to compliance with thefollowing conditions. as specified in th:e .Zoning. . Ordinance: 1. be free-standing sign proposed along the west side of 3rd Avenue S'..E. can not be -located as shown and"its.maximum height will be limited to- .35 feet which is the maximum height of structures -in a community' shopping center.under-the provisions,of Paragraph 47-.020 of the Zoning ..:Ordinance. The applicant's plan shows_:a sign having a.height of 5.0 feet which will have' to be reduced: The.Council resolution required that the sign be.moved•so that it was at least 50 feet .from all property lines as.required by Paragraph 43.072-of the.Zoning Ordinance.. 2. The'illumination'plan of the parking areas and,accessways needs to be shown as -required by Paragraph 47.025'of the Zoning Ordinance.. ._.3. The.screening along the west line of 3rd Avenue S.E. will have to be -done - accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 41.021-of .the Zoning �:in Ordinance.. Council Action Needed':,. 1. The City Clerk should publish a legal notice of hearing .in the Post -Bulletin not'later than June 293, 1970. The Clerk should also send a written.notice. n 1 :..to the. owner. ..2.. -Following thetp-aring ,'the Council should, instruct the CityAttorneY to prepare a,resolution to either -approve or deny the application. Attached: DISTRIBUTION: (1),City Clerk (2) City Plan, Dept. --- 1-1.==f/ eP s(€--the'-6�t--y--Pl:ann-ing-Depa.-rtmn•t--Report C.+ ��..;! L) h`•1 �1.�' �: • 1 , C ,YI • C a. n �' f,i O i I O fl b `f .,...�.�..:.�..�-,.. `S E C O fl G� b `/ : a_.��..r.-o_., azc c,�._ _r.o•. 10 q — X11 , � � .•i� \'� \\ / i—t`\ \/ \fit, /� • S �\i— i �v _��00.. � � 1 —n—'ct�`.` --- ---,r��C`. \'3'1—'3 �. � •. �m � va l?1R `�i � � - co — ,__—_ _ _ 1 GT.ec^.�.sz ac-.•vR" _ ,._ -r.-�wgc � 'zzT•►c?r-�-•�—:-•.�:i _. ___ __ —: _. 2— —3 - -S. ' - i I Fsen , I II six s'o&9 . rya° ���p +'APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF _THE K=iART. PUZA 'SHOPPING CENTER We have 'reviewed the above application and find the following: Name.of Applicant: Paul 0. Moore & Elizabeth Lowry Departmental Review: _Fire Department: The Water Department plans on extending an 87inch main west on 9th`Street S.E. when the .street is extended,west.. The Water Department.is going to run K-Mart's service off if. this extended 8-inch main. The ?dater , Department along with the Fire Department checked this area .for water flow and we found that 4,400 gallons available. Attached is fireflow sheet which shows the hydrants flowed. The main feeding off.of 3rd Avenue.is a 4-inch main and the main coming down 9th Street' -is a..,6-inch main, which will supply -the 8-inch .'_dead end main extended west .on proposed 9th Street. It is.possible:this`may not be sufficient water for fire protection from this source. This problem could be solved,by.extending a 8-inch main west from 8th Street S. E.-which would be supplied by a 6-inch. main from 3rd Avenue and a 6-inch main from 8th _Street S. E.. If this main was extended west.and then further extended to loop the K-Mart property back to 9th Street S.,.E. we are assured of ample water that will be needed with the information now available. It would also be very desirable if not necessary to loop the main in -question. Minnesota Highway Department: The Minnesota Highway Department'has no objections to this pla.t. Our only concern is the intersection of 9th Street & TH 63. If 9th Street is extended to TH 63 as proposed, 92,Street should.either be. closed; or. at least the traffic signal presently there removed. City Planning Department: Findings; We have reviewed the final shopping center plan for K-hart Plaza and we find. the following: 1. The plan in general complies with the provisions of Article 47 of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of preliminary approval as set forth in the Council resolution dated January 1.9, 1970, with the follow- ing exceptions that should be revised: a. The free standing sign can not be located as shown and its maximum height will be limited to 35 feet which is the maximum height of structures in a co-mpunity shopping center under Paragraph 47.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's plans show a sign having a height of 50 feet, which will have to be reduced. The Council resolution required that the -sign be moved so that it was at least 50 feet from all property lines as required by Paragraph 43.072 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. The illumination plan of the parking areas and accessways has not be.en shown.as required in Paragraph 47.025 of the Zoning Ordinance. is scheduled .for a hearing by the Common Council on.July 8, 19.70. d. The screening along the west line of Third Avenue S. E. will have to be.done in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph.41.021 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The property is located in an area that would.be subject to flooding -by - the iateraiediate regional -flood.- The high water level would be about elevation 1004.5. The floor level of the structures in this shopping center are set at elevation .1000.00. Because of the potential damage that could result 'from flooding we recommend that either the floor level be raised above elevation 1004.5 or the building be adequately flood proofed. Conclusion: If the modifications are made that we suggested under, Findings, we would recommend that this.final shopping center plan be granted approval. _ ' 1 • Is C-•-- N�_CA6O NO- "HWEST- E•RN RAI 7 I I i --o707-- No qTM T 19T70 i.�i ` 5 or�r�r. r rr• - III 0i .. y _ m . - ^O�DO Y - • - - �� �•. •. y`i � - _ I>i+lam. .� _ ., .• z`no _ The revious document is imaged -to the p best quality poss-i,ble.` The original document is of -very poor- quality - Scanned by Olmsted County Imaging Department- • �A.PPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF T:RE "FINAL PLAT OF BRACKEN MEAD SUBDIVISION We have reviewed the above application and find the following: 1. Name of Applicant: Lutheran Brotherhood 2. Departmental-RIeview: No objections received. 3. City Planning Department: Findings: We have reviewed the final plat -of Bracken plead Subdivision, and we find that it complies with all local *regulations pertaining to the sub-' division of land within the City of Aochester.. This property would be subject to inundation -from the.Intermediate Regional Flood. The projected.high water elevation in this area would.be about elevation 1004.5 feet. -.The owners should be aware of this andmake necessary provisions -for flood proo,fing.. 4. Conclusion: Based -on the above findings we recommend that this final plat be granted approval. AGENDA SECTION: - ORIGINATING DEFT: [EARINOt __ CITY PLA14NING ITEM, I T E �1 D. E S C R I P-T I ON. Amendments To Zoning Ordinance P R E P,v E U 6/yY_ May 28,. 1970 City Planning Department; The City.has received a -large number of applications -requesting variances in the :•.requiredrear yard: As a general matter -these are being grantedapproval even :.though, they: do .not meet the test for.granting ,a variance. Because. of this. -the - -City-Planning Department has recommended'that the.Zoning Ordinance be amended to -:.revise the minimum required rear yards in the R-Sa, R-Sb, R-1-, R-2.& R73 Districts. .`(See'attached-City,Planning Department, Report of May 27, 1970.) City -Planning and Zoning Commission:. On May 27-,.1970 the City Planning and -Zoning Commission considered the City Planning Departments recommendation to.amend the required rear yard provisions of the Zoning. Ordinance.as,,,,it pertains to the R-Sa, R-Sb, R-11 R-2 & R-3 Districts. We have -also compared this recommendation with the proposed -overall Zoning Ordinance_ Revisions as prepared by Community Planning and Design.Associates. We find that the recommended changes are in.agreement with the proposed.ove.rall revisions.: We also find that the'matter'of-encroaching into the required,rear yard -is of such a•general nature that a new minimum .required rear yard is needed: Based --on these findings we.i.ecommend that the proposed amendments -be approved'. -by the Common Council; Action Requested.; 1. The Council should first hold a public hearing.on these changes. This hearing. has .been scheduled for.July 197Q. The City Clerk should :publish a legal notice in 'the Post Bulletin no later than June 17, 1970.' 2. If -the Council Gushes to proceed,with these amendments the City .Attorney.should Q be instructed.to prepare' ari-ordinance-incorporating these changes. 3. The.ordinance should then be introducted and -•given the required three readings. Attached. Dist.: (1) City -Clerk ""- (2) Planning -Dept. 1. Copy, of City Planning Department Report on May 27, 1970. File .Motion by_...T�.Second by: �;. -ry: tO CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Room 22, Summit Building 717 3rd Avenue S. E. Rochester, Minnesota 55901 DATE: May -27 , 1970 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE BY: City Planning Department THE PROBLEM: During the past several. months numerous applications have been filed with the City of Rochester requesting a variance in .the.minimum required rear yard in the R=Districts as established'in the Zoning Ordinance. It seems. that in the past many homes where located on -lots, in such a way that to make a reasonable addition.onto.the house today cannot be done without encroaching into the required rear yard area. In some cases where the lots have less than 100 feet of depth and existed prior to tiie adoption of the -Zoning Ordinance the rear yard can be reduced.. Also in cases where the lot adjoins a.lake, river, stream, park, etc. the rear yard can be reduced, Most of the applications that have been received requesting a variance in the rear yard -are not legal. There are other alternativessuch as a s'2cond story addition.. This problem is of such a general nature that.if these kinds of variances'are going to be"approved anyway then the -proper. thing to do is to amend the required rear yard provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.' CONCLUSION:. - The proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions program that has been prepared by. 'Community Planning and Design Associates recommends reducing the required rear yard to be,equal to the required front yard. While no -formal action has been taken on this, the City Planning -and Zoning Commission has generally agreed with' the proposal. This being the case the City Planning Department recommends that the follow- ing amendments be made to the required rear yards of the Zoning Ordinance: U _20.05 Lot Area, Frontage And Yard Requirements: (R-Sa &.R-Sb District) Existing Proposed Use Rear Yard Rear Yard Dwellings; R-Sa'District 1 & 1% stories 50 ft'. 35 ft. 2 & 2i stories 50 ft. 35 ft.... U Use (Continued) Rear -Yard Rear Yard + Dwellings, R-S6District 1 & 12 stories 40 ft. 35 ft. 2 &- 22 -stories- 40 ft. 35 ft. Other Uses (Except Agriculture) T 1-& 12 stories 75 ft. 35 ft, 2 & 22 stories 75 ft: 35 ft. (2) .21.04 Lot Area. Frontage And.Yard Regulations: (R-1 District) Existing Proposed -Use Rear Yard Rear Yard Dwellings.; 1 & 12 stories 40 jt. 25 ft. 2 &.22 stories 40 ft. 25 ft. Other Permitted Uses (Except Agriculture) 1 & 12 stories. 45 ft: 35.ft: 2 & 22 stories... 45 ft. 35 ft. . (3) 22.04 Lot Area, Frontage.a-id Yard Requirements: (R-2'District) Existing Proposed Use Rear Yard Rear Yard. Dwellings: ..One Family 1_& 12 stories 30 ft. 25 ft. 2 & 22 stories 30 ft. 25 ft. -Two Family 1 & 12 stories 30 ft. 25 ft. 2 & 22 stories. 30 ft. 25 ft. Three Famiy 1 & 12 stories 40.ft. 25 ft. 2 & .22 stories 40 ft. 25 ft. Four Fami1z 1 & 112 stories 45" ft. 25-ft. .2 & 22 stories 45 ft. 25 ft.- Other Uses 45.ft. 25 ft.. (4) .23.04 Lot Area, Frontage And Yard Requirements: (R-3 District) Existing Proposed. -use`(continued) Rear Yard Rear Yard .-. Two Family 1 & 12 stories 30• ft, 25 ft. ' 2 &.21.stories 30 ft. 25 ft., Multi -Family And Other Permitted Uses l-& 1k stories 40 ft. 25 ft. 2 & 2 z stories 45 "ft. 25 ft. .3- & 31z stories 50 ft, 25 ft. Resort Hotels 35,ft, 25 ft.. (5) Repeal Paragraphs 52.04, 52-.041 and 52,042, These paragraphs deal with rear. yard modifications allowed on lots' having a --shallow depth, or.adjoining a lake, river, stream, creek, park,.etc.•and corner lots. With the.rear yards reduced as proposed these paragraphs would no longer serve a useful purpose. -A �- JulyA 1970./ A.C-ENDA-5ECTION: ORIGINt TING DEP•T HEARINGS, CITY PLANNING ITEr.1:- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition To Change The Zoning Districting On PREPS cD 6Y: NO. �� 'Lots 12 & 13, Block 1, Northern Heights Addition From The R-1 r 1. • T)ict'Yirt- 'Pn Tha R-1 nic4ri_% :May 2$...1970 _ City Planning Department: The City Planning:Department recommends that this zone change be denied. (See -.`attached City Planning Department Report dated May 20,- 1970.) .The. Planning.Depar.tment further recommended that consideration be given to changing the zoning on these. lots to an R-2 District or a B-la District, City Planning and'Zoning Commission:. -On May•2.7, 1970 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition. We find that this property..is separated from the adjoining R-1 District by virtue of some 65 ft. difference 'in elevation_ and.it is adjacent to U.S. 63, Because of the potential traffic problems and -aesthetic problems that -could be.developed at this location if it.were zoned B-3.District we recommend that this petition be denied, We -do feel. that some change in.zoning is warranted in this location and we--. therefore recommend that the zoning on this.property be changed to the B-la District. Action Requested: 1. The Council will hold a hearing on this petition on*July b, 1970.- The City Clerk will have.to publish a legal notice of hearing in the Post Bulletin no later than June 1.7, 1970 and send mailed notices to the .parties in interest no later than June 17, 1970.. 2. In order to change the zoning districting it will be necessary for'the Council to adopt an ordinance Attached: 1. Copy of City Planning-Department.Report of May 20, 1970, 2.' List of property owners. 3, Copy of Land Use Study by owner, Dist.: -(1)' City Clerk (2) Planning Dept, File ,!,J= .Motion by:�> _._.v_. "Second by:. }O N ' PETITION TO CHANGE'THE ZONING DISTRICTING ON. LOTS 12, & 131BLOCK 19 - NORTHERN HEIGHTS -ADDITION FROM THE R-1 DISTRICT TO THE B-3 DISTRICT _ _.. We have reviewed the above petition'.and find''the following: 1. Name of Petitioner:.' -Roderic A. Pagel. '' •. 2. Reason for Petition: To zone property so dental building can be built: on the property. 3.'. Departmental Review: City Engineer My concern with the rezoning of these lots to B=3 would be the -'nuisance. - .. effect of this type:of business -on - the adjacent neighborhood, plusthe ,hazards that the traffic'generated -by- a commercial usage would .cause,at':_ this location. Assistant District. Engineer °We have reviewed the above described--petition-for zone.change and our comments are as follows: 1.. We do not object to. the, petitioned zone change, 2. Access control presently exists along-T.H.'63 adjacent to.-.. .. lots 12 and.13 with a single access opening at a specified _- location. Access to T.H. 63 therefore can be granted only _ at the.specified location. .3. T.H. 63 presently is a four lane divided expressway with no median opening in the area of lots 12, and 13, Due to the proximity of -other median openings, no median can be provided for lots 12 and IL -Access granted'to this parcel therefore can be from the north bound'•roadway`only. 4. City Planning Department: General: The property to be rezoned is located on the east side of U.S, 63 north just to the south of Northern Heights Drive N.E. These lots are situated { on a hillside -having a slight alcove for building. One designated common driveway access to.U.S. 61 exists, but no median opening exists or would _ it -likely be permitted,if requested. Access to this property would be - from the northbound lane. only, (See Minnesota Highway Department comments) The two lots are effectively isolated from.the adjoining residential areas•` by the step hillside to the east. Adjoining residential properties are approximately 65 feet above the highway frontage of these lots thereby. creating an effective separation. On the west side of U.S..63 the property.is-developed.for residential -use -except, for- one vacant triangular parcel.. -.'_ Existing Zoning; The existing, zoning districting. is- R-L -Since, these- lots abut a designated major thoroughfare' they could be used fo_r two family* - dwellings as a conditionaluse. They.could also -be further subdivided_". so that about four lots -could be created each'large.enough for-a:•two family dwelling., This would,necessitate a replat of the -land,.. Land.Use Plan: : Both the city°s adopted Land Use'Plan and the -R.0.1.P-.*S. plan have this area designated as a'general residential use area; <Discussion: The property .under consideration has an elevatioii.at the right-of=way: line of U.S. 63 of elevation 1055 and a'high point elevation:1120.for a differencein elevation of 65 feet. The natural slope of this -lot varies from the flatest slope of 20% to the steepest slope .of 50%. These slopes -in themselves create some,unusal building sites and -` contributes to general construction problems of development_. An isolated office building-in.this location may.not;be ob ec-t,ionable- by itself, but the B73 District permits many other -uses which over the years if the use were changed -could prove to be very detrimental. : Also the matter of outdoor advertising signs would:be- considerably more extensive in the B-3 District.. The petitiorer.is requesting a B-3 District primarily to be able to build a structure -out -to- the -. : property line .because.of-the steep terrain problem'.. .If a zoning: district. is established here that requires a setback that creates unusual hardship_ in construction -or use of the land .then •there may -be grounds -for some variance of the -setback. Office buildings are -first permitted as A conditional use -in the R-4 District or if it is to be a.dental clinic then it would be -outright permitted.' Office buildings'of any kind are first permitted -'in the. B-la and B-lb.Districts." These districts do require minimum-fron-t yard setback. The-R-4 District requires -a minimum front yard `setback of 15 feet be maintained and the B-1a-District.requires a 25 foot set back and the B-lb District requires,a setback equal to -the adjoining, R-District which in this case is 25 feet, - Conclusion: After thoroughly analysing this petition and the existing. and future land use in the area this department -recommends -that -the..B-3 District be' denied..-,:- We do, however,.feel-that possibly some other type.:of land use would fit . into this isolated niche and possibly consideration. could be given.to.an �. :. R-2 District or a B-la District f®r pescsonal service type uses such as a dental office as --proposed; `: APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD ON --CITY 01MD PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 & 211 EAST CENTER STREET We have reviewed the above petition and find the following:. 1. Name of Peititoner;---'__-- it _t_ d. .ALDERYKAM S.JMI)ESE .2. Reason for Petition: To permit the full development of this property.for a . parking lot. 4. City Planning Department Review: General: The property under consideration is zoned a B-la District. This : district was purposely established along the north side of East Center Street to encourage the development of small office buildings that would be setback from the street right-of-way line to complement the cultural center develop- ment in.Mayo Park on the south side of East Center Street. .The B-la District would permit. the outright use of this property for a commercial parking lot subject to no parking spaces being developed in the required front yard area of 25 feet. Comment: In order to grant a variance certain findings are necessary under the Zoning Ordinance. These are as follows: 61.0510 Exceptional Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extra ordinary 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. The City would be allowed to use this property for an offstreet parking area.. The required front yard places a restriction on the use of the front yard area the same as all other property owners must do in this area. It does not prevent the reasonable use of this property. The fact that a few additional parking spaces could be.provided by waiving the no parking in the front.yard requirement this can hardly be loolced upon as an exceptional circumstance. 61.0511 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. All properties along the north side of East•Center Street are subject to the same 25 ft. front yard provision. The properties are of'such size in depth that there is no 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 materi- ally impair the purpose of this Ordinance or the public interest. - In our opinion allowing offstreet parking to be located in the -required front yard would have a deterimental effect on the adjoining properties. The adjoining houses.are setback,from the street and parking in the front yard would ce'rtaihly.detract. from• the. general- quality of -the area. n ,�,+� 'MEETING July .8, 1970 IbS L "g Y' •S.� r ..�+ �:7 u ' a: �i. f l � 1:�,•i � DAT E A +DA SECTION:, ORIGINATING DEFT NI GE 'Hearings - city Planning LTEht ITEM D;ESCRIPTION:'AppliCStion or a:Var ance..to a ve the.. Minimum PREPARED BY Required,:Front Yard to Permit -Cars -to be Parked'up to the ]Property: Line on: Property :Located-; on the East Side-, of 3rd Ave. NW. 'Between. oryr/Bi�Z st. Steet , an n ..tL,. r_ June 26,,_ 1970 City. Planning and Zoning Commission: On: June,.24,'1970,.thd City -Planning Commission considered the above described applies= tion.-`We find that. the Mayo Foundation owns this. property and .the land is situated in an R=4,District.,. The Mayo Foundation is'attempting to provide::offstreet°parking for is staff and patients. Under, the, provisions of the -Zoning. Ordinance there -is - no way that, the Mayo Clinic could provide for accessory offstreet-parking on any other block except the block of which the clinic facilities (Methodist Hos ital'.in P tYiis case)"are situated..:This is because the hospital. is situated in a,`B=2b District .: and'any'accessory offstreet-parking-would have to -be adjoining or.across an. alley ,. and located -in an R=2 R-3 or.,R-4 District. �Nolie,of these conditions can -be met other .than 1. changing the zoning districting of either the hospital or the proposed parking Iotti, -With the.exception of.these buildings this -entire r block is�now:ois ;planned to. be used for offatreet parking. The. setback provision, while -generally_ desirable; ereates-.a.situation.where several critically needed offstreet parking spaces would be -lost° Based on these findings we recommend that .the required front yard be reduced. to a a minimum of-5ft. from the .street right -off -way line -,and that such appropriate shrubbery.:, or bushes as. approved by-the:Board of -Park Commissioners be planted, between the property line ' and-, the parking ares... Council Action Needed, 1 The -City Clerk:should' publish legal not iv of nearing ,in the -Post Bulletin = -.not later. -than .iune 29, 1970. ; The .Clerk should � also "send a' wiritten notice to the property owners notifying them of t&ae hearing. 2. '`Following the hearing, the Council should instruct 'the City Attorney to prepare a resolut to either.approve or.deny`the variance. ' "Copy of . the City Plan�ni�ng. Depsrtaan>t o ® 7CepoSt b - ,. h DISTRIBUTIONS tL J. 1. City,, Clerk - 2. City. -Planning Department +. f' i��^:I�,1ti1`�1�.�0�.Jio PJlotion,y� S'econc➢ tJ L Y 41 L Le a,... n.s a......:.�rm M..c.:a.'ev�-a.rva ' a+•+�••+ .. - r _ T If APPLICATION- FOR- A VARIANCE TO -WAIVE THE,;11IND'IUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD :TO PERt4IT CARS -'TO BE PAI", ED -UP TO- THE, 71(. FERTY LINE-- ON . PROPERTY LOCATED . ON - THE . EAST. S IDE Or THIRD ATE;;UE NORTHWEST BETIIEEN FRRtiS.T.' STI:EET' NOR1,14EST AND SECOND 5TP.EET. NORTH- WEST. We have review the,above application and have found. the following 1. Name of Petitioner: -,.Mayo -Foundation, Robert Roes let- 2.: Reason for -Variance: --(See attached letter:).- 3. Department Reportst: No objections received. 4. City Planning Department: The Application:,: The application requests a variance. from the zoning ordinance (Paragraph 41093) to permit offstreet parking in the -required front yard and -it should -also have requested. "a variance in. the disc -ante. 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 Mayo Clinic. The Clinic is approximately_420 feet away from the parking lot. Findings: A review of -this .site. -icy the field indicates that part._of'.the property is already being used for an offstreet parking'flot Withouta permit This area is covered with crushed rock which -does not provide'for'a dust free surface unless given other treatment. There are no barriers or bumpers_ along the west property line and as a consequence cars. could park o-n the sidewalk to some degree. General:- In order to be'able to grant a variance :it' +is necessary for..th-e- 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: 61:051 Variance -Yin din os 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_in tended use of -.'the property,that do not apply generally*to -other properties or classes of uses in the same zoning district. Using property for an-offstreet parking lot is pet mitted-by•the Zoning Ordinance.subject to. the limitation that no- parking is permitted in the required ,front yard -(Paragraph 41.043) 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 Aot fora-total of 79 __. cars. The applicant°s plan has space for 86.bars .or seven more than would be allowed by the:Zoning Ordinance.. The.distance:that this proposed parking lot ,-is_;away from- the clinic is --approximately 420 _feet. when it should be , no further' ,than ,300 feet.- This..1s _a _ distance-,of,;.:120: feet greater 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 clinic certainly must -have been aware -of them at the time this. - land was acquired -for -this purpose. The'east half of this block along. Second,Avenue N.W. is also being used for a parking lot and no provision has been made for prohibiting front yard -parking..' This department is unable -to find sufficient evidence that exceptional. circumstances exist in this case, since a.properly designed lot would, still provide for 7.9 automobiles., \` .. 61-.0511 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. - Since this property can now be used for an accessory offstreet parking lot;._ subject of course to certain limitations that also apply to a_11 of the other properties in this same area and the granting of this variance would have the effect of giving this property owner the right to-do - somethingthat no other property owner could do in this district. In our . opinion 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 .public interest;. There are two houses adjoining the property to be used for offstreet parking. The, land to the east of these houses is already being used for offstreet parking. It appears that there would not be any substantial detrimental effect -on the adjoining.properties, but then on the other hand by providing -the -required fron'yard space would.tend to give some consideration to the adjoining property -while the houses are still there. 61:0513 Not of General Nature: No grant of a variance ,shall be authorized unless the Board specifically- .finds that the condition or-situation_of_-the specific Plecrty9 or the intended use of said property, for.whiche of,Pro e�- variance is sought -is not of so general or recurrent -a nature as to make reasonably precitcable the formulation of a -,general regulation -for such conditions or situation. It appears to this department that --the matter under consideration is of a wide spread and general nature in this area. Accessory offstreet parking - lots are permitted as a conditional use in.Paragraph 41.12 if the parking lot isadjacent to or across an alley from the B or M District it is to serve. This proposal does not meet the standards for authorizing a conditional use for.6ff6t.reet parking since the-property.is not adjacent. to the B-Distric.t use it is'lutended.to serve.aid furthermore ,'no,applica,.. ti®n has been made for -such,-a conditional-.6sea Only: the-, application for... a variance fas„ bee": ile'da' • �- r� MEE.TING,7u1�8, 1970 €3a , s' � AC � a : DATE AGEP+DA SECTION, Hearings ORIGINATING DEFT: City Planning ITEM-- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Application to Vary the Provisions of Par. 21'.04' PREP�iRED 6Y: p of Ordinance No. 1296 as it applies :to the property located at rd O•p-�S 708 - Ilth Avenue N.E. (Minimum Lot Width) L June 26, 1970 City _Planning -andZoning Commission; On June 24, 1970-the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered the above described application: We find that the location of the existing garage creates ari exceptional: hardship situation -in being -able to meet the minimum_ lot frontage of ,60.feet as,required by the Zoning Ordinance for a. lot situated. in the R-I District. We also find that other lots in this same ,general.area are: some"what less than the now required minimum'of 60 feet and as such, this lot -split would not be detrimental to -,the - area. Based on these findings -we recommend-that.this application be 'granted approval. Council Action Needed; 1. The City Clerk should publish notice of the hearing in the Post Bulletin not later than Aune 29, 1970. 2. The City Clerk should send..a written notice of the hearing to the owner not later than.July 3,-1970, 3-. Following the hearing, if the Council decides to proceed, it. -should instruct the City,,Att rneg to p epare a resolution -that can be:,adopted 4. Along,wath this application P lication for a varian.e� separate to split this lot by metes and bounds conveyance.. I- the variance is approved, then a resolution could be adopted approving the .conveyance by metes and'bounds: descrip- tion. 'This item is on the July-8 agenda under.keso.lution and Ordinances.,- Attached: 1-. Copy of the City Planning-Department.•Report. DISTRIBUTION' { 1. City -Clerk . 2. Ci"ty.Planning Department _ _._�___ _•_ ;F^' r' f'.1 --,'_I a I ��•Ll, i. 'e motion by: Second by: to: �_ 42 S 1 } a 1 708 & 710 Eleventh Avenue N. E. _u fit. '(`, - ' . /�_ €$ �_ �� _ • �S _ 708 & 710 Eleventh Avenue N. E. APPLICATION TO VARY THE PROVISIO ?S OF PARAGRAPH 21.04 OF ORDINANCE No. .1296 AS . :IT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 708'- llth AI�NUE N.E. We. have reviewed the above petition and find the following 1. Name of,Petitioner: Hattie'Kruse 2,. . Reason for Petition: Hattie Kruse, a w.idow.is the owner of Lot 9, Block 5, Blocks 5-6-7 and West z of Block 8, Mohn and Hodge Subdivision,. City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. This lot presently has a frontage of 136.54 feet on 11th Avenue N. E., Rochester, Minnesota and a 'depth of 141 feet. The.present owner or' her spouse now deceased have owned this parcel of real estate since June 8,: 1921. At this time the buildings on this real estate consist of the owners home, a garage and a small house on. -the subject,'property`for which .a variance is sought. The owners.garage is situated approximately.59 feet from the southerly boundary of the lot. The owner wishes ,to sub -divide the lot to_ sell the smaller house for the following reasons 1. Maintenance of this house. is.expensive and the rent derived therefrom does not justify .its retention;as income producing property. 2. ..The owner is an older lady who wantsto relieve herself of the respon- sibility,of-managzng this property and mair_taining the real estate upon which it is situated. The owner asserts the following reasons as justifying a variance in this particular instance-.. 1. The lot.as presently platted is more than twice 'as'large as any other lot in the 700'Block of filth Avenue N. E. 2. The sub -divided lot which would have a frontage of 55 feet on llth Avenue N'..E. is larger and has more frontage on the avenue then any. other lot in the block except the residue lot which would be owned by Mrs..Kruse and'one:other lot. 3. The lot was platted'to its present size -.in 1948 at a time when the then existing 'Zoning Ordinance provided for minimum frontages of 50 feet. 4.,, At the time of this platting the lot could have been readily sub- divided by platting it as two lots'and meeting then existing zoning v requirements had the parties involved in such platting activity had the foresight to -anticipate the future.actions of -the Rochester Common Council. 5. This variance will not change the'appear.ance of this -residential area, because the-lot's in the -subdivision are substantially improved. is 6.;In order to comply with present. zoning requirements the owner would be;"required to move her present garage 3 or 4."feet, relocate her drive- way, reconstruct the driveway entrance from the street and remove several large trees. This would constitute -an unreasonable expense to her and would not to any determinable extent improve the value of the parcel sought to be sub -divided. ' J i 3: .City Planning Department Review: (. Finding's: The statements made by. the applicant cover the'situation generally quite well., The -siting of _the -existing structure could serve as a point' in favor of this variance. Also the lots in this area were -subdivided -some years ago under a different minimum lot -size standard and the new lots proposed to be erected are of the same size or larger than the lots in the area. The existing lot is'136:54 ft. wide -fronting on llth Avenue N. E. and it .is 141.0 ft. deep.. it -has an area of 19,252.14 Sq. Ft. There are two single. family dwellings located on this lot with a single car detached garage in between the houses". The lot is rectangular in shape.. Zoning•Orditiance',Requirements for Granting Variance: In order to grant a variance the Zoning Ordinance requires that four basic conditions'must be satisfied. These conditions are set forth in the following discussion: . 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. The only exceptional circumstance that we can find in this case is that the existing garage is located on the'lot in such a place that to split the -lot and have the garage be part of the newly created north lot the maximum width of the south lot would be about 55.0 feet. The north_ lot would1,have a -frontage of 81.54 feet. If the new lot line was established, on the north side of the garage, then the north lot would be about 64.0 feet wide and the south lot would be about _72.54'feet wide and the garage would be a part of the house situated on the south lot. These lots would meet the minimum standards for lot width -in-the R-1 District. i Of course, another alternative would be to move the garage and split the ,property so as to have a minimum .lot width of 60 feet on the south lot and 76.54 feet on the north lot. This, of course, involves. some expense in-mo�ing the garage. 61.0511; 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. This lot can be subdivided into two-lots:.that comply with the minimum lot frontage, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. -.While-there may be -a problem in working around the garage, we feel this is minor. In fact, if these lots are subdivided in a legal manner they can be used for two family., dwellings which is more than can be done under the owners proposal. 61.0512i- Absence of Detriment: That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will 'not materi- ally impair the purposes of this Ordinance or the public interest. The proposed. lot split in itself should .not be detrimental- to the neighbor- hood.' The basic land use will remain generally unchanged, G -2- The real,detrimental effect comes by way of the'imp`ct this proposed variance will have on the integrity ,of the Zoning Ordinance itself. Thisespecially true when. there are suitable-alterr -alternatives. 61.0513:. Not of a'General Nature: No gra:.t of 'a variance shall be authorized unless the Board'specifically finds that the conditio-a 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." It is"..quite possible that this specific condition is not of a general wide spread nature,. On the other hand there are other stuations where parcels ' of land exist that could be further subdivided. Conclusion: There• -is -ono. important aspect in this situation that seems to have, been missed or overlooked. This property fronts on a designated major thoroughfare (llth Ave. N.E.) and as such the land could be used for two family swellings provided the minimum' lot- frontage is not less than 60 feet and the;ninimum lot area is notless than 6,000 sq. feet: By splitting the land a'spr'oposod only the residual parcel _would qualify to .be used as a two family dwelling-.- The lot with the 55.0"=t. frontage would-be limited to a single family.dwelling. If the land is split so that the smallest lot width is not 'less than 60 feet,' then a two family dwelling could be permitted on both .of.these lots. It would seem to 'this department that the' relatively minor cost of moving the garage could be more than made up over a short period of time'from additional income from the"additional dwelling units. 4. Recommendation: In as'm4h.as there are suitable possibilities so than this lot can be split legally we find it necessary to reconimiend that this variance -be denied. We admit that the,garage is a problem that: -as to be contended with, but: we don't see that it poses a sufficient hardship to warrant a.variance. NOTE: An application has been filed for approval of a metes and bounds conveyance of th°is property,. The Planning Depa{tme.nt has reccewended that it •be denied as proposed. Of course, this variance request.wil? finally -determine the application. i ._, MEG.�u1970DATE��Ly" - c. AGE�tiDA SEC'TION: ORIGINA.TING.DEPT: Hearings City Planning ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTIOiv: Application for approval of, a Conditional Use PRERED BY: / to. use.Jthe buildings at 1518 and 1522 a 4th Avenue.S°-.E. for ' N O'lj-�/ story a I�of canned goods Old Hanger 'Buildings) June 26, 1970 City Planning and Zoning Commission; on June 24, 1970 the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered-the.above described application. We find that these buildings are located..in a Bm1b. District-, and they,are sufficiently removed from any adjoining residential.use.as to be non -objectionable. Based 'on these findings, we recommend that -a permit be granted for the Temporary Use of these structures to store canned goods for the -'period April 1, 1971 to March 31,- 1972, subject to the structure being checked by,the Building and Safety Department. The present use of these buildings has been previously authorized by resolution of the Com6on Council dated April 3, 1961, and it was good for a.period of 10 years. Council Acition Needed; 1. The City Clerk should publish a legal notice of hearing in the Post Bulletin no later ithan June.29,'1970: The Clerk.should also send a -written notice to the owner. 2. FoXlotaing the hearing the Council should instruct the City Attorney to prey -are a resolution to either approve or deny this application which can then be'acted on by the.Council. Attached:' 1. Copy of the City Planning Department's Report. i DISTRIBUTION: i 1. City. Clerk 2. City Planning Department i a •,� "`.� �'�;" �, 't;{,(1�� -`a• motion. b Second b to. Old hangar buildings at Lobb field. Old hangar buildings at Lobb field. OF* SURVEY VAYO FOUNDATION Survey made for -LOT ~ . BLOCK MEADOY1 PARK 6TH SU8•i3 soo _0 th S Dascripticn cf Pro er 83 - '� r 252 l� l 15p-00` -- cJ•E o _� O E3LOCK 2 0 0 -� CJ. pL �.° o r 1.4 Q a � f cA - \ p 1 4 O _v 0 1 5_ 9o0kn 1 66 o s� h - 1 1_ _ -154 1'k ia�S 5 Y E4SEh1ENT �> a ;_1Q O'uTI.L to v _ BRICK SC i t 11 o 1 = I C c, o p. j . \ DOCK _6_) v M 4� TA I 14AN4EP Note — °j \ Lots 8, 9, :and 1.0., Block 1, Meadow Park 6 'C Lot 16, Block 23. .Meadow Park 6 ` I h,a:eby certify that on 18 AUOU; are owned. by petitioner. There are -no I have sur v- Vod the a0 ove r, sc; is e i cr o_ e said survey, cnci that, I }:ave z:Iac�ci iron structures on these to;ts.. The nearest structure is on Lot 15, Block 25, ;Ieadow Z T Park 6. APPLICATION FOP, APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO USE THE BUILDINGS AT 1518 AND 1522 FOURTH AVENUE S.E. FOP, STORAGE OF CANNED GOODS. (OLD FLINGER BLDGS.) We have reviewed the above application and we.find the following: 1. Name of Petitioner: Mayo Foundation CSC TUC- EXl $7{,c�G(o yii�%GG2 �(J�cD I,U�S �►� '2. Reason for Petition: Tonsc--storage,-1-r�r�$. r 3. City Departmental Review: No objections. 4. City Planning Department: General: The applicant is requesting authorization to make use of the existing old hanger buildings that are situated on Outict A, Meadow Park 6th Subdivision_. This lot is zoned a B-lb District and.the existing buildings are located as shown on the attached map. The nearest adjoining lot is.70 ft. to the north of the buildings and this lot is owned by the applicant. The build- ings are proposed to be used for storage of canned`goods. Zoning Ordinance: Paragraph 61.0322 of the Zoning Ordinance provides as.follows: 61.0322 Temporary Structures and Uses: The Board may authorize the temporary use of a structure or premise in any District for a purpose or use that does not conform to the regulations prescribed elsewhere in this Ordinance for the District in which it is located, provided that such use be of a temporary nature and does not involve the erection of a substantial structure. A Zoning Certificate -for such use shall be granted in the.form of a temporary and revocable permit, fornot more than a twelve (12) month period, subject to such conditions as will safeguard the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. Since these buildings are somewhat removed from the nearest residential development and that the use is for storage of canned goods it is our -opinion that there should be little disruption to the neighborhood. Based on these findings we recommend that a temporary and revocable permit be issued for 12 months for the use of these buildings to store only canned goods. The applicant to check with the -Fire Department and -the Building & Safety Department before using the structures. r AGE,•'DA SECTION: Hearings _ MEETING ,Jul £i,..1970 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Planning - ITEM* ITEM DESCRIPTION. Appeal from the Notice of Violation. Regarding PREPARED BY: N Pafking'in the Required Front Yard on Property Located at 307 O• �l� Third Avenue N. W. 3 June 26, 1970 City Planning And Zoning Commission: On June 24, 1970, the -City Planning and Zoning Commission considered the above described appeal. We find that the owner has offstreet parking in the required front yard area on 4th Avenue N;. W. side of the property., He has made provision to eliminate the front yard -parking on the 3rd Avenue N. W. side-.. The interpretation of the requirements' .of the Zoning Ordinance were made correctly by the Zoning Inspector and we the,refore, recommend that this appeal be denied.. Because of the unusal circumstances involved inthiscase, we have suggested that the owner make, -application •for a variance to be permitted to provide some offstreet parking in the required minimum front yard.area. Council Action Needed: 1. The City Clerk should publish a legal notice of hearing in the Post Bulletin not later than June 29, 1970. The Clerk should also send a written notice of the hearing to the appeallant not later than July 3, 1970. 2. Following the hearing, if the Council decidesto deny the appeal, as recommended, then it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to that effect that can be adopted. Attached: 1. Copy of the City Planning Department's report. DISTRIBUTION: .1. City ,Clerk 2. - City Planning Department bys-}..�.. sf+.L�i, Motion :- Second by: to: Y � � yy ♦ o 4th Avenue frontage 307 3rd Avenue N. W. . 3rd Avenue frontage 307 3rd Avenue N. W. APPEAL FROM THE NOTICE: OF VIOLATION REGARDING PARKING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT -YARD ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 307 3RD AVENUE N:W. We have reviewed the above appeal and -we find the following: 1. Name of Petitioner: Robert C. Neill 2. Reason for Petition: May 27, 1970 David T. Bishop This letter is to serve as an appeal from the decision of the'Rochester Zoning Inspector_, Mr. W.E. Voelker, date May 18, 1970, in which Mr. Voelker cited a violation under -the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 307 3rd Avenue Northwest owned.by sir. Robert-C. Neill, and in particular notedthe violation of paragraph 41.093 of Ordinance No: 1296, citing off-stre'et'parking occupying required front yards and attaching a map, a copy of which is attached hereto. Mr. Neill as the owner of the property in question notes -that his build- ing permit was obtained from the City of.Rochester for the construction of this building a few years_ ago after showing a plan for off -street - parking exactly as he has used it and as he hope to continue to use the property; namely with ten parking stalls runnning west and with two park- ing spaces to the north of the building in the driveway previously existing and on the west side of 3rd Avenue Northwest. These twelve ...parking stalls are .shown on the -.sketch and map drawn by the Zoning Inspector. Mr. Voelker cites the reason for the violation on-4th Avenue Northwest as a front yard setback requirement. Mr. Neill.states.that he cannot possibly have two front yards for his building and should not.be required to do -so and needs the off-street parking stalls as -he previously _.has used them and as he has-been using them ever since relying on his building plan and plot plan -submitted at the time he obtained the building permit. The citation of the requirements for the two parking stalls north of the building on 3rd Avenue Northwest.appears to be a discrimination -against Mr. Neill for the reason that.no other buildings in the area are required to park cars behind the building line. However, Mr..Neill is willi.ng.to extend the blacktop to the west:far enough as to be able to accommodate cars being parked behind the building line if he is -advised that the requirement is to be uniformly enforced., .- Mr. Neill has signed the attached appeal form as obtained from the City of Rochester and incorporates his signature on this form along with the letter, signed by his attorney, as his appeal from the above decision. 3. City Planning -Department.: Background: The owner's statement outlines quite well the situation in this case. Comments: 'The applicant states that he received a building permit a few years ago for this structure and the off-street parking in the required front yard. We do not question this, however, Paragraph 60.00 of the Zoning Ordinance states as follows: "Any permit or license, issued in conflict with the.provisions of this ordinance, shall be nul and void "and of no effect wlatever." From this it is quite clear that since parking in the required front yard is'not a permitted use, this property is in violation of.the Zoning Ordinance even though a permit was issued. The applicant further states that he can not possibly"have two front yards, In the case of, a lot or parcel of land that is under one ownership and is-designated'as the land for building, when it extends from one street to another so as to have.frontage on two streets, then the .lot does -have -two required front yards'Paregraph 52.002 of the Zoning Ordinance make this clear and reads as follows: 5.2..002 Double Frontage Lots: Building on lots having frontage on .two non -intersecting streets need not have a rear yard if an equiva- lent open space is provided on the lot in lieu of such required rear yard; applicable front yards must be provided, however, on both.streets. Conclusion: From -the above analysis it is -quite clear in our opinion that the notice of violation issued by the Zoning Inspector was based on a correct interpretation .of the' -provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.. On this basis then we recommend that the appeal be denied and the order of the Zoning Inspector be sustained. . - 'QUEST �'�`� gg /� � gg 1 MEETING 7e$-7.6 6 a2 ��1,'_3 .f �•.r j! DATE AGENDA, SECTION: ORIGINATING DEP*T: Letters and Petitions City Clerk ITEM: ITEM -DESCRIPTION. PREPARED BY. N 0.D-1.1 Letter from Rochester Development Company. . E. Reiter Attached is a letter from L.N. Ekstrand, President of Rochester Development Company,. concerning -the possible City operation of three offstreet parking lots.. ROCHESTER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY July 2,. 19/0 The -Honorable Mayor and Common Council City Hall Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: Monday evening, June 29th, the Mayor and the Common Council as a Committee of the whole met with members of the Board of Directors of the Rochester Development Company. This meeting was.in re- sponse to the letter of June.19 from the City Administrator to Mr..Virgil Elliott, President of Rochester Auto Park, the opexat- ing company of the ramp owned by Rochester'Development Company. The letter is attached hereto. Prior to receipt of the communication of June 19th, Mr. Elliott had had_ numerous meetings with the City Administration with the objective of working out a plan whereby Auto Park would enter into an agreement for the operation of the three (3) offstreet parking.lots referred to in the letter.. The information that the City was now seriously considering a direct re-entry into the parking business and planning to charge ten•cer_ts per hour on the "railroad lot" between Center Street ar_d'First Street Southeast is a matter of grave. concern. The Development Company and Auto Park believe the "railroad lot" will add greatly to the convenience of downtown parking; it is in a far better location for shoppers parking than some of the marginal stalls operated by Auto Park._ The companies are of the conviction, however,. that municipal parking operations and privately operated parking cannot co -exist. The let.ter.of June 19, underscores this conviction. The rate charged,by Auto .Park for parking in this same area is ten cents per one-half hour, the City proposes ten cents per hour in a facility which on the average is better located. Auto Park rates are amongst t'he.lowest in the country for cities -of this size. Priv.ate..operation must charge an economic rate because -the private operation has debt, interest, real estate taxes and rent to pay. The municipality is.tax free, pays interest at a low rate and or - can tap sources such as the meter fund to._buy its facility and them charge a rate which in .fact is subsidized by the public. The contest is not equal. Prior to construction of the Auto Park facility downtown., business men attempted to interest the City in construction of a ramp and general improvement of the parking facility then.under Municipal operation. The City did not wish to make the heavy commitments necessary for ramp construction .choosing.,instead to encourage private development on land to be leased from the City. e R. • • 'The -Honorable Page 2 July 2, ' 1970 Mayor and Common Council Rochester Auto Park and Rochester Development were formed"and borrowed $500,000 from the SBA and local banks. An additional $140,000 of debenture notes were sold to 'local institutions and individuals. The leased land became fully taxableas did the structure being placed on it. With the consent and encourage- ment of the Municipality, private or.ganizat-ions made long term commitments to third 'parties who loaned money in good faith for this enterprise. Realizing that a re-entry directly by the City" into the parking business could jeopardize"the solvency of the -private enterprise and thus to protect itself .and its creditors the following language was incorporated into the lease with the City at the insistance of the companies organized for this purpose. "The intent of this lease -is to enable in-terested and responsible private enterprise to provide offstreet parking for downtown Rochester and to relieve the City of- Rochester of future commitment to provide whatever additional offstreet parking might become necessary. While no future action by the City to, provide additional downtown parking facilities shall constitute a breach of this lease,,the City recognizes a moral obligation to take no arbitrary or unwarranted action which would impair the investment of Lessee in the parking facility provided by this lease". Since 1963, the.first year of operation and through fiscal 1969, Development and Auto Park have -paid the interest and the in- stallments on the SBA and Bank loans the balance being reduced to $313,000. The -original $140,000of debenture notes- are st.ill- outstand_ing and'the interest is in arrears in the amount of $48,100. During the same period these companies paid taxes. and rent on the ground lease with the City totaling.$425,412. The total facilities under the management of Auto Park operate at approximately fifty-seven percent of capacity. Now, Auto Park an-d Rochester.Development are confronted with the possibility that the City will re-engage itself directly in the parking.business a reversal of the earlier position in which private -enterprise was encouraged to make long term commitments to third parties for the improvement of the downtown parking system. In addition it is being sug.gested that the rate to be charged on the "railroad.lot" less than one-half block from the .nearest Auto Park facility, yet in a far more' -convenient location be one-half the economic rate that Auto Park has to charge because it cannot build public subsidy into its rates. If the Mayor and the Common Council conclude that the City is to re-engage itself directly in -the parking business, the Board of Directors of Rochester Development Company -has no alternative than to request that the Municipality assume the obligations of Development and Auto Park and place the operation.under City -The Honorable Mayor and Common Council Page 3 - July 2,1970 management. The Board of Directors of the Development Company hold that the action contemplated -by the City is not only arbitrary and a breach'of the lease but a grave.'threat to the solvency of the companies. Yours very truly, L. N. Eks(�t.j and Presiden nn Rochester e .opm�r� X ompany Enclosur .f r; "J.1 11i90 T � I Q. - �H DATE. MEETING - 7/8/70 _"QUES7 FOR COUNC tIF-11 AG'ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports & Recommendations Adm.' Ass't. ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION. PREPARED BY: N 0. All Establishing Position of.CityAdminis r � V Request Council -approval to establish .the: position of city Administrator and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance setting- out the duties and authority of the position." Attached is a proposed ordinance. The proposed position has been reviewed by the Mayor, Council and administrative staff and found to be acceptable. The additional duties.and authority of the proposed position of City Administrator overthe present positionofAdministrative Assistant and:. 1. Recommends the.appointment and removal of department heads' and the authority to appoint and remove all other -subordinate personnel and to delegate such authority. 2.- Reviews and gives immediate attention to all communi- cations addressed -to the Council and determines method of disposing same. The above are the substantive differences of the two positions. A 1C, T' EL' ill: Motion by: Second by: -to:. There is hereby created the office of City Administrator.. He shall be chosen by the Council solely on the basis.of his train- ing, experience and administrative qualifications. The choice shall not be limited to inhabitants of.the City or -State, but shall be a citizen of the United States.- -He--shall b-a appointed- . -for an indefinite period and shall be removed by the Council at any time. The City Administrator shall have the following duties, except as otherwise provided in the"City Charier. 1. Coordinate the administrative functions and operations of the various departments, divisions and services of the City Government, and on behalf of the City Council to carry out the policies, rules, regulations and ordinances adopted by it, relating to the adminis- tration of the affairs of such departments, divisions or services. 2. Recommend the appointment and removal of department heads and shall have authority to appoint and remove all other subordinate personnel, except the Mayor's office -staff, and to delegate such authority. 3. Recommend to the Mayor and Common Council for adoption such measures as he may deem necessary for the welfare of the people and the efficient administration of City affairs. 4. Cause to be prepared:the annual budget and submit it to the Mayor and Common Council. 5. Receive and give immediate attention to all communica- tions addressed to the Council and determine method .of disposing of same, provided -that all correspondence legally requiring Council action -shall be placed.on .the agenda. 6. Attend meetings of the City Council -with the duty of reporting on, or discussing any.matter concerning the affairs of the departments, services -.or activities, which in his judgement the Council shouldbe informed. 7. Perform such other duties pertaining to his position as the City -Council may require. of FOR':" -, '�>� tC 9 N EJ MEDATE s 7-8,-70 AGENDA SECTION:, I;- $ ORIGI_NA-T.ING,..DEPT:' Repoxts Arid Recommendations 'Administrative Assistant = ITEAti,:• I-TEM p`ESCRIPTION:• PRE PAR.ED BY: N O•E- P:equest ;'for ;a one -day 3.2 beer license. ( Ramthun) Jo Andre ' This is 'a request. by Tir. Don' Ramthun of the befit Line Tavernfor a one --day • ;- 3.2 beer license in -conjunction with a. softball,, game, involving the Minnesota Vikings. -Softball Team to be held July'-19., 1970,, at Mayo Field. _ -..The -Public Safety Committee considered -this i=equest at- their -June 29th- meeting., The P-.ublid- Safety. Committee_ recommends that this: request be•'denied due to the _ 1-fact that. -;such requests have•. not been granted in the' pas-t, and it wa-s also '. felt .that this would -.not be -a desirable precedent ' to. establish; .: �s��"� MI., It AC �' 10IM Motion by:. -' Second by: � tO ' .� � t ... M EDAT E G 7 ;�8=70-- AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DE PT: ,Repokts and Recomrriend.ations Administrative Ass:'-t. ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION:, PREPARED BY: N,O-E-3- Tabulation of . Bids - : Si dewa-lk Replacement Projects J. Andie Bids a:re to be- received at 11:00 .A iM. July ;8,- 1970', for the fo-1lowing sidewalk projects:.. 1e Sidewalk Replacement P•roJect No. 2501-2-70 2. Sidewalk Replacement "-Project No. •2502-2-7- .3. Sidewalk:Re-olacement:Project No. 2503-2-70 4. Sidewalk Replacement Project -No. 2504-4-70 -5. Sidewalk.Replacement Project:-No..2505=3 4---70 • A- tabulation and recommendation - of these_ bias will be sutimi tied -at the _ council meeting:.... Suggested Motion: To approve the recommendation and. -resolutions accepting the bids on each project. The.Engineers estimates --are: _ Project No. 2501-2-70. $12:,56:1.74 - .. Project No. 2.502=2-70., 5i297.75 Project No.. 2503-2-70 : `.5,04.6.39 Project .No.- 2504-4-70 6,559.25 Project No. 2505-3. &. -4-70- 2,247.72 > �' 9 CGUIN'CIL , CT-110 J Motion by:. Second.by: to. - ® 1�C:Rl-- ACT I � �� MEETING D"AT E • 7-5"70 ,�. _ _ AGENDA SECTION: 'ORIGINA,.TING- DEPT: P.epor.ts and Recommendations. Administrative Ass-istant ITEW ITEM D-ESCRIPTION: - PREPAR-ED BY_- NO•EW' Permit 'to Move Garage- J. Demara b - �. y) J: _ Andre A .request- has been received from Jerry_ .Demaray, __I202" 12th Ave, N. E: ,. t'o move- a, garage, f.roM the same address to a lbcat�ion outside 'of"ahe = City. = this The permit fee- for -this building.- is -and -such building .is to be moved, along such--route..and. at such' time _as' may: be specified -by- the -Police 'De-partment.. The, garage will have, been moved by the time of the. Council.meeting. Council Action -Requested: Approval of above -permit. GOL-1 P-JC IL ACI'IO :. Motion byZ Second by to, _.. � ( - �"� �..' �. �' A Tj0N- MEDATE G 7-fi«7D".., AGENDA. SECTION: - - ORIGINATING DEPT.: - - Reports and Recommendations = Administrative 'Assistant ITEM: .. ITE-M :DESULPTION.. .." ` PREPARED BY•' 14 O• E- Rezoning of the Grindlay Property •J. Andre- -,This'is a request for -the -Council to considerholding -a hearing on. a '. -petition to.'change thei zoning .districting on `the Grin. property = NV. from R-1 to R-3.: ` This petition was considered. by the Planning pnd.'Zoriing Commission_ -- on •January , 1.2, 1970. The Planning Commission -stated that .'this hilltop-:. area would .:be a suitable location for mu] ti�fanily • land use; .and: that _ = =such :a -proposed use would also fend. -to make- the development -of this area - economidally-. feasible-,' They. therefore recommended that the-- petiton be granted approval.: Qn January.l9, "1970 .the Counc l-referred•'this-matter to -the P.W:C. to look into the matter -of vehicular access" to the hilltop: --The Public Works Committee. felt" that -the problems �associa_ted with this access drive, in terms of -construction costs, maintenance, and = liability,'are bejond the"oblioations-�that should be assumed b, the public streets system-'an'd therefore . recommend - that this access drive be considered as a private drive. : - Council Action P.equesteds- To order a-.r.2aring to` consider ",.the rezoning of the Gr,indlay :property.. UUN.CIL. ACTION:' -Motion by:- Second b.Y: tO. s ,.----�-- �.. , 2 • w M E:E-T I N G:: 7 8 70 _ E' ® �� U U]-„ . °AxC- ='�` �'� DAT E. AGENDA SECTION:. Q-R1GLNhTING "DEPT _ Reports;&'Rec`ommeiy ations. Airport Gomm s on ITEM ITEM' DESCRIPTfON " EP;A�ED BY Statement from Water .Department /- N O for: Replacement of .'Well Pump at Airport __- The -Airport -Commissions recommends : to the'.Common :Couricil-`that- the City of:Rochester-Water`--Department be reimbursed--$6;410-'.. ;.- for the .replacement of =.;a well: pump= at t1-e'-Airport Last March- the well pump, at the Rochester Municipal. Airport ; failed and"- had; to 'be replaced S� nce:,this `single well is the :Only -..source .of - water-, this- em— r;gency work was done under_- the direction of ,Glenn .-Marek;--.-Supt._ of:- the-Vatar..Dcpartment --: Due... to the failure -or the substitute pump a.-, second pump had .to -be airlifted; to --Rochester.. ,from Oklahoma The Airport was without _. water:: for 10 drays ":during which: time tYe„ Airport, arranged,: for tankers to-- supply the ; fac.zlity, wi=th. 'water. _ -Att S:tat-ement There are unexpended 'fund resulting from the cost of re' -locating the Local-izet `.during last. summer's _construction sufficient, to - - - cover this--remoursemerit It .is recommended that --'payment be - - made from -;these funds - . . 0ily9�l9:....I fv.� U�_. "M`ot�on by Second 6y to _ ;' - AGENDA, SECTION:"' ORIGI:NATING-DEPT: . -� Reports &"Recommendations Airport Commission ITEM- ITEM DESCRIPTION: PRP, RED" BY' Paint Striping of- ./.: NC i 7 Agreement with State 'of' Minn. Airport .P.unways JaMes .Andre The Airport. Cor miss -on recommends Ghat the `.Common Council _ authorize the Mayor' and-- City Clerk. 'to -execute- the agreement_ for _ "Paint.,Striping` of" Airport :Runways", 'between the State oaf Minnesota and. the: City-of_Rochester: This agreement will enable . the City':' s " Agent to receive .as-sst- ante from the • State of -Minnesota 'in repainting. --the . runway surfaces :if --.they so' desire. The "City.s -Agent ^iheAirport .`Company, will, - obsorb ,char_ges,.to, the City in --connection with, this agreement. acid s =-prov"ide , the necessary: manpower :to. -accomplish- th"is -painting. Att:. Letter-& Agreement,. CGU. H.�.�I ACTI0v.: -'Motion bye - Second 6y, to::. _e • qy p M t t I ING 7/8/70 DA AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports &Recommendations Airport Commission ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: P D BY: Relocation of the FAA Localizer Facility t The Airport Commission.-recommends.that the "Bill for Collection" from the Federal Aviation Administration in the, amount of.$1,720.OQ be approved "for payment and execution. This is Final Regional Billing involving the relocation of the Localizer at the Rochester Airport in-connection•with last summer.'s construction.' This -bill, is.a reimbursement arrangement in which ' the City will recover 75/ of the amount, The "Bill for Collection. should;be submitted to McGhie & Betts, Inc. for submittal to .the State of' and the FAA for reimbursement -to the -;City. -Att. a sh ACT IGIN Motion by:Second by ��-�� •to.,. �q � MEETING Juh 3.-:197; Y4��a� uE3 � -©,a ��.a�i���ti � Y AGENDA SECTION::.= , = O.RIGINA.'TING DEFT: - T?enorts �' Ptecoruiiendations zigneering Bent: (Traff:ic) ' ITEM:'-.. ITE"M D`ESC-RI-PT ION: PR.EPARED.' BY_ N O �rortrr So,uttr. One-�?a Street S �s,tem .n CBD - - S' '_ Jack Dolan_ The ___ou cil-, after discussion as a committee as a c•rhole ` ion Tune 29ah, recomriencts the ' adoptioa of a resolution -giving ...f-ormal approval -of the Alorth=South One Tray i. Street. Systen in the Central' Bus_iness,D strict;: with the 'primary 'street r . alignment described as follota Alternate- A-1 The- Southeast, diaconal: connection bet7,reen Soutn- Broadway at 9th Street and-First`Avenue Southeast at East "Center:" _. � Street. = Alternate B=l The Nlortheast--connectiorf .,on .First -_venue East 'oetween- - East. Center. Street and -.-north Broadway -at: Thirteenth 'Street. Alternate 3_=4 Tae' Northwest diagonal- connection between NorthBroadway,,.at Sixth. -Street .and Firs=t` Avenue- N.T? at: kest Center- St-reet.: -_ Alternate :A-4_ The' South_trest. diagonal- connection between -First Wenue S.?q..:. South'- of" Sixtii, Street and ^:South .Broad:*,iay near.inth Street Plans shoe?ing the alignment of the One -,.Jays- i•dll,l)e ._available ac the Council -'meeting..,. 7. R.rs U_HTIw CIm ACY..4Motion. by - - econc3 - - _ 5- 6Y: to ..�.��� m Wa1• bL61 �►n ��n0�n �n 0 nn�—I 9 Hi8ON7Z ������s��s��e�w�se��w��!• LID UE Z N O� E=l U co U z 'M'N 3�d aNZ z z ? PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR CW41P, ETI.Oy _ OF O IE-WAY=STREET PLAN J Pre Final . Year Boca-tim- Desi nn- Design '- R.0.W. Const. Signals 1971 a=.1 & B-1(1st, Ave $4,000 $4,-000.,: -•.. 97,000.- . $7,5;000:;', _. E-. 2nd St.-S. -to- 2nd N. ) 1.971 .. A 4 23,000 23;000.'- 245,000 971...- A=1 28,000 28,000 20.6,000 - 1971. B-1 Subtotals 721000-55,000 `15,000.- $750;000 45.1,000 97,000 1972-. " -... A=4 325,00;0 1972-. .:, A-1 264,000 1972- B-4 161;000 _ Subtotal's_ -- _ $750,i)00 425,00:0, 325,000 1973-- B=1 17,000 138,000 -. -. 1973 - t-4 10,000' : 1,0.,000• =. 179,000 �. 1973. A4. 209,000 137,000 ' SubtotalS '10,000 _'. 137,000 $750,.000. 2.7,00-0 367,0,00 209,0.00- 1974.° I -. B-1 143,000 402;000 58,000 19-74- . ".. A: -,I 147;000. Sub .to.tals :'.`" 143,000-549;000 58,000 $750000 1975 B _1, -. 219,000 103,000 - 1975 A-1 383;000 25,000._ Subtotals , - 125;000: _ $7-30 000 : 602 OOG Total Cost $3,730;00 Note Portion of ,Total - ::r `.. i l.. i �� `�5 t }'^-�a?r r` n`. i ''� .a..--�15.,xi..�' `"c y4r •� iYi'-.gen,+-4 S"`r�'i , c ,e,,,e t.c'"wtl X� `±`""+u .zsi ,� �^� .�'i<-.- ..�F'�-F K. ', l — - r 777 9y - si n S 7 L 317 713 _ rn ? rq It LI MY rr--{-.- r l.Y-�,....,,. :_._-.�....�.:------ t �, ' �f3I -a-Ph ����sv���Q �������� _ MEET`iMC July r,.,7-7.. DATE• • = _ .- - ' - - _ 4J - ; -.� r F .. _ _ -- �i• _ '. : .. . _... . r . , .. ., .. .- - _ _ _. ..- . . - - ...�::. _- - -4:'I AC,_EPIPA SECT.fON, -ORLG.I_NAT-IN,G DE PT r - .` _' — . .. _-. -' .. -. _ - I ecommendat"ions _ �.� z n _ _ ITEM �, SCRIPTION':,: = '; liEMt D 6 , PP.EPl RED Qom :_ L N- - Sanitarl:'Se�•i-r aid :7a1-etm' ?z _LX'.ten�� o z 1 1 � - - 1 C• f�• `�� "�� �; i, _ - - - a _ -. - y �-�° t ,.. _ - - ' -. _. . . <, , ,I- - :. T�-i Public Ubr'� —Committee' recommends that, a Io:ca1. InDro.vcaierit. project_ `- r. • Le initza-teci for ?tie=follo,aln ;cozstruetion - - -_ :' " E�tens.Yori of Sang tarj Sewerand- ''aternaiii:: to " _ -Lot - -0 . ii Allendale .S'u'udivasroi .'` p- - _ -' - - - = Council Aeti on : Adopt :eso�uti on fobm 2- !i: - :. - - .. ;ordering easi=ozlity Deport . - _ _ - . ,. - .. -, _. . -. %'�! �- Y _ f• :.: . ._ , . _ .. . _ .. - . _. ,, ,. .; - .. _ -. - _ _ .. - :' :.. .. , , - _ - - _ - _I . . - .. _. . - - . . . . _ -: - - .. . -_ _ . . .,. - _ - - :. . -. _ i' - - . . -, -. ' .. . . . ..y, .. _ - . .. .. - - -. _ _A ,d .. - - - - = - .. -, +U�.eCf!_.C`g..j. le Motion bY= Second, bX-> to =• �:: ,—. ,r ,, o. _. • . MEET•IN Pr � ��' �' U e 8 J97c AGENDA., SECTION'. OR1 G`INATIN'G .DEPT: ' Recommendatioris Ci ty- Engineer 6921-1�.70A ITEM _ ITEM, .DESCR-I PT ION. ;' . PREPARED ,6Y: NO Contract ,for Local,In,pro-vemen,ts'oy,o�•:ner Nort'ern I?il]s :,lst Subd.' �.A. _�rmstrong s' The Public Works Comtittee� recommends that the-: Ci.ty.,._cbntract with Owners-. (Perez,--Larsan, '& Gill) to construct`at their. expense-t:he-follot*ing' _ P ro j e"c.t : _ -"Part 2 of-J-6cal Improvements ir". Northern --Hills Fi:rs.t -Subdivision ' excepting ,storm se>>er�-,in :Northern Hills Drive:" - - The owners 'have asked to; .do -,this work. . The City will proceed�aith, a= Local .Iinprovemen.t -assessment _project -for - cons.t`ruction-of the storm'-ae;•ier which will b,e_-assessed. pa-rt1;J to: Northern - Hills- T� rst Subdivision and. partly to other property. , -Council -Action:: .-A contract and resolution approvino_::t-, has .been prepared:-: for- adoption -. if tie =.Council* approves this .request. _ _ Note Letter' to; -city to to;prep'are. contrwc`-7/2/70, . 2. T; I'9 GL E '44 M up Pp I° Mo.jon by: S b:y. o'��fi. .tip d:.. Yam■ econd . r o . 'MEET-ING Juls S, 197; DATE AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING- -Recommendationsengineer - 692i-1 70B- ITEM 1TEM.:DES-CRIPTION PREPARED BY. Storm-. Setaer Construction in ?ortnern Fills '�irst Subd� vision C..A..,Armstron -The Pub Iic•:Tdorks:. Cbminit te6.3 recommends- `that --the Council initia.te' a Local Improvement ' proj ect °for- the - following-: Construction ,.... _...: ' . "Storm Sewer f, nbtruct oa` ori. Northern Hills, Drive !1_..E: in, `Nlorther`n Hills First- Subdivision": „ The costs- of: this project hill be assessed to .i;ortherri I?i11s.First Subdivision in proportion .to thet cons-truction-neade&.for its area alone,. and the, balance of costs. wi11 :be deferred; to; the -_balance of. the drainage -district for :future assessment Council Action:_.: Adopt P._esolutori Form 2-A _R'eceive: £Y eas bilit Aeport - ' ``'"� '���" � i - do�it resolution Form -3-A ordering -hearing. w0, H,'CE . 11 C � IClF"'e Motio"n by Second 1 _ - _ _ - _ - - - - • _ _ ' - _EETG IRLv g; AGENDA SECTION:.: _ ORIGINATING :DEPTa �ecommtndations. - City. Lngii et 69?1-0-7� IT --. ITEM- DESCRIPTION: N O;-f- ,r�terinain- '?11-1s PREPARED- By, _. tension to 2Torthern give __.. �. - .: Armstrono- The Publi c. T'oxcs Committee recommends tfiat alie Council: initiate a Local•- improvement -project for. the- follo:� ng cons'ttuction:- = - "[dater�iain Extensioii "from 2�tn"S.treet ;d;h at: IOth Avenue - . _ -NA?..: to �?orthe•rn. h lls rice i:L.". This project 1s necessary. to pxovide-water service _to tn`e high level_ . _ area.. of .�Tortn'ern Hi lls Subdivision.: . Easements foi ,'its .construction throug% unulatted lands ;gill be required, ., - A l�.rge or of its _c"ost tril] - be deferred- assessments:`.• 'Council-,4ct�on, Adopt Resolution Form 27A E.: 1r,p` ,-a'���' E�F.waC[� .tits �.YF11 Motion by: -Second �' y. to': r ;u3 jl I,II , , r e] I I )✓. I .I� �t� C+:'! 7-1 I !cn CO z t t i { I I {I. m t i✓ ED m_ C+ F--t ! , ! - i • j . ' , I i I F'• I' I I i ` I C� I: I I C+. C+ ! !Ca.:. LIM i ! C7 C y E !� C_ z !! � -�co Cl c!.( I I ! _! I I ' I I i O I t�• to c ❑ 'ct- ! ! I ❑ 'I I w to I ❑. f i j -1 �' o r i . ;� , - - m CO I � f .. �. - I' I' A• _ � I I j .. Y• j. it Z I CAru c Oi C L7 ` ! � I •I _j - I -' ' Q i it tl r I ( !!� 0 i] aro - � 'Al �• 1 flo a `I--fm-ch io ! o tl ; !I f'T--i-f Uh ❑l to o to Fhy E ! tJ cq - o v I = it .He j ! r !- ! I I !7 0 C� o C7 1 I I 1 o' -I I '•� , , i I [D 1. i OF ;-J '� ?l_J it I:I G.• - { I. io' O. io . COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: T to: =AGENDA`�SKTION: ORIGINATING. DEP`T:. REPORTS & -RECC 1f,EnDAT10NS... - FLNANICE. ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RECUEST TO PURCHASE TCLINSHIP FI9E.-FIGHTING EQU.IP.,ENT _ED MCLINE NO•�. Request what e.:res' olution°be'adopted authorizing the Cite Clerk- to -advertise for bids to be opened at l'1:_45 ":;.'P'i, July 27., 197[�, for `furnishi ng the . following equipment for.: the. Fire Department:` - (2) Truck chassds .and`_ cabs Fire, truck. body_ with a •1,000 gallon tank. -and eouipmen.t 'Fire truck bo' dy wi ih :a 1;000 GPM :pump. and.equipment Request that the Purchasing-.Agent.be authorized to obtain 4uotaticns for furnishing the following equipment in -with ,specifications,: Four-wheel drive pickup truck Skid. mount fire fighting unit - 2700 feet ❑f.'f ire hose t C3) two; freguency•mobile radios (1) two frequency portable radioe . - •'mil"r - - - - - _ . • ' i nI 4 I v�\ r_� — ��' ia-t�y :� Motion by: Second by:_ s to: _ ,, = AT QUEST,A aOM.CTP Mtti IN�(7 A ;ENDA'�SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports,and Recommendations Music. _ ------ ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PRE fEQB: O-E_ �r Change. of Title -and Salary ',for- 'secretary / C. Haas The. P.A.C. recommends that.the. title of the person --presently filling- = ` the position of secretary in the. music_depatment, be changed to_.that of assistant manager and -.that .the .salary._ be increased. from the present $2.50 to- .$3.00 per hour, effective July l,- 1970a Reason:. In additionto secretarial work she assists -the manager in lining- J up musicians,-doing.publicity work, taking care-of'.personnel problems, etc-. :It -is understood that -this. is e part-time position of'about 20 hours n per. tie k e �v®U76a�4,,- 0se Motion "by: Second .by; to: �� s MEETING 7-8-70 } AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: _ Reports..and Recommendations Utility, ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: N O•E- Lease o-fHydro Park t,o•Frost-King Enterprises; Inc. Andre This -is a• request by the Public,Utility.Board-that the Council authorize said board to enter into a lease agreemer_t with"Frost -King Enterpr-;ices, . Inc, for the lease of. the Hydro Park property. _ The lease will run for a period or 10 years at a .cha-rge of $50.00 per yearn The use of ,the Hydro'Park property will be "limited to maintaining a park- for picnicking, camping, trailer "parking, ;boat access to"Z.umbro Lake and boat livery purposes-. The City will not,be responsible- at any time fo=r. maintaining- or improving 'the'- 'is to p-rovide-the necessary, insurance,' property, and leasee The lease will be subject -to, termination for.default of its terms..' Suggested Motion: To approve the prepared resolution authorizing the Public,Uti1'ity Board t.o-enter into -said lease-and-directingthe Ma' o r.and'City Clerk-_ to execute the lease agreement. ....H CisL "4� AC J �8 � MoPion ..b.Y;... Second b-y.- - -- —�, Pb: _ MCCIINU AGENDA SECTION: .. ORIGINATING DEFT: Recommendations Public Utility Board ITEM: IT-EM DIE SCP.IP-TION:, PREPARED BY: N-0 Rel-ease-'and "Indemnification Agreement G. Swanson "Public . Uti•l i ty Board The Pull i c U A pi ty :Board recommends the execution -of a Release' "and . - Indemnification Agreement concerning fi.na•1 payment to the Keys Well. -Drilling - Company under .a contract in the total amount of5',694.00 "This contract _ Is, part of .the- addition .to:'the power plant.- Legal-Depa.rtment:_ The Rel,ease,an'd-Indemnification Agreement is approved by the City - Attorney'§ :offi.ce..' . . U ER. � tl��vJn. Motion by: - Second .6Y:.- _ to .�--_u ' I I. r, ,� �. :� Q _.<<.. �. M.E E T I N G ].-8-.]�� n -- ST Fop . o �p C `�.$ � � z � � DATE: AQENDA-SECTION: ORIGINATING. DEP'T: Reports and Recommendations Arlmini_strative Ass't ITEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: , n N O•E 1 Tabulation of Bid - Grade Crossing on 15th Ave. N. E.• J. Andre Bids are to be received at 17_-00 A M_,_ .July 8,1970 for the y following project "Construction of a. grade crossing on 15th Ave. N. E. r across the Chicago Northwestern Railroad track." The Engineer's* estimate is $13,588.55. A tabulation and recommendation of these bids will be submitted at the Council, meeting. C 0 U C1 L AC T 0 Motion by: Second by: ��_ z to:.y-- �.a > r �� • ,� n E �� a'.VIM DAi C g 'c f .. Y[. l�.'ciJ E- ✓.S - Y•�-_i'�i•. '�W L'i 'i �_ .. AGENDA ST"CTION: CiRI.G.I•NA.TING DEPT: Resolutions and -Ordinances City Planning ITEh1- ITEM' DESC-RlPTION: -Application for Waiver. :of Compliance With The- PREPARED 6Y:, Subdivision -Ordinance To, Grant Approval -To The Conveyance of N O' er Property By Metes '& Bounds Description. Locatedat 708-11th Ave. N.- ��/►� June . 26, 1.970 = -' _Cit� Planning, Department: The City Planning Department recommends that this lot split -be -denied: (See.'attached -- report for, further explanation':- See also application for Variance to reduce -required minimum lot frontage of -the Zoning Ordinance.as_it affects this:.property.)CQ ^/,S Council Action Needed: .l. If the-.Counc-il.-approves -the variance,. then it*can approve the.attached resolution granting -the requested conveyance by metes and bounds description. Attached:. 1. 'Copy of the City Planning, Department Review of'Application Requesting a,Wai.ver of the. Requirements- of --the .Subdivision Ordinance to Convey Property by 'Metes and' Bounds Descripti:on.•located at 708 -• llth Avenue.N.' E. 2..-Resolution that can.be-acted on'if variance -is granted. DISTRIBUTION:,. . . 1. City !Clerk 2. .City Planning Department l.';`i�,�s,�a.I a•�I•t i.:. motion Second by'• to. DIVISION ORDINANCE. TO GONVF3..'YKUYiK'L:Y:'tSY rlli<LL'. i:ANll '-YUUNllJ ll�bGiC1Y11ViV Name: of Applicant: ' Hattie Kruse -- Address of Applicant:.. 708 llth Avenue N.E. Rochester, Minnesota- - -_ .address city state TO: MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL PREPARED-BY:°City Planning Department Tde.have reviewed the attached application requesting a-waiver.of -the requirements,of the- Subdivision Ordinance -to approve the conveyance'of property by. metes and bounds'descrip-'. tion and :we find the "following:. (1) The property involved is located in..the: R-1. Zoning:District. (2) The new lot (�i� ) (does not meet.) the minimum x x)na& lot frontage requirements of the R-1_ Zoning District: (3) The .new -lot (has) (Cctx) ample build"abie :area. (4) The remainder- of the parcel from which the conveyance is to,be made' (meets) (dc�ixxlfxi..the minimum lot frontage and lot• area require- ments of .tile _ -R-1 Zoning -District. (5) The remaining parcel (has):(d tx:&aw l ample -buildable. area;: . . (6-) The various utility companies. have- reported (no objection') to this conveyance and they'(,hW (have not) made -(any) requests for = ad ditional,utility easements.: (Explain) (7) This conveyance : (does. not). 'involve -changing or rearranging- any existing dedicated public streets or: -utility easements.. (Explain) (8) Miscellaneous comments: The minimum lot,,fr.ontage for -newly divided -lots in -the R-1.Distri6t,is 60 ft, ,If the garage were moved this property -could e su` divided so.as to meet this minimum'requirement also because the Pro;- perty fronts esignated major thoroughfare: these two proposed lots could e used lor two famIfYiellings if they have 60.ft. of frontage.and 6,000 sq. f This application (me (does not meet) a13 ro:f'. the minimum lot frontage :s_c . -ore requirements of the; Zoning Ordinance. It W (does not) interfere with,the purpose.. of -the Subdivision Regulations, ht (cae�-(does note comply with:the.provisions of., Section 41.090 of The Rochester .Code of Ordinance:.- - " Based.'on,the above findings, I recommend that theconveyance of the property, as shown on the attached- copy of -the- Surveyors- Certificate, ' be '(.bran ed-ap_iroval) (disapproved) ,~ _ Tom '0. Moore: Operational Planner City Planning Director - May 29, 1970 Date Date Metes and :Bounds.Conveyances': FORTS NO. 2. Attachad" Copy of application and City Planning Department's Recommendation, resolutidn.for--approval " 5=29-70 �. q i MEETIN.-CIM8 70 ,�';�°`G.a�3�I �.:.� "�1i; DATE AGENDA SECTION:' ORIGINA-TING DEPT: Resolutions City Engineer. ITEM: ITEM DESC-RIPTION: PREPARED BY:,. N O, F_ I Dedication of Sewer Easement C,A. Armstrong _ This is a dedication of an easement for sanitary sewer on the Glest.10_ feet of lot-26, block-1,.Norther-a Hills Subdivision, for future sewer extension in this area. This dedication -is -gear eL by Floyd and A1arian Larson, Robert and - .Beverly -Gill, and Lowell and Darlene Penzo The City °Engineer reconunends `acceptance of this easement.: - Council Action Requested:- Resolution to.be prepared by City. ,Clerk to Council for adoption.- 0 U N1C I- ACT10N Motion by: .a.� Second by: ,to . ,."sar az `�F�U �. C91 _ACT n� MEETIN.G�SQ__: AGENDA -SECTION; ORIGINATING DE PT: Resolutions,& Ordinances. Legal ITEM: ITEM DE5CR1.PTION: PREPARED BY: .i NO. F:'3 Ordinance - Subdivision_ Regulations G. Swanson a -This .is a, proposed ordinance regulating the .subdivision of land. • _t it provides 'in detail the information -that -is required, to be included_ on a plat; and,the--procedural steps to be followed ='.A copy. of the: -proposed ordinance* has been submitted' to the -Mayor and ' .'Council. First reading given" on5/4/70 .-",Second reading on 6/1/70 -. ..Third -reading given on`Za Adopted : on / /d CGUINCfL A.0 Y 10uj-: Motion by- Second by. -to: MEETING 7 8t4,70 `REQ L.'ST :.6 1?..� ? :i DATE AGENDA.SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT: Tabled 'Items Administrative Ass't.- LTEM: ITEM DESCRIPTION: . PRE PARED.BY. NO•G-. Vacation of a -Portion of-3rd Ave. N.: W. ua.lity.:Homes �r r Q J Andre• This is. a request for..the Council to, consider holding a hearing on ,- petitions to vacate .a portion of 3rd Aver N. W. _ On October 15.-, 1968, a petition to vacate the west half of a portion of 3rd Ave. N. W. was filed •by Buil2.ers Land Co. ` On November 22, 1968,. a -•petition to vacate ttie -east half of a portion of 3rd Ave. N. was - filed by Quality.Homes. 'On October 31,-1969' these petitions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission'. Due:to the fact. -that it is .-not permissable to vacate only one-half of a street,: it vaas- determined that the .City.nee'd' to -enjoin in -thepetition .of Builders Land -Co::, to •make it a legal _ petition since City' owned- Park property abutts. this street on the east. The Planning Commission stated this proposal `was - in- accord with the ; genera? plan .for the ,deve?oprdent of this area and' that this street, was no longer needed since an alterna-te route to. the land fill site had just _ been opened on 4th Ave. N. W.. Therefore,. they recommended,tha-t the City enjoin in' the petit,i,on- so -the-street could be -vacated. This -matter was considered by'the-Council on .November 3, 1969, and the Council voted to table this item indefinitely. At a meeting of the Public Works Committee on June 8, 1970, a representative of Quality Homes asked that their. petition be' given consideration. The Committee discussed this'matter and recommended that this vacation should be given -consideration at t`his-time. Council Action Requested: - To order. a hearing to consider,the petition to vacate said portion of 3.rd Avenue �I.: W.- Attached:- Ma =. p:- 11AvTZ Motion 6y: Second. by, -to. NOTE- CHANGE -IN ✓REGULAR COMMITTEE. MEETING TIMES-., Standing Committ.ee.-Agenda. Summit Building June , 29 ,. _ 1970 PUBLIC-= SAFETY: COMMI-TTEE 2 : 30 -^1 c 00, P .,M. 1_, Sun -set Terrace,' PTA - -(John Fuc$s) -'Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 5 2. �%j�,...� �..; . �= s-n�. •�=::� ; - .. Cw...s- -//i ]`� ✓, U-,�w;.l� LU �C?'---r-���tLe-�.�,_.-�...m..�-.�-sJ `� ,f�-P - - PUBLIC_ WORKS COMMITTEE - 1:00 - 2:30 P".M. 1. Hearings .on (4y new sidewalk projects. and (1) .'sidewalk.. with ,curb and. gutter- Bruce-Cherland-_ is request' :.ng a reconsideratiion of sidewalks.on.1/lth Ave. N:W. rrC /V. ail 2'." -Regizes.t :by Carlton Penz. to. abandon the grading -and Surf ac.rig of 10 th -: S t S-: E . from 15 th Ave. to Bear__ Creek . -.Mr. - Penz- will ; ask- that, the-- City.- vacate this as a .public street C" 11--t.-rn'-�trsl..r - . �._c.eL1..r: •-Yr. �ca..�.� � ./'L^'-• �c.1,1.Oc.:- �: C.�t-'1 3 , . ,�•ti,{ G�.�o. �;;�L_., .. .�,�...�I �"�o ter, i�r.;e,Gt-2- %�2, yt✓1..�L.�r� -; �� 0 /._ .S = • 2. 3.--- Northgate Eighth-Suhd., acquiring of Street right-of- way.: Decision needed 'on how -this project Will,,be : ass:essed_as-.it relates."to the :improvement-of;..2Oth St., N.W:.before- -.property owners are -approached -on the: dedication- of- "ri.ght=of-way: --.. 4. Discuss the request of -Libby -McNeil for sanitary sewer: extension. on 3rd' Ave. S .'E . from 12th 5t , to 13th- St o t -3- • 2. Film on sanitary land -fill procedures by Caterpillar • Tractor Co. (3:30 - 4:15 P.M.). 3. Sewer Rate Study (4:15 - 5:00 P.M.) 0= 9 e:�.�c 0.J �`.JJ✓ - _, .`-_-v�-�rrJ .'�-r/✓�i%.,c.., (Y�i-motif � . . � ''� p �.�.�,.a�c�-r f� ' .mot ���,�...;: 2 � � G,,,.y.�:.-lam.'--� :;,•r. �, �/.J-�?- _ t! .z->-'-_� .��,5:.-�._.-,-. � . STATUS -REPORT-- -SURYS.- ` Zumbro River, -Minn.^ (Review Survey),"' As=of '=31_March 1`970 Flood Control Studies District -St. Paul.,=Manni,` Division: "North Central: _t n ep t : t y . Au horizatio - A review r or ' wss author b = _a House ' Public Works`Committee resolution- adopted 5 March 1952.--'Under this authorization . an- interim survey i eport. covering ahe_ problem ;on the . lower-- reach of the . Zumbro River between Kellogg, and the mouth '.was' _ submitted on-'21-December.1962: This -status report=covers continuing .' =investigations -in the vicinity -of'-Rochester .,'`. _ 2 Public --contacts.; - An' initial public hearing was 'Yield,at: " = Rochester, Minn-„ ori=24 October.1963-. The Corps,was.-al o>r""epresent-; ' ed at. thr.ee -local. meet ings,'s.cheduled, on ll -;August 1964.,- 29 March ;. . ` 19:65,.:apd'-14 September= 1966 by --the Soul Conservation Service. Nine_ E _ additional meetings . -for discussion of plansrere-�-held with local _ representatives.. - 3 Interagency coordinati. - All agencies having an- -inter-• C est in the study, were' advised. In . a:ddi.tion:, :supplemental-` contacts • -= weremade with representatives of he Soil Conservation Service, as that .agency is conducting an investigation of =the: basin. above Roch.� ester der the,.provisions 'of=Public: Lase 566 . °Several meetings be - work of the Soil Conservation Service and 'the Corps " were- held to determine the effects` of improvements being:.,considered by the., SCS on :flows.. at Rochester 4 -Problems :and solutions '=. The major iremai.ning flood .prob-, lem in --the basin is at Rochester; :located on the South 'Fork. 'of the ' .. Zumbro;'River about -80 miles above".the mouth. 'Rapid. expansion_ of" that eommunit _n recent ye ars_has:resulted it y' unaritici;pated-.growt.h in areas subject to.: frequent fl oodi'ng.. Tre :flood probleia:, at Roch= .. ester- is, ittensi;fied _'by -the physiography, of the region which_ is - such that ,Cascade, Si ver-;;and -Bear ,.Creeks- all .,have: their- confluence - with _"the =South Pork within-- the -corporate limits of ='Rochester...: Solu- tions of .the .problem:involve reservoir-storage.:above the: city and:' -channel improvement through the city:' Plannimg Will. be.coordinate,d with the'Soil Conservation Service:.planr_ing ,in the area.• Progress �to date,,,on.field'and office- stitd,ies. .- 5 _ _ . a -Prior. -to 31.;Decembe'r 1T� - A �Plan' Y - of survey wa submit- � - t.ed on- b December and- was . approved,: by N"CD.': 6n-,11 December :1963. $ec:-. ond,-phase.investigations-were-under 'w,ay- praor to receipt~ of- direc tines requiring=`Div_ison approval-.before-uderti�ng such.: investi- - :. _ gations. -However', _a Checkpoint II.. conference be scheduled.. for STP - 20 71 = .Division revieyr prior to report . completion. _Field -surveys:. and mapping .for determifiatioi of-chanhe1 .condl tions, at'`and:in the vicinity of:RocheSter; flood damage data; and = preliminary _work" for. the -`economic .evaluations were .made: Prelim - `in.ary analys-s'_ of "a dam and r.eservor.on -the South Fork. was also _ made-...--. TYiis ,analysis 'indz Gated. _that- further -study of :the reservoir should b,e_ made.: -.Thus.,. :a damsi to survey: and preliminary foundations,: ' data were obtained Preliminary=stre'M regulation studies. through Rochester for about the 50-year flood- were completed. Pre-liminary. costs 'for chtznnel' im rovements and- a� dam _and reservoir on .the South p Fork were obtained. Necessary controls were established ;Flood data 'were : obtained -from the --high flows experienced, at Rochester in. .early March..1965; Studie's.,-to define :,the :effects of upstream reser voir .controls on, flood _flowss: at .Rochester we -re -made and -bridge costs -for channel improvements - through the, city were".estimated:._ Charnel'desgn ,in the:vcnity, of certain restri°cted; bridges and an" existing low.dhe-ad. dem. -were revised Studies' to_ define the effects. of upstream reservoir. control on,. -flows „at', -Rochester were completed and results furnished. to the-. SCS: Preliminay plans y �rere --discussed. with. h. local int`e.rests on 14 Septem- b-er, 2 .N,ovember, anl= 2.0, De.cember •1966. Coordinated: plans`- of the Corps and the Soil Conservation Service .were dies°cussed further :-with d.17 'February" 1967.:-".Furtherlocal interests: on. 1-1 any- study`of" possible alternatives was_r.equest,ed. Studies of ,alterna-' ,_ -tives were continued -ar_d a.;meeting was held at ,.Rochester on- 30, Janu- , ary 1968 °with- local sponsoring- groups :.and -representatives_ of the Soil: -'Conservation Service.. Local sponsoring groups by resolution indicated -support .for , the plan •of improvement:'consisting of channel- improvement. and -Soil Conservation_ Service -,reservoirs:. Detailed hydraulic `and- design studies -:required- for, project formulation" were started. -- A .coor.dination-(conference was held with city: -officials on::29 December. 1969 t' further" diseu8s.:the mitigation measures, -and illus- construction-"of'thnnel-iprvments,.Loc;altratethe impact of officials "reaffirmed their "aupport for the: plan ° of improvement. ,would -include the:channel•,enlargement.and -Soil . Conservation Service:= -reservoirs- that would provide ° protection =for the estimated 100-year., :.flood discharge: 'b: Subsequent to 31: December 19.E_9 -"" On 22 January" 1970__ _ neighborhood meetirigs were -held with_ property owners -along the Zumbro.:River-- _Bear Creek and7 Cascade .Creek. areas `'to :,discuss proposed. channel ;improvements General _concern_ was" expressed over "the aesthetics ''of the _channel design. - - _ 6. Proposed schedule -of operati"ons.; -- Continue , coordinat"ion -with.the Soil Conservation_ Service aril local"interests Hold _Check Zumbro River, Minn. (Review Survey) (Cont) point II conference, complete final designs and submit a report. 7. Presently approved schedule of submission. - Date of submission Scheduled. Actual By District Engineer FY 1971 By Division Engineer FY 1971 STP - 20 Rochester Common Council U Dear :Sirs: At appr6xinnte.ly 6;45-..A.M, on- the morning of June. 15' my mother.- -s:�.'ent .to _the baserent of our residence at 2-161 St, 1,7.IL, to ° unlock the basement.-door,,At that time she discoyc;re.d-that the ;,.=hole -,basement "t,as: flooded; -.-the cause of !which iras unl:no n -.to - .her at that time,.I. had -iiy_-lawbooks stored in -the basement at that -time- and my _mo..ther- began removing them u7-stairs„ .At. approximately 7: OD A. IS. , -iit-mother. anwakened me and I helped remo ie the 'boolcso At -around 7:15 T. get -my. father from the Silver L-Rke-'railer Cto_ across the `strceto T'liE. cause caws still unlcno*m to us, r�uuedfately after,- he -arrived, my .father told me to -call vp the public utility Deft, -I -_spoke to --a. NI:. Blakely -at aroun.d.74.15 ,,gave him our address .and lie• informed me that - a •ipan would be- out right away. Auer waiting about:-'10' minutes; I again called. andP4r• Blakelymain told ma that - : atrttc': had--beeri d.i.snatched. The- truck did not ' show up, and I called for a; third time-. This time I. spoke',.to another individual u, o told ire - that a sewer, was :probably backed. un and that .he would notify the = -city -eb. ineer,'s .dent. fit• that time -.noticed that water ;was runnin f rom • the: sewer on =16th 'stree t,- At about - S :l0 ..the �r_g i nee?• * s 7ep !t -arrive --and proceeded to unplug the seq.rer.•o. An- ' nsnection: was made of -:.the flooded premises b`r e toloyee°-s "of -the City En?ineer's Dapt, " as ll as by :an engineer -from the_ Daptt. -Resi.des gem erally.water- logg'it g -the : *whole ' basement area the `water from the bacicQd 'up -seater caused 'the = ; foilo=wing -damage; _ a, the destruetion:.oi 18 'color photos ' of; `a European --Trip - $ 0 _ b.. Irreparable Damage. to the .f611- ng Law Schoo? . ldate ials a; A -_Course- out l ine, o I +siness Associations. $3 ' _ b...11 'Course _ Out-1 ine of "Ta , l ..course $5 - c-.. E1 .cottz.se out l ne on Secured Traris'ac d� A course ottt:line � Ott Modern Real' rsta.te. -S5 ea '.i'ext 6n Agency and -partnership $20. by Steiferi f, Text, Hornboo,t on Contracts by Si to :on "• 7 g, Text ran -must a.zid Estates. -by :Ritchie, A1Brdp, and -Ef- : and 12 ; Topical_ Law Reporter o ..Tak-by C. H; I. Prosser on Torts9 Hornbook $12 . J. Text on Real by-lloyn)khan- .$7 Te:fit on Estates - l,-- Lana by per, :in an-d IIasl:ill -$8 Lo . Black? s Law Dict ionnry . }12: course-. Outline --.in _.Cqnst tutional L w— $i - N. Course Outline in T6rts $7 0. The Unif or~i .CoTnL erc i-11 Code $4 V ttention to this -ma tter by the"'rspaytient -of damage - suzferered -proximately by, the. bac'I ing up. of the -sewer will -be. appreciated¢ - n •'. .. - A . _7 .r. J, 1'. -- r _d _6M uh Ko a tson' J� er WTV nd-I �,J REALTDRS. - - _ - PH-oHE: 2ee-4575 20 _:FIFTH AVENUt _NORTHWEST-'-RdCRESTER., NllNN. 55901 July' _1, .i97Q The Honorable Mayor, and City.- Council: {'te, Vernon D.Xendland, Harold - E, - Robertson and Donald G. Monson, are the'oIgners=_of property.located t 102_ and 106 First. Sureet; Southeast. Thelegs. l`.;descr p'tion of the se .properties are th North 74 f.eet -of Lots 7 and-.8 'in' Block' 21 of the `Origins.1 Plato •Ihese properties -are'-presently being used as 'the -Hotel ;Trivs and art apartment; building.. Vie -..are. intereated in .constructing W new . building on,_th6so premises• if -w.e can obtain frot�'t1re.city an On -sale . liquor. license • The building .vjould,b.e designed to accomodate a minimum.of 200- beating capacity•which, would include_Eirestaurant-operation.,:° 1'ie are also corside- g .commercial: -recitals �.f leis would be. financially feasible° In addition :to. -the On -sale liquor license., Ye viould need -to lease -approximately 60 .parking stalls9 pre-errably adjacent- to our 'property .for a 20 _°to -25 _year periods _ " Thank you for your- consi deratiion. end -i'±oping f.or, -an early. -reply, we are.,__ . Sincerely -Vernon D. 'Ie- d land - I 11A ram' yc Harold Ev Rdbertson:; v ,21 Donald G. rioxiaon i �L1, L•_ rr . T 'J /7 �'�� r.0 __J / I .'� !•L_:% •` i" _J -��� � � / i`�'/. � `•-.._._J' /.�_%C'C � - — i��/ ! �%�/L:%f.C. �ir'J � i , `.•4'�.� ! �� ✓--. �. �� ( _.` .1.�`7'—�. , �° y: �/ -%' f�"l^_ 7 i_�': �',t.'i � J Ll, `_ i1 -•j `. !,. /4/. 'I �_".�i „//yC_.<•�i _./,i __� - —'CAL � I—� �-1 .�.. r a _:C.L j _ �_ /•' ��.�� _.. ''_ , f l -" — t r_ The previous document is imaged- to the p- g 6est'q,uality possible:` The original document is of very poor - quality. Scanned by Olmsted County Imaging Department I was informed by Mr `Bill. Volken that I have . to have ° an- enclosed . building to display. camping- trailers.. for sale in the city of Rochester or get.a temporary permit deleting the building : requirements-. T have camping, trailers, displayed .now at the ' Golden Hill Mot e 1 at 1827 South Broadway. There i s.- approxiraately'_150 feet of open- display :area along -Broadway and_ --`adequate parking area 'for 'customers.: I_'Uiould. like_ °the council to issue.- me. a "temUorary permit -to- .-display--these -Apache ea.mping trailers unfit Septernb.er 15, ;1970. At that tirie all trailers will -be removed='_from said lot 1 y lb- year. old son .ls handling the sales as a 'temporary summer job. Thanl�-�ou for your assistance in this: Matter. „ ?: Ronald Jo nso f . = Golden Hill Motel R J�f r - Michael J. Bl.ee, D. C. Dickman, ) DG_.r Id Munson, Everett Maxwell, ) Perry Miller, Everett Hicks, ) -' "-Jimmy Adams and Dorence Munger, Plaintiff s, ) ` vs ) ) City of Rochester, a Municipal ) Corporation and the Rochester Sand' ) and Gravel, Inc., a Minnesota ) Corporation. ) Defendants. ) ORDER Upon the attached Complaint, it is ordered that the Defendant, City of Rochester, and the Defendant, Rochester Sand and Gravel, Inc. , show cause. before the Court at the Courthouse in the City of Rochester, . Minnesota on the day of why an Order should not, be issued temporarily restraining the. Defendant and each of them and anyone acting under thern-from commencing any work in connection with'the proposed improvement of Second Street Southwest from Minnesota Trunk Highway 14-52 to 23rd Avenue Southwest in the City of Rochester, Minnesota during the pendency of this action. It is further ordered that a copy of this Order and a copy of the Sumnions. and Complaint be served upon each of the Defendants forthwith. Judge of the District Court �, J