Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1991_RegularCITY OF ROCEESTN COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING NO. 10 REGULAR ADJOURNED q I-ao TUESDAY? 7:30 P.M. 17, 1991 A) CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES B) HEARINGS 1) Appeal Request by William Broeckert 2) Final Plat of Essex Estates Third Subdivision 3) Reconstruction of East-West Alley Between 13th & 16th Avenue SW and Between 1st & 2nd Street SW C) ORGANISATIONAL BUSINESS D) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 1) Alvin Bell Requests to be Heard E) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) City Administrator - Request by Davies Printing Company for a Revocable Permit . 2) City Administrator - Fill Site Agreements - Stage 2B 3) City Administrator - Agreement for Fill Material with Rodney Youngs 4) City Administrator - Parking for Senior Citizens Center 5) City Administrator - FAA Lease for Space at the Rochester Airport 6) Public Utilities - Consideration of Public Utility Board Action 7) City Clerk - Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities 8) City Clerk - Renewal of On -Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License - Masters 9) City Clerk - Request to Set Hearing for Weeds, Trees, Snow and Debris Removal 10) Finance - Approval of Accounts Payable 11) Finance - Award for Bids for Concrete Repair - Parking Ramp 12) Finance - Award of Bids for Ferric Chloride - WRP 13) Planning Dept. - Application for General Development Plan of Diamond Ridge 14) Planning Dept. - Metes and Bounds Conveyance of Unplatted Land of the Arboretum Property 15) Planning Dept. - City Council Initiated Vacation of the Alley R.O.W. Adjacent to Block 1 & 3, Hammer and Fanning 16) Planning Dept. - Vacation Petition by HyVee Foods North Store 17) Planning Dept. - Vacation Petition by John and Margaret Davies 18) Planning Dept. - Vacation Petition by Zumbro Lutheran Church 19) Police Department - Recommendation of Preferred Vendor for LEC Computer Equipment 20) Public Services - Revision to Ordinance #2469 Regarding Water . Service Availability Fees 21) Public Services - LEC Parking Spot in CBD .council Agenda Tuesday, September 17, 1991 Page two 22) Public Services - Previously Postponed Assessment/NW Water Tower 23) Public Services - Previously Postponed Assessment/NW Trunkline Sanitary Sewer 24) Public Services - Previously Postponed Assessment/IBM Trunkline Sanitary Sewer 25) Public Services - Previously Postponed Assessment/Watermain in 41st Street NW F) RESOLUTION8 AND ORDINANCE8 G) TABLED ITEMS B) OTHER BUSINESS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9/17/91 DATE: AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Department of Planning 6 1 ( M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appeal Request #91-6 by William Broeckert Terry Spaeth September 9, 1991 Council Action Needed: 1. The City Clerk will need to publish a notice of public hearing in the Post Bulletin no later than September 6, 1991. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution indicating the action taken. Attachments: 1. Copy of Staff Report dated September 9, 1991 2. Copy of RIBA minutes dated August 7, 1991 3. Copy of Appeal Staff Report dated July 30, 1991 4. Copy of Variance Staff Report dated July 30, 1991 5. Copy of letter to Mr. Broekert from area residents dated April 3, 19911, Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 17, 1991 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: e`.'pCN CSTEP.y,.�, Ff % ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION 5671285-8232 PLANNING 507/285.8232 HRA 507/285-8224 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Terry Spaeth, Planner DATE: September 9, 1991 RE: Appeal Request # 91-6 Consolidated Planning Department Review: Appellant: William Broekert { 1904 23 1/2 Street SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Requested Action: The applicant is appealing The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals' decision to deny a variance which would have allowed the placement of a deck exceeding the maximum lot coverage for structures in the rear yard and upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator that a fence surrounding a private swimming pool does not need to exceed six feet in height on the property located at 1904 23 1/2 Street SE in Rochester. Plannin¢ Staff Review: On August 7, 1991 the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on a variance request to the maximum lot coverage requirements for structures located in a rear yard upon a property; as well as an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator determining that a fence surrounding a private swimming pool does not to exceed 6' in height. At that time the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request to the lot coverage requirement and also upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to the fence height. (See 8/7/91 RZBA Meeting Minutes). The staff would like to address the circumstances alluded to by the appellant in this instance. On June 2, 1989 Mr. Broekert received a zoning certificate to place a swimming pool and deck within the rear yard upon the property. The submitted site plan did not indicate the height of the proposed fence around the deck and pool. The City Building AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 September 9, 1991 & Safety Department sent Mr. Broekert a correction letter dated 6/7/89 in which they listed items that needed to be addressed prior to receiving a building permit from that department. Please note that # 4 states that the Planning office indicated that the maximum height for a fence was 6' in height, and that the applicant should contact our office. Our office was not made aware that the fence exceeded 6' in height until after it had been constructed. In July 1990, the Planning Staff sent Mr. Broekert a violation notice relating to the height of the fence. On September 14, 1990 Mr. Broekert applied for a variance to permit the fence to be higher than 6' above grade and also for the lot coverage requirements on the deck. The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request on October 3, 1990. After that, Mr. Broekert inquired if there was any other alternative other than cutting the fence down to 6' in height and reducing the size of the deck. I advised him in a letter dated October 17, 1990 of an alternative to removing a portion of the deck and reducing the height of the fence in all parts of the lot. In April of this year it was determined by the Planning Staff that the alternative suggested to Mr. Broekert in October, 1990 would not meet the zoning ordinance requirements. That led to Mr. Broekert's variance and appeal request before the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 7, 1991. Staff Comment: • In the appeal application to the Council, Mr. Broekert has stated that through the entire building process the height of the fence was not a problem and that the structure was constructed based upon our (Planning 6 Bldg and Safety Dept.) judgements. At this time I feel there is a need to point out that the fence height has been at issue since the beginning of this process. Mr. Broekert was notified that a fence could not exceed 6' in height in a plan correction letter sent by Mr Ron O'Brien of the City Building Safety Department on June 7, 1989, and that he should contact our office (Planning) with any questions relating to that. It should also be pointed out that the Planning staff was not made aware of the fence exceeding 6' in height until July 9, 1990 at such time a notice of violation was sent to Mr. Broekert. Attachments: 1. Copy of Appeal Application 2. Copy of 8/7/91 RZBA Meeting Minutes 3. Copy of Appeal Staff Report dated 7/30/91 4. Copy of Variance Staff Report dated 7/30/91 5. Copy__of_letter to Mr. Broekert from area residents dated 4/3/91 Reviewed by 0 Pao A ic - - - - - - - - - - - t1c V - -- - - - - - - - Jk tj 0 0 0 0 r - r City of Rochester, `:innesota TO: Common Council • c/o Zoning Administrator Rochester, Minnesota S5on1 559 uy APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (I), (We), the undersigned, hereby appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated F.j.."ST 7, 7oc: concerning an application for a (v,T#P5;e) (appeal) to ^nkoln" "^'T' on the premises at (address) i90e _ _`:- �t. S.i. the following reasons: (attach additional sheets if needed) (SEE ATTACHED SHEET$) . DATE: A"'Ucr oa , 19 01 NAMES A10 ADDRESSES for Winroec?:ert 1904 - S.IC. .f8-« Appellant) (Address) (Phone) Instructions For Filing An Appeal: 1. This appeal must be typewritten and shall be filed in duplicate with the Zoning Administrator for review and report to the Common Council, of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. The Zoning Administrator shall retain one copy and transmit one copy to the City Clerk. 2. The appeal form should set forth in concise language the reason or reasons for the appeal. 410) 3. The applicant shall submit a filing fee of made payable to the Olmsted County Treasurer. AUG g 0 1991 . DISTRIBUTION: DE OF PLANNING d HOUSING City Clerk (white Copy) Zoning Administrator (Canary Copy) Applicant (Goldenrod Copy) ZONING: FORM NO. 4 Appeal from the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals __ In February of 1989 I started working in Rochester. Learning my new job and adjusting to life in Rochester was my first priority. Finding housing for my family was my second. After more than a two -month search of available real estate we decided to build a house. At this time we owned a swimming pool, so when selecting the property to build our house on this was a stipulation. Before we purchased our lot, we had our realtor, Russ, find out if there were any restrictions on swimming pools or fences. In March of 1989 we had our first contact with the Rochester Department of Planning, Terry Speath. We inquired about Lot 10 Block 3 of the Pinewood Third Subdivision. Terry informed us that the lot had a five foot easement along the south side (rear lot line) and that it was not in a flood plain. E Russ checked on covenants and said that there weren't any on swimming pools. When we took out our permit to build our house we told Terry that we would be taking one out for the swimming pool . area when the back filling was completed. We took out our permit for the swimming pool in June of 1989- At that time we planned on having the pool placed into the ground and a six (6) foot high fence. Because the fence was to be six (6) foot or less and the deck was to be under 30 inches the Rochester doesn't require any dimensions on the plot plan. In June we had the hole dug. There is a high water table in our subdivision which caused the banks to cave in. We were unable to set the pool up. In July we had our yard further excavated. This time the rains came. Due to the blue clay our yard filled with water. In August after two tries to set up the pool we had our back yard filled in. We placed our pool in our garage and planned on seeding our back yard. • At this point Brian Kerr told us that he didn't want to look at dirt. To keep peace in the neighborhood we had our back yard sodded at a cost of $600. We did not have the project inspected as there was no structure. In May of 1990 we tried one more time to place our pool in the ground. Again we hit water. At this point we met with Ron O'Brien of the building department. He told us that we didn't need a new permit. We would be able to use the one we had. He then gave us a drawing of how to support our deck and fence as we would have to build our project higher because of the high water table. In June of 1990 we set our fence posts. At this point we received a registered letter from Terry Spaeth. We met with Terry within the five (5) days. He told us that .the fence could not be in the five (5) foot easement and that we needed to stay out of the rear yard set backs. We made a mistake here by not understanding what these set backs were. He then told us to meet with Ron O'Brien. We met with Ron and went over what requirements his department had for this type of structure. We finished the project in August. Mr. Bigelow contacted us in late August of 1990. He wanted to know if he could excavate the area to the south of our fence (the area in the easement). He had a landscaper contour this land so that the standing surface water from the west flowed through our lot. This made our fence-7-inches higher on the west side and 1 foot higher on the east side. The contouring has alleviated a lot of the surface standing water. The PLANNING DEPARTMENT, aware of this FRAGILE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE CONDITION, HAS SUPPORTED an APPEAL FOR A 35% LOT 0 COVERAGE VARIANCE. This is documented in the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of Aug 7, 1991. -- 3 -- In Sept 1989 we received a another registered letter from Terry Spaeth. We met with Terry within the five (5) days. He told us that we had two options: 1) get in compliance with the code 2) apply for a variance. We decided to apply for the variance. Our hearing for the variance was Sept 26, 1990. It was for three reasons: 1) The fence in our side yard was on the lot line. It needed to be moved in six (6) feet. 2) The fence in our rear yard was on the lot line. It needed to be moved in eighteen (18) inches. 3) The height height of our deck was greater than thirty (30) inches. The area under our deck needed to be filled to make the deck's height less than 30 inches. After our variance was denied we again talked to Terry about our options. On October 17, 1990 we received a letter from Terry telling us what we had to do to comply. It was to meet the three point stated above. We talked to Terry and came up with an agreement. If the weather permitted we would have all • the points addressed by June 1, 1991. 1) We removed the gate and our stairs to the deck as they were near the lot line. 2) We moved the fence in our side yard to six (6) feet from the lot line. 3) We remove the nails from the top of the fence in our rear yard on the west side. This will allow us to disassemble our fence from the ground and move it in. 4) We removed four (4) areas of deck on our west side so that we could put new Posts to support our deck and fence when it is moved in. 5) We cut eighteen (18) inches off 1/3 of the west side. These five (5) points were all worked on before the winter of 1989 set in. In spring of 1991 we hauled fill in under our deck on the north side. 0 We also removed some decking on the east side so that we could put in new support posts 18 inches in from the lot line. In early April we had both Ron O'Brien and Terry Spaeth inspect our progress. Both men agreed that what we were doing would meet all of the codes. Two days later we were contacted by Terry. At this point, nine (9) months after the project was completed, Terry told us that our fence was too high. We needed to meet with Ron Livingston. This meeting took place near the end of May. At this meeting we were told by Ron that STAFF would support our effort to get a variance for the 35% lot coverage, but the fence needed to be cut down to six (6) feet in height. We were given the opportunity to appeal 0 to the zoning board of appeal. The appeal was on August 7th. At this meeting we found out that Terry was ordered to change his interpretation of the code. This meant our fence could no longer be over six (6) feet in height. We also found out that our neighbors that are opposed to our fence would rather have a fence of nine (9) feet in height than see a railing on our fence as they too would like some privacy. The privacy issue of our neighbors was brought up several times at that hearing. Before making your decision consider these facts. 1) STAFF is supporting our request for the 35% lot coverage variance. 2) The people that will be hurt if we do not receive this variance are our neighbors to the west. Their lots will end up pools of water after each rain. 3) Since we started this project we worked with both Ron O'Brien and Terry Spaeth. Both men inspected our site on more than one occasion. Each man has worked for the city for a number of years. They work with codes every day. Through the entire building process the height of the fence was not a problem. our structure was constructed based on the opinions of these gentlemen. We spent many thousands of dollars as a result of their judgements. We believe, that nine (9) months after the project was completed is too late to have an interpretation over turned. 4) The neighbors, who are unhappf with our fence, have stressed that privacy is important to them and they would rather have a nine (9) foot fence than a railing. We would like to have the two issues resolved and know that there will be an end to this situation. i 0 Page 10 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 No one wished to speak in favor of Peterson made a motion to close the Treichel. The motion carried 5-0. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There would circumstances that would apply to this to other properties in the same zoning sign could be moved out of the traffic back into the parking lot. or in opposition to the request. Mr, public hearing, seconded by Mr. not appear to be any exceptional property that would not apply generally district and vicinity. The proposed visibility zone by moving it further NATURAL CAUSES: The alleged hardship or difficulty has resulted from the church's request to place a church sign within the traffic visibility zone that would exceed the maximum height allowed for such obstructions in the traffic visibility zone. PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS: A variance would not appear to be necessary to preserve the property rights of the applicant which would be similar to the property rights of other property owners in the same zoning district or vicinity.. =The proposed sign could be moved out of the traffic visibility zone by moving it"further back into the parking lot. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not i. appear to be of substantial detriment to other surrounding properties or to traffic visibility for which the Rochester Public Services Department has no objection. The proposed sign would appear to meet the traffic visibility standards of the proposed Land Development Manual. GENERAL NATURE: This variance request would not appear to be general or recurrent in nature. Mr. Peterson made a motion to approve Variance Request #91-20, seconded by Mr. DeWitz. The motion carried 5-0. The Board heard the following two item simultaneously. Mr. Spaeth noted that the appellant, Mr. Broekert, had applied for a variance to the height of his fence last fall. Since that time Mr. Broekert has determined to appeal the interpretation of the staff. Mr. Broekert claims that the fence height is needed for public safety. Thus, he has filed an appeal to the decision and has resubmitted the variance for the lot coverage. Mr. Peterson asked how the discrepancies with the permits and the submitted site plan of June, 1989. occurred. Page 11 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 Mr. Spaeth noted that in 1989 the applicant had submitted a site plan and -it . did not have any specific fence heights on the plan. On the permit that was issued, staff noted that the pool had to be 10 feet from the property line and fenced in accordance to the swimming pool provisions which is at least 5' in height. Mr. Spaeth noted that as he recalls, the pool was supposed to be a below grade pool. The applicant had problems with drainage on the property and the pool is .half below and half above grade, the fence is put up from grade. He noted that on the south side of the property the fence is 9 112 feet. Mr. Peterson questioned that the detail plan or blue print that was received by staff did not have the heights on it. Mr. Spaeth noted that was correct. At the time of the original permit, none of the height information was provided. He noted that Mr. O'Brien of the Building Safety Department had contacted Mr. Broekert regarding the height of the fence. Mr. Broekert did not come forth at that time. Af:er the fact, Mr. Broekert asked what his options were. Mr. Spaeth noted that is where the City may have made a mistake. He stated that he suggested that Mr. Broekert pull the fences in so that it would meet the se:__:ks, and fill in under his deck so that he would not have to remove a portion of the deck or cut down the fence. Mr. Spaeth stated that L sion was overruled by other planning officials. Mr. DeWitt asked if this deck were only 30" off the ground, would this be o.k. Mr. Livingston stated that the deck would be o.k., although the fence still would require the variance. Mr. Mark Utz, Dingle Law Offices, P.O. Box 939, Rochester, an attorney representing Mr. Broekert submitted tL : Board exhibits which showed the process that 4. _ followed and o ins —2d petitions in favor. Mr. Utz addressed the variance of the 35 percent lot coverage. He stated that this request was suggested by Mr: Livingston of the Planning Department. The situation is that the pool is above ground, each time Mr. Broekert tried to dig to put a portion of the pool underground, there was a water problem. Because of that water problem he had to put the pool above ground and that caused the deck to be higher than 30". Mr. Broekert did place gravel under the deck to avoid seepage. He has volunteered to put fill underneath the deck, but this would further disrupt the poor drainage situation. For all of these reasons, we are petitioning for a variance to the 35 percent lot coverage. Mr. Utz stated that Mr. Broekert was ready to comply with the requirement of the 30" fill. Mr. Broekert, the applicant, noted that part of the deck already has some of the gravel underneath it. He noted that he would disturb the water drainage problem in the neighborhood if he continues to fill under the deck. What staff suggested was not to fill, since the fill would cause more damage than good, thus he needs the 35% coverage variance. Mr. Broekert noted that he had a pile of dirt in my drive which he could not move since staff had him on hold and there was a hail storm, thus he could not get his car in the garage and there was $2,20' age done to the car. Mr. Utz addres° a findings as follows: Page 12 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 �xrantionaI Circumstances: If Mr. Broekert meets the requirements of the Code, he would be causing more problems to the drainage issue. The exceptional circumstance is that the fill would only exasperate the drainage problem. Natural Causes: This property had already had water problems prior to the purchase of the house. Preservation of Property Right: This is not just for the enjoyment of Mr. Broekert but also the other neighborhoods so that they will not incur any drainage problems. Mr. Utz urged the Board to grant approval of this request. Mr. Lancaster asked about the fill issue, can it be rock, or does it have to be fill. Mr. Livingston stated that it could be rock and that would raise the height. Mr. Lancaster stated that the rock would seem to be an answer by adding five more inches of rock, the problem would be solved. f Mr. Broekert stated that any type of fill would be fine, that is why he has the dirt. The rock could not be put against the fence because it would not allow the fence to expand. . Mr. Utz noted that the circumstances are such that more and more requirements are being added to Mr. Broekert, but he has already incurred enough. Mr. Broekert noted that he has the 30 inch distance under portions of the deck. He would have to use styrofoam to keep the fence from pushing out with the frost. Mr. DeWitz stated that drainage rock would not cause a problem with the fence expansion. Mr. Broekert continued to explain the problem with the drainage and the water that comes from the i;t:ghbors property. Mr. DeWitz asked if part of the deck had the fill at 30", does that make it not a structure, is it a half structure. Mr. Livingston stated that a part of it is over 30 inches so that makes the entire deck a structure. Mr. Utz noted that the general nature of this would not be recurring. Mr. Livingston addressed some points of clarification. Staff had met with the applicant and his attorney and discussed possible options. Staff suggested that if the fence were cut down to 6', staff would support the lot coverage variance to the deck. Staff felt this would assist with the drainage vs. the fill. As the previous record was reviewed, the fence height was the issue, staff stated that he could reapply for the variance for the lot coverage portion. The issue regarding the hail damage is not relevant to this case. ?age 13 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 Mr. Brian Kerr, 1903 24th Street SE, stated that it has been almost a year since this issue was discussed. It is difficult to address the deck height and not the fence height. As he understands, the reason to bring the deck into compliance is to make this a structure and to avoid the issue of the fence height. The fence is immense, all of the squabbling about the 30" is not relevant. Mr. Kerr noted that it seems to be a repeated theme about the concern Mr. Broekert has for the drainage. Mr. Broekert's surrounding land is about 2' above all of the other surrounding properties and has caused a number of drainage problems. This all seems very irrelevant, this is an attempt to try to get the fence height issue taken care of. Mr. Kerr submitted a photo of the fence to the Board and noted that their objection is a concern of many of the neighbors. He submitted a petition signed by 26 of the neighbors which suggested reasonable solutions to the problem. Our objection is the overwhelming size of the fence. There is a potential difficulty of property value loss that might be incurred because of the unattractiveness of the fence. In addressing the concerns of the safety of the fence, we understand the concern, but the City states that a five foot fence is appropriate, six foot is o.k., a child certainly cannot scale a 9' fence, let alone a 6' fence. There is some concern about the monkey bars and getting over the fence, a child cannot do this. Mr. Kerr noted that they would like the privacy from Mr. Broekert. The proposal the Kerr's have offered would be an easy and cost effective means. They suggest to lower the level of the deck( and drop the level of the fence. They have not had any response or any effort or cooperation from the Broekerts regarding this suggestion. The Kerr's would hope that there may be some sort of resolution of the problem. Mr. Broekert has exhibited no effort to cooperate and he has somewhat tried to bully the . system. Mr. DeWitz stated the concern is the fence. Mr. Kerr responded yes, that is the issue. Cheryl Wegner, 1830 23rd 1/2 Street SW, noted that she is the neighbor that has the severe drainage problem in their backyard. She noted that their problem has been alleviated since the Broekert's dug the ditch along the fence. She noted that this caused the height of the fence to appear higher. Ms. Wegner noted that she has the same fence around her property and it is there for the protection of her children. She is happy that Mr. Broekerts fence will keep her children out of the pool. The way the deck is on the inside of the pool, the fence could not meet the proper requirements. In addition, the way the Broekert's lot was when they started, they had to add to fill. The Broekert's pool is below the original grade, but is not completely underground, they are only trying to work within everyone's guidelines. They are not trying to manipulate anyone's system. The drainage has been a definite problem and it is not Broekert's fault, he has tried to alleviate the problem that was already existing. He has tried to be a very good neighbor. Mr. Robert Harkrow, 1909 24th Street SE, addressed both issues of the appeal and the variance. He noted that he was here last September and there is a safety factor involved. Mr. Broekert is attempting to mislead this Board that his property abs�, Ds water. His property is causing a water problem. He noted that Broekert is bound and determined to run this appeal and variance through. Broekert is misleading. Page 14 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 • Mr. Utz, the representative of Broekert, addressed the appeal. He noted that the height of the fence is necessary for the safety and well being of the children in the neighborhood. There are monkey bars next to this property, thus there is a liability for Broekert. This pool is considered an attractive nuisance for Mr. Broekert. He stated that this request is not outside of the discretion of the Board, they are only seeking a variance to allow for 9 1/2 feet fence. Mr. Broekert has been through a maze of hurdles for this project. Mr. Broekert has visited City officials office and has been upfront with his request. At the time of construction of this fence, there also was a fence near Ben Franklin School, which is less than 112 mile away, which exceeds 12'. Mr. Utz submitted photos which showed all of the different issues. This is not something that is being run as a smoke screen. He is asking for the discretion of the Board. Mr. Utz noted that an exceptional circumstance is that the fence is necessary for public safety. He referred to letters of neighbors wanting the fence. Mr. DeWitz asked what the safety issue involved. Mr. Livingston stated that if the fence height is 6' they could still put a railing around the deck portion of the structure. Mr. Lancaster stated that was an option at the original hearing. Mr. DeWitz asked what has been done to change the design of the fence to make this acceptable since the original hearing. Mr. Utz responded that there is a letter dated October 17, 1991, from Mr. Spaeth to Mr. Broekert, and he has satisfied 3 of the 4 conditions. Mr. DeWitz asked if the height of the fence has been lowered since last year. Mr. Broekert responded no. He was told that if the rear yard and side yard fences were moved in, then he did not have to lower the fence. Mr. DeWitz asked why he would not consider a railing. Mr. Broekert stated that Mr. Spaeth led him to believe that he could retain the fence and save major expense and work. He feels that he is being treated indifferently. He noted that Mr. O'Brien from the Building and Safety Department had inspected construction during the time the structure was being built. When the structure was completed, Mr. Spaeth stated that there had been some mistakes made, and at that point, Mr. Spaeth stated if the requirements were met, the fence could stay. Mr. Brian Kerr clarified a couple of statements. He stated that the grade was in place prior to the fence being installed, they created a higher grade at the time of construction. If the monkey bars are a safety threat, they can be moved. Regarding the expense involved, we contacted the Planning Staff and also contacted the Broekerts regarding this violation and they opted to continue construction. Mr. Kerr noted that they would prefer the option for their degree of privacy, they would like the deck lowered and not have a railing. Mr. DeWitz noted that he has a number of ways for compliance. Page 15 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 Mr. Kerr noted that he would prefer a nine foot fence vs. the railing. A . fence is an enclosed area and should be considered as a structure. Mr. Livingston noted that Mr. Spaeth had sent a letter and staff reviewed that the Zoning Ordinance restricts that this could not exceed six feet. We have considered the argument about the fence being a structure, both approaches were used to make the determination that staff has made. Mr. DeWitz asked if the applicant fills 30" and cuts the fence to six foot and puts up railing, he would be within code. Mr. Livingston responded yes. Mr. Kerr noted that there are spots that would have to be filled tremendously. Mr. Kerr stated that he would have to refer to the other people involved to see what they would like. He stated that it has come to the point that privacy is the issue. Mr. Lancaster stated that the railing had been a solution last year, but this year it is not an option to you. Mr. Lancaster explained that the Board is trying to arrive at a solution that is amenable to both parties. Mr. Lancaster adjourned for ten minutes to let the neighbors try to reach a solution. Mr. Kerr came back and asked for feedback. He stated that the neighborhood feels that there was a permit obtained, but not for a nine foot fence, the neighborhood should not have to suffer for this oversight. In his mind there is not a problem of reconstructing and lowering the deck and subsequently lowering the fence. There could be a compromise of a seven foot fence. Mr. Lancaster asked if the fence were lowered to 7 feet, would there need to be something done to the deck. Mr. Livingston noted that there would have to be a railing around the deck. Mr. DeWitz stated that City Building Code allows for a 36" rail. Mr. Kerr asked if it is a problem for the Broekerts to lower the deck. Mr. Broekert stated that he had given some thought to lowering the deck. Mr. Lancaster asked Mr. Broekert to respond specifically to lowering the deck height and.lowering the fence to 6 feet. Mr. Broekert noted that lowering the deck would be an enormous expense. He stated that he would cut the fence off all to be the same height. He noted that if the deck would be cut off, the pool would be above the deck and there would be a ridge that could be tripped over. Mr. Broekert is willing to cut the fence to the deck level and add some type of a waffle board fence to act as a rail. Mr. Utz noted that the advantage of that is that there would.be air flow and there would be a view, it would not be one continuous structure. Page 16 Rochester zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 Mr. Broekert stated that there is an enormous expense already incurred by him and all of his options are expensive. Mr. Harkrow stated that the general consensus of the neighbors in opposition is that they are having to accommodate something that Mr. Broekert has done wrong in the first place. Mr. Utz referred to the letter of October 17 and noted that he has done 3 of the 4 and has done what had been required of him at the time. Mr. Lancaster noted that prior to that this fence was built in violation. The letter is not the basis of the decision, the Board needs to consider all of the data. Mr. Broekcert stated that Mr. O'Brien from Building and Safety gave him the plans and the problem is that there was no communication between Planning and Building. Mr. O'Brien stated that the permit was good for a year and the permit has been reviewed on two occasions. Mr. Livingston stated that there are two issues, an appeal of a fence over six feet and a lot coverage variance. What staff has led someone to believe isi should not be involved in this discussion. Mr. Treichel asked on the 6' height issue, at what point is the 6 foot measured from. Mr. Livingston stated that it is measured from the natural grade. Mr. DeWitz asked to close the public hearing and address the issues. Mr. Lancaster stated that this is a public forum and this is where the issues should be addressed. Ms. Suzie Kerr, 1903 24th Street SE, stated that her impression is that the fence should be cut down. We feel that lowering the deck would be a better solution. She would like the Board to thoroughly consider lowering the deck. There could be a top decking to actually step up into the pool. She reminded the Board that there was no legal permit for this construction. Ms. Cheryl Wegner stated that this is a neighborhood problem and she thinks that what Mr. Broekert legally has to do is the question, its not what the Kerr's want him to do, it has to be within the law. Safety has to be considered. These compromises should not have to be put to him because there is a legal.issue at hand. Mr. DeWitz stated that this is a variance board and the board can vary the code, if the Board can make everyone happy, that is what makes the Board's job easier. He noted that the Board is not threatened by attorneys. If the Board varies, it will be legal. Mr. Lancaster stated that this is a forum to solve the problems, the City has made the point that there are issues to deal with. Mr. DeWitz made a motion to close the public hearing on the Variance Request, seconded by Mr. Treichel. The motion carried 5-0. Page 17 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 Mr. DeWitz stated that whether or not this has no problem with the request, as long as the lower the deck, the less the problems. is 30" off the ground or 4 feet, he the pool is enclosed. Although, Mr. Lancaster stated that the problem he has is the difference between the height of the deck and they should have followed the contour of the land. The deck height varies from 30" to 4 feet. This may have been artificially corrected in certain areas. Mr. DeWitz stated that his contention is that there is still a structure there one way or the other. The fence is the problem. Mr. Lancaster stated that if the deck were at 30" around the pool, the Board would not be discussing this, but it is not. He stated that the Board is being asked to vary from the 30" height. The Board addressed the findings as follows: Exceptional Circumstances: An exceptional circumstance applying to the property or to the intended use of the property is that the high water table causes drainage problems in this area and filling in under the deck so that the height does not exceed 30" above grade may increase drainage problems oP the lot and immediate vicinity. Natural Causes, The alleged hardship or difficulty has resulted from actions of the applicant by the construction of the pool and deck upon the property. Preservation of Property Rights: A variance may be necessary for the preservation of property rights similar to those possessed by other owners of property in the vicinity since the drainage in this area would appear to make it unreasonable to add fill material underneath the existing deck and create additional drainage problems. Absence of Detriment: The authorization of a variance for the lot coverage of the deck surrounding the swimming pool would not appear to be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Although it was noted that some people feel that a deck would be detrimental. Another perspective is that the deck height the problem around the pool, if the deck were lowered, a step could be bu „ t up. General Nature:This variance request would not appear to be general or recurrent in nature. Mr. DeWitz made a motion to approve Variance Request #91-23. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Mr. Peterson made a motion to deny Variance Request f91-23, seconded by Mr. Treichel. The motion carried 5-0. The Board noted that the public hearing for the Appeal was not closed. Mr. Broekert stated that he would like to give the fence a look of a wafer board, there will be one corner that will be higher since he is helping the neighbor with the drainage problem. 0 0 Page 18 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 Mr. DeWitz asked about clarification about what has been done, is the only option to fill under the deck or lower the deck. This is the result of the motion to deny the variance. Mr. Broekert stated that he would not have to lower the entire deck since a portion of the deck is already in compliance. Mr. Robert Harkrow noted that he does not have a problem with the proposal, but what he has a problem with is the height of the fence. Mr. DeWitz stated that the code states that it could not be higher than 6 feet. Mr. Broekert stated that on the Meyers side the fence would be approximately 7'8", but on one side of the lot the fence will be taller. He would like to put up wafer board. The Board noted that wafer board is considered a fence. He would have to put up a railing. Mr. Broekert stated that he wanted to have the Board consider wafer board to be the variance. Mr. Broekert stated that he has to be at least 42" in ordkr to have his insurance company let him use the deck. He is asking for the Board to look at having most of the yard to be fenced under eight foot in height. The one corner would be higher. He is only asking for some privacy. The Board has the discretion to allow the fence to be up to ten feet when it is necessary for public safety.. He stated that he is trying to make this fence look nice. If he were to do this he does not want a railing, but a fence. Ms. Cheryl Wegner stated that it is reasonable to want a fence for privacy, by weaving the fence in and out, it is the least amount of expense. Mr. Lancaster stated that if it were the weaved board, it is a fence, it would be a fence on the bottom and on the top. Mr. Broekert is asking to vary the two different fences. No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. Mr. DeWitz made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Treichel. The motion carried 5-0. Mr. Lancaster noted that this is a request to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Peterson asked if the decision of the Zoning Administrator is overturned what are the ramifications. Mr. Spaeth stated that it would set a precedent. The Board needs to decide if 6 feet is adequate, or for public safety, what should the height be of a fence. Mr. DeWitz made a motion to approve the height of the fence at 42" over the deck, this will help with privacy, and in addition. the Zoning Administrator can go up to 10 feet in issuance of a fence that may involve danger and safety to the public. Page 19 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: August 7, 1991 The motion failed for a lack of a second. Mr. DeWitz stated that if he goes back and puts in the open railing, the neighbors will not be any happier. This motion will make everyone happy. The open railing will cause additional problems. Sound will travel through the railing, if the fence is there, it will provide a sound barrier. Mr. Peterson stated that he would like to see the deck and the fence lowered, but the Board cannot dictate that. Mr. Treichel stated that he saw the size of the fence and it is monstrous. Mr. Henderson agreed. Mr. Treichel made a motion deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, seconded by Mr. Peterson. The motion carried 4-1. Mr. DeWitz voted nay. Mr. Paul Horgen, 2431 Wilshire Lane NE, stated that he has some unique 1 circumstances. He directed the attention of the Board to the map in the packet. The entrance to the garage was dictated by the topography of the lot. The motivation is to end up with two 12 foot curb cuts. We feel that it would be an advantage to drive out of the property this way. He noted that he does not contemplate parking in the front yard. He noted that they have developed a landscape plan that is attractive. Mr. Lancaster asked why the circular drive? Mr. Horgen responded that the alternative would be to have a larger drive. With the circular drive, someone parked on the driveway, he could still enter his garage. Mr. Wise noted that Mr. Dave Rossman and Mr. Mike Cox of the Public Services Department have reviewed this and they are in opposition to this request. Mr. Lancaster stated that there had been a previous decision regarding two curb cuts regarding a home that closed the garage off for a room addition, he feels that this issue is different. Mr. Wise noted that the staff does not differentiate this type of request vs. that of .someone parking in their front yard. Mr. Treichel made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Peterson. The motion carried 5-0. Mr. DeWitz stated this driveway actually leads somewhere and that is to the street. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There would not appear to be any exceptional circumstances that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. The applicant could restrict the driveway for access to the attached garage to that portion Rc�H E�TEtM{\\ \f WSJ 4A�Tl U..\UG U51'S• ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION PLANNING HRA 507/285-8232 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Terry Spaeth. Planner DATE: July 30, 1991 RE: Appeal Request # 91-5 Consolidated Planning Department Review: Applicant: William Broekert 1904 23 1/2 Street SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Requested Action: The applicant is appealing zoning . administrator's decision that a fence surrounding a private swimming pool does not need to exceed 6' in height above grade for public safety and security reasons under the provisions of Paragraph 62.211 of the Rochester Zoning Code. Analysis: The appellant is appealing the decision of the zoning administrator in order to permit a privacy fence surrounding the deck and swimming pool upon the property to be greater than 6' in height above grade. The appellant has stated that the existing fence is for the protection of the general welfare and safety of the neighborhood children. The zoning administrator permits fences to exceed 6' in height, up to a maximum of 10' in instances where there may be an imminent danger to persons -entering a site without authorization. An example of this may be an electrical substation or transmission station and other such facilities. In other instances where public security is concerned where certain types of equipment and machinery are stored, security fences are permitted over 6' in height. The Rochester Zoning Code has provisions regarding the placement of • private swimming pools in residential districts and this provision includes a fencing requirement whereby a swimming pool or the entire property upon which the pool is located shall be so walled or fenced to prevent uncontrolled access by children from the street or from adjacent AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY'AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Pace 2 July 30, 1991 properties. Such wall or fence shall be not less than five (5) feet in height. In drafting such a requirement, it would appear that the City has determined that a 5' high fence is the minimum necessary to prevent uncontrolled access to private swimming pools. It would also appear that the intent behind the private swimming pool fencing requirement is to prevent uncontrolled access into the pool and not necessarily to provide privacy for the property owner or prevent someone from falling off a deck placed around the outside of a pool. The staff would like to address the circumstances alluded to by the appellant in this instance. On June 2, 1989 Mr. Broekert received a zoning certificate to place a swimming pool and deck within the rear yard upon the property. The submitted site plan did not indicate the height of the proposed fence around the deck and pool. The City Building & Safety Department sent Mr. Broekert a correction letter dated 6/7/89 in which they listed items that needed to be addressed prior to receiving a building permit from that department. Please note that q 4 states that the Planning office indicated that the maximum height for a fence was 6' in height, and that the applicant should contact our office. Our office was not made aware that the fence exceeded 6' in { height until after it had been constructed. In July 1990, the Plannino Staff sent Mr. Broekert a violation notice relating to the height of the fence. On September 14, 1990 Mr. Broekert applied for a variance to permit the fence to be higher than 6' above grade and also for the lot coverage requirements on the deck. The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request on October 3, 1990. After that, Mr. Broekert inquired if there was any other alternative other than cutting the fence down to 6' in height and reducing the size of the deck. I advised him in a letter dated October 17, 1990 of an alternative to removing a portion of the deck and reducing the height of the fence in ,all parts of the lot. In April of this year it was determined by the Planning Staff that the alternative suggested to Mr. Broekert in October. 1990 would not meet the zoning ordinance requirements and that is why he is before you now with these requests for an appeal to the zoning administrator,s decision and a variance request for lot coverage. Attachments: 1. Copy of Appeal Application 2. Copy of Paragraph 62.211 of Rochester Zoning Code 3. Cppx cf Paragraph 63.400 of Rochester Zoning Code 4. Copy of approved zoning certificate and site plan dated 6/2/89 5. Copy of Building & Safety correction letter dated 6/7/89 6. copy of October 17. 1990 leeter to Mr. Broekert Reviewed b� '� 3 0 CT— nT RCC'4FF; ER, TO: Zoning Board of Anneals . City of Rochester 1421 3rd Avenue S.F. Rochester, Minnesota 55901 ApPFAL FRnw THF -FCI-T0"' OF THF. 7.nMTMr ADwINISTRATnR (I), (IJe), the undersigned owner(s) of property described herein, hereby appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator dated September 26, 1990 recommendation was made �thhat William oeXArt's fence height need not wherein R mrsxtl7t ate• be greater than 6 feet for Dublic safety or security. on the premises at 1904 SE 23} Street Rochester, MN 55904 for the following reasons: (Attach addit See Attachment "A" • LErAI DTSCRIPTION: Lot 10Block 3 Pinewood Third Subdivision in the City of Rochester Olmsted Count Minnesota. nATF.: July 23 , 19 91 NAIES ANT) ADDRFSSF.5 . (Lessee) (Adaress) nL ST*.7 ATrrI nN : Zoning Administrator (canary copy) Annl.icant (goldenrod copv) 7n•,INc: rnRM Nn. I Aooeal From Decision of Zoning Adminisrrator "l. Revised 6-13-76 William Broekert's Appeal • Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rochester July 23, 1991 ATTACHMENT "A" We respectfully request that the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals exercise the authority granted to them pursuant to Section 62.211 of the Rochester Zoning Code to permit Mr. Broekert to maintain his current fence. Broekert's fence is, in fact, for the protection of the general welfare and safety of neighborhood children, and the denial of the existing fence would be a severe economic detriment and deprivation of Broekert's property rights after he has diligently complied with city specifications and in good faith reasonable relied on city officials approval. Moreover, this request does not seem over bearing given the fact that at 900 22nd street SE, within one-half mile of William Broekert's home, the City granted a building permit for a pool, deck and fence higher than Broekert's during the same time, Summer of 1990, when Broekert was installing his pool, fence and deck. Public safety for children within the neighborhood where William Broekert's pool, deck, and fence is located merit the . existing height of Broekert's fence surrounding his pool. The fence varies from 6 feet in height to 9.5 feet above the grade. Section 62.211 of the Rochester Zoning Code permits fences with a maximum height of ten (10) feet, subject to the discretion of zoning officials. There are 18 children on the immediate block where Broekert's pool is located with two 6 year old children living immediately adjacent to the pool. A 6 foot fence would not provide adequate protection and safety to children because the adjoining neighbors immediately to the West and South of Broekert's fence have a swing set with monkey bars that are in excess of 6 feet. A 6 foot fence would not serve as an effective deterrent to keep the children from the pool, for the children, who frequently climb on the monkey bars/swing set, could gain access to the pool. Consequently, a 6 foot fence would not provide adequate safety to neighboring children nor would it provide Broekert adequate security - The -nature of Broekert's back property lot having severe 3rainaoe problems requires him to have a deck surrounding his pool to be higher than 30 inches. Any lower deck would substantially interfere with the drainage of water from the lot. on two separate occasions in 1989, Broekert attempted to install the pool with a 30 inch deck which required a portion of the pool to be partially in the ground. These efforts by Broekert had to be abandoned because of the continued water seepage whenever Broekert dug into his ground. A 6 foot fence with Broekert's approximate 35 inch deck . would only provide approximately 34 feet of fence above the deck. Such a small fence above the deck would not give Broekert, his family, and friends much privacy nor security from falling from the deck. Moreover, anyone on the deck would likely be seen by children on the adjoining swing set/monkey bars so as to attract the children to the pool. The two adjacent neighbors on the East and West side of Broekert have requested that he maintain his existing fence for the safety of their children and other children in the neighborhood. Both adjacent neighbors have told Broekert that the fence poses no threat to the aesthetic character of the surrounding neighborhood. out of aesthetic concerns, Broekert has spent nearly $1,000.00 by laying sod and spreading crushed stone in his backyard and has spent considerable time and effort digging a proper elevation on his lot so as to eliminate a neighbors standing water problem. Although the basis of this appeal is safety, the legitimacy of the requested fence height must also be considered in the totality of circumstances surrounding the building of it. Mr. Broekert has diligently kept city officials informed of all of his intentions and has attempted repeatedly in good faith to comply with city rules and regulations. He has endured a maze of administratiXe rules and regulations. Before Broekert purchased the property, he spoke to Terry Spaeth, Zoning Administrator, in Spaeth's office and informed him of the size of the pool he intended to install and the specific water problems he may have with the lot he was considering purchasing. Broekert again informed the city of his intentions when he submitted his building permit and zoning certificate in June of 1989. Included with the building permit application was a detailed blue print of the dimensions of the pool, deck, and proposed fence. Nothing was brought to Broekert's attention that the proposed fence height would be in violation of any city rule or regulation. During May of 1990, when Broekert was installing his pool, fence and deck, he spoke to Ron O'Brien of the City Building Department regarding any special requirements Broekert might need to satisfy. Broekert complied with all regulations that were directed to him. At BroekertIs request city inspectors made site inspections to ensure compliance with city rules and regulations. In July of 1990, Broekert was informed by the City Planning Department to .Lcmply with specific set back requirements. Broekert was directed that the fence must meet a minimum side yard setback of 6 feet from the side property line and that the fence be set back a minimum of 18 inches from the side property line in the rear yard. On September 14, 1990, Broekert applied for a variance to the set back rules, the result of which was, as outlined in the attached October 17, 1990, letter from Terry Spaeth to William Broekert, a requirement that Broekert make four corrections. i Broekert complied with three of the four corrections. The fourth item stated was that the deck cannot exceed 30 inches in height above the ground or else it shall become a structure subject to the 35% coverage requirement for accessory structure. In order to avoid the 35$ coverage requirement, Broekert began placing fill under his deck which further complicated his already existing poor drainage condition of his back lot. This situation was acknowledged by Mr. Ron Livingston and Broekert was informed by Mr. Livingston to apply for a variance on the 35% deck coverage issue. (see attached Variance petition). At no time during Broekert's communications with city officials was there a specific directive that he could not have his fence at the current height. He was informed in the October 17, 1990, letter, in items numbered 1 and 2, that as long as he satisfied specific side and rear set back rules that his installation was in compliance. Broekert did move back his fence from the side and rear property lines. After expending much effort and dollars moving his fence he is now informed that the fence is too high. Broekert reasonably relied on city officials site inspections, communications, i.e. October 17, 1990 letter, with regard to the set back rules, and has made significant, costly reductions of his deck area to comply with city officials. As early as April 1991, in a meeting Broekert had with Terry Spaeth and Ron O'Brien, City Building Department, Broekert was informed by Spaeth that everything was ok and that he had complied with all necessary city rules and regulations. Then two days later, Spaeth informed Broekert, that Spaeth had misinterpreted city regulations and that his structure should be considered a fence. Now after approximately 2§ years of working with city officials and following their advice and directives, and after spending approximately $18,ODO.OD, he is informed that his fence is too high. This variance request is unique in nature and not likely to be requested by others in a recurring nature. The particular characteristics of Broekert's back lot makes this variance request a very specific and individual circumstance. In order to protect the safety and welfare of children within Mr. Broekert's neighborhood, to secure that individuals do not fall from Broekert's deck over alow requ st that you preserve approve the Broekert's property rights, we existing height of Mr. Broekert's fence. _ha -as, c_ :'�� c•.:r:i_inear street_ ap. c__- . de -sacs :he.zc-fn: ace_'is:za =av ac:corize a recuction cc the otherwise sDezified 1et frontage lr. F-district precioed that a) the lot wid::. measured a: tne building line shall equal the frontage required In the district where locates, b) the front jot line shall be not less thar. fortF (40) feet in any event and c) such reduction of frontage sha:1 not resclt in a reduction of the required lct area. 6:.200 YA.L ?RO?ECTIO:: IS R-DISTRICTS: Certain architectural features may project into required yards or courts as follows: a. Front and Side Yards: Into any required front yard, or required side }•arc adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, sir. (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building except for a railing not exceeding three (3) feet in height; bay windows, balconies, uncovered porches -and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet, provided that such features do not occupy, in the aggregate, more than. one-third (1/3) of the length of the building wall on which they are located. Other canopies may be permitted under a conditional use permit. b. Interior Side 'Yards and Rear Yards: Subject to the limitations above, the above -named features may project into a jequiredivard adjoining an interior f the required least widtfk lot line, a distance not to exceed one of such yard, but not exceeding three (3) feet in any case. c. Existin€ Porches red or Rebuilt: Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence as of the effective date of the zoning code may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ID -foot mini=u front yard. 62.210 R-:.AR YARD MODIFICATION IE R-DISTRICTS: In the case where an existing accessory structure is built closer to the side lot line that the minimum required side yard width, thereby establishing a rear yard that is greater than that minimum required by the zoning code, said rear yard may be reduced under the following conditions a. The rear yard shall not be reduced to less than the minimum required rear yard. \� b. This modification applies to only those buildings that were built prior to the effective date of the zoning code. �v c. The principal or accessory structure that may be added onto an existing principal use shall be distant at least six (6) feet from the existing '}' building that is closer to the side lot line that the minimum required side yard. �' FENCES, WALLS, A\'D iEDivES: Fences, walls, and hedges may be located in an}' required yard or buildable lot area subject to the provisions of paragraph 62.202. but shall not exceed six (6) feet in height above the elevation of the surface of the ground at any point, except that in instances where public safety or security necessitate, the zoning ad-ministrator may authorize fences and walls to have a maxima=• height of not to exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the surface of the ground a: any point. 25 63.30 (RZpkEIi IIATIOS CO: TII :ED) c. Banks of Excavation Not Backfilled: The banks of all excavations not back - filled shall be sloped to the water line at a slope which shall not be less than three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical and said bank shall be seeded. d. Additional Requirements: In addition to the foregoing the commission may impose such other conditions, requirements, or limitations concerning the nature, extent of the use5and operation offsuch or mines, quarries Or ction of adjacent pits as the commission may deem necessary properties and the public interest. The said conditions and the tamount Of the performance bond shall be determined by the nce of the permit. 63.400 PRIVATE Swilo,,ING POOLS: fto � ... ..ng pool shall be allowed in any R-district except as an accessory use and unlessitcomplies with the following conditions and require m •-rt`1' � a.. E Exclusive Private Uses: The pool is intended and is to be used solely for the enjoyment of the occupants of the principal building of the property on which it is located and their guests. i b. Distance Requirements: It may not be located in a required side yard o closer than ten (10) feet to any property line of the property on located; provided that pump and filter installations shall be located not closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. C. Fencing: The swimming pool, or the entire property on which it is located, shall be so walled or fenced as to prevent uncontrolled access by children from the street or from adjacent properties. Such wall or fence shall be not less than five (5) feet in height. 63.500 SIGNS: 63.501 PURPOSE AND IA'T,.%T: The purpose of the zoning code is to establish aset symbols of standards to control the erection and use of outdoor advertising signs, markings or devices within the City of Rochester, twelfareThesofspersonssw'thin designed to protect the public health, safety generalityb erviding the City of Rochester and to promo te the quality of theemctivenass and flexibility regulations that will permit and encourage creativity, eeffff in the design and use of such outdoor advertising devi- 63.502 PERM=- REQUIRED: No person, corporation, organization or institution shall be permitted to erect, construct, alter, or maintain outdoor advertising signs without first obtaining a permit therefore. No outdoor advertising shall hereafter he limits of the be erected, put up, constructed, altered, or maintained within t corpora Citv of Rochester, Minnesota, by any person(s), firm, ihenzoningnization adtinistzator or institution until a zoning certificate has been issued by which shall be and a permit has been issued by the building and safety department, enewed by A, oril , affixed to the lower right hand corner of each sign and shall be r 1st of each year. 48 is is 1 0 f OL =0 13 02 P4989 wall 77 pump, d2 zo w n'Q Am! IS, 71=4 103. v ROCHESTER June 7, 1989 Plan Correction List swiTmting pool and 14" decking around pool 1904 23� St. S.E. Rochester., mN 55904 BILL BRO=RT, Omer BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Focnester, MN 559D4.47" (507)281-6133 Please resubmit two sets of plan corrections or addenda modifications which includes the following corrections, for final review, prior to permit issuance: 1. section 2303(a)(b): Show camplete framing and fastener details/information as applicable for the deck. This includes, but is not limited to: ledger strip, ledger strip fasteners, siding and wall sheathing adjacent to the ledger strip, framing penetration of ledger strip fasteners, spacing, location and sue of ledger strip fasteners, metal joist hangers, metal joist hanger fastener schedule, grade and speciesbeam construction, �of all deck framing, beam fastener, beam to coltim¢i fasteners/connections, column to footing connection and fasteners, guardrail and intermediate rail fasteners, size, spacing, location and adjacent materials and construction' diagonal bracing, diagonal bracing fasteners size, location and type, etc. 2. Section 2303(a)(b): Show complete framing and fastener details informtion as applicable for the. stairs. This includes, but is not limited to: stair jacks, stair stringers, net depth of stair jacks at cut-outs, fasteners and connections of jacks and/or stringers to the deck and/or lending, tread material, connections and fasteners of treads to jacks and/or stingers, guardrail, handrail and interrrediate rail size and spacing, fasteners, and fastener size and spacing, fastener location and adjacent mste-isls and construction, species and grade of all wood framing, etc. 3. Provide cross -sections to establish elevation of the decks, pool, house, �� and fence. 6 4. planning & Zoning have indicated that the maximum height for a fence in a residential area is 6 feet. (Contact Terry Spaeth at Zoning Dept.) Ron O' rien Plan Checker I RD/bk Mr. zamt dpn Au"It,vlT'�atnx !7[fien �npioyn The previous document is imaged to the best quality possible. The original document is of very poor - quality. Scanned by Olmsted County Imaging Department pc"csrn.,,^ DE. q ff 1'. D.' C 4 L��II D.SUDUS�'�•'• Rochester -Olmsted DIVISIONS DEPARTMENT OF Acminisiration 507/285.8232 PLAG AND HOUSING Planning 5C71285-8232 2122 NNINCampus Drive S.E. HRA 507 285.8224 Rochester, Minnesota 55904-4744 October 17, 1990 William Broekert 1904 23 1/2 Street SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Dear Mr. Broskart: I am writing to clarify and ensure that you understand what needs to be done in order to meet the zoning ordinance requirements and around obtain the a zoning certificate for the structure (fence) placed perimeter of your property. You had applied for a variance to permit the placement of a structure (9' high fence) in the required side and rear yards of your property. • Your variance request was to also permit the placement of an accessory structure (deck that exceeds 30" in height above grade) that terxceeded the lot coverage requirements of the rear yard. Zoning Board of Appeals denied your variance request on October 3, 1990. At this time in order to comply with the city zoning ordinance requirements you will need to do the following: 1. That portion of the fence located in the required side yard cannot be higher than 61above the ground or it may be moved to within the buildable lot area and must then meet a minimum side yard setback of 6' from the side property line. 2. That portion of the fence located in the required rear yard'cannot be higher than 6' above the ground or it may be moved to within the buildable rear yard and must be setback a minimum of 18" from the side property line in the rear yard. 3. The fence cannot be located within the utility easement located along the rear property line. (It would appear that the fence is located outside of the easement.) 4. The deck within the rear yard upon the property cannot exceed 30" in height above the ground at any point or else it becomes a structure and is subject to meeting the 35 % lot coverage requirements for accessory structures located in the rear yard. . (There does not appear to be any way that the lot coverage requirement can be met since the swimming pool occupies close to 35 8 of the rear yard area.) An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer At this time I am requesting that you submit a plan indicating how you propose to remedy this violation and also a schedule of completion of these items. As we had discussed, I feel it would be reasonable to permit the leveling of the grade below the deck to be completed next spring since we may have frost and snow in the near future. I would expect that this and all other work would be completed by June 1, 1991. If the property is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements at that time I will request that the City Attorney's office initiate appropriate legal action to abate this violation. If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at 285-8232. Resp .fully/ r Terry A. Spaeth Zoning Administrat Enclosure • c`Ac .TE-A 3G �Oo ° ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION PLANNING HRA 507/285-8232 5071285-8232 507/285-8224 TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Terry Spaeth, Planner DATE: July 30, 1991 RE: Variance Request H 91-23 Consolidated Planning Department Review: Applicant: William Broekert 1904 23 1/2 Street SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a variance to permit a deck that exceeds 35% lot coverage within the required rear yard upon the property. Location: 1904 23 1/2 Street SE Zoning: R-3 (Medium Density Residential) District Analysis: The applicant is requesting a variance to permit a deck that is over 30" in height (therefore considered a structure) to exceed the 35% lot coverage requirement within the rear yard area for accessory structures under the provisions of Paragraph 62.107 of the Rochester Zoning Code. The applicant had requested a variance to the fence height and lot coverage in 1990, and that request was denied by the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning Staff Suggested Findings: Exceptional Circumstances: An exceptional circumstance applying to the property or to the intended use of the property is that the high water table causes drainage problems in this area and filling in under the deck so that the height does not exceed 30" above grade may increase drainage problems on the tot and immediate vicinity. Natural Causes: The alleged hardship or difficulty has resulted from actions of the applicant by the construction of the pool and deck upon the property. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY%AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 July 30, 1991 Preservation of Property Rights_ A variance may be necessary for the preservation of property rights similar to those possessed by other owners of property in the vicinity since the drainage in this area would appear to make it unreasonable to add fill material underneath the existing deck and create additional drainage problems. Absence of Detriment: The authorization of a variance for the lot coverage of the deck The the swimming pool would not appear to be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. General Nature:This variance request would not appear to be general or recurrent in nature. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Site Plan 3. Copy of Applicatio Reviewed by 7 3 ri i 0 0 _OW CREEK HIGH SCHOOL PINSW00� ROap t� vi � ,3 �073 Fj 5.Ib 23 ST. PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY 3pT2.7j0° C �1 jgD72•�� 0 a ■ t; lSl -Solt 3071-600 c 00 Z00 1 go" 73 • o 1"+ 1100 3073-12D0 •13 pt %V gore •.019 i0i6 �D�O 1� 0 Z1oo 600 700 800 q00 1000 11DD `q0 3p73•t3Do S 3076• 231/2 ST. ,a ,a ,a ° :n sP jDw aD76. 24oD :D .� eto nD �1� ' 2 �' 1• 2Do ;p7D• ;� g076' 30D CIDZ`D'p� 2Soo . .700 S.E. 0 5 i9 7 24 �076 �16 32DD 3 3 :,D7Bp�76' 19 LONE >✓o Dill' 3• _ D 3B�•% nr 1 ST. S.E. CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA DATE: July 23, 1991 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 c/o Zoning Administration APPLICATION FOR A yARIANCE The undersigned (do) (does) hereby make application to the Zoning Board f provisionspofals of the ciy Paragraph 60t401fandc62.107/of1thesZoningoCode the LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address: 7904 234 Street SE Rochester. MN Legal Description: Minnesota. REASON FOR VARIANCE: (Describe in detail and state unusual conditions that cause hardship. Attach additional sheets if needed.) See Attachment " " (I) (We) hereby depose and say that all of the above statement and statements contained in all exhibits transmitted herewith are true. IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have subscribed to the application on this 23rd day of July, 1991. Respectfully submitted, ::amen of Owner) DISTRIBUTION: Zoning Administrator (copy) Applicant (copy) (Home Phone) iness Phone) 0 William Broekert's Application for a variance Zoning Board of Appeals City of Rochester July 23, 1991 ATTACHMENT "B', Mr. Broekert has proceeded with his Building permit and Zoning Certificate that was issued to him by the Rochester Building Safety eared & planning Department on June 2, 1989. Bzoekert has app before the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 14, 1990, for the installation of his pool, deck and fence located at 1904 23s Street SE, Rochester, MN. After several attempts to install a portion of the pool below the surface of the ground, Broekert experienced that it was impossible because of the severe water leakage. As a result, the entire pool is above ground and consequently, the deck surrounding his pool is greater than 30 inches above the ground, thereby(, placing the pool, deck and fence into the 35% lot coverage requirement for accessory structures as provided in Rochester • Zoning Code 62.107 Accessory Buildings in R-Districts: The severe water leakage from the high water table on Broekert's property required him to place crushed stone beneath his Pool. In order to avoid the 35% lot coverage requirement for accessory structures located in the near yard, Broekert has attempted to add fill beneath his deck. Broekert's initial goal was to add sufficient fill underneath the deck so that the deck Placing does not exceed 30 inches above the ground.exacerbate theditional extreme fill beneath the deck, however, could only water drainage problem by interfering with the crushed stone Broekert previously placed under his pool. Broekert has diligently kept local City Officials informed with his installation process and has been in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. During a May 30, 1991, meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Broekert, Ron Livingston, Terry Spaeth and Crthe aig Wendland, Broekert's attorney, Ron Livingston supported recommendation that Broekert apply for a variance'to the 35% lot coverage -requirement. The consequences of Broekert not being granted a variance to the 35% lot coverage requirement would be extreme, jeopardizing over 2k years of labor, approximately $8,000.00 in materials and a severe detriment to Broekert after reasonably relying upon local officials, rules and regulations. Moreover, for Broekert to attempt to avoid the 35% lot coverage requirement by placing fill under his deck to meet the 30 inch height requirement would only add greater harm to Broekert's property by disrupting its already limited water drainage capacities. Accordingly, for the above mitigating factors, we respectfully request a variance to the • maximum lot coverage requirement of 35% of the buildable rear yard area for accessory structure. r L_J 5i11 "-I'w �-'^r;ie oraec:er+ 1^'P eiong with other neighbors ha+re ccr,tmued to be concerned that uour nine foot fence would tie detrtrnk!'ite! to !.rJe velue arid mart< teGiit 1 of 011 oro-ertu. Obviously, the zonin l ^rS east to protect the oualitu of isle reighbo!-hood erid everuone's finnncial ;!r:esiment. we £-rave 5sl•.ed 5r, indeoenoent reaitor working in the e!"ea u, evaluate the situtUon. St -le breUaht ';ever.l clients bU to oel ttleu• ruacttons to the fence She. reciort�d neoative reaction£: unif(i!tir4, -no has advised U'a" t0 fo110h, throUrr, with the zonma bo5r0, or rl' serious diificultu irl tiie e'lerrtuei sellino Of our properra. e�;isis scn-,e uncer•...,,.r'� ,Jriur Intentions to in.wer the Tf-�er•e ,ni.IJ r::Jar;_ I� - hei ht of your fence as directed byte omng board ruling of Sept. 19-DO. { r. ' „ i l'iltit ff - �t 1'_ our Un0 r •.ttndl la 'li I l i Se, 41'e hope tltl 15 T ua IIII 1 6. ' tU 4Ul . I. I,. 4jul�rlt .I .. -. ;r HI r-ttemot to rorr.r1lu Qr-C:u!'!d lu .�I under UJ'. _ N 17` :i1Jt• 1_ll!IlClla•nj e u U': , J., UII Ine IeVel of the oeck'nr SUr!'(r,lnaing the pool is xell as, . IL2`"'!. i-1� ti1P iCfi Re1t• - - , 11�- 'ell ill Ir _ '1'. .1 :!'lie 1 r,.... Ir-• ('. ❑' T'1P r!ei0r!bCIrn00a l^ICJUc: 13U ltu. U::�. ,... ... We woulc be willing to meet with uou m finding a solution to this problem..Agm, we are trying to be upfront and honest with you and would prefer to solve this problem peacefully and hope that you can appreciate that Borne tuoe of compromise is actually in your best interest. Sincere] y, nce Carnr,::t,ee Cfcairrrian=,_rr.ny e and 0 The previous document is imaged to the best quality possible. The original document is of very poor - quality. Scanned by Olmsted County Imaging Department REC -ST FOR COUNCIL AC' -)N AGENDA SECTION: MUBLIC HEARINGS EM DESCRIPTION: FINAL PLAT OF ESSEX ESTATES THIRD SUBDIVISION September 12, 1991 ' Staff Recommendation: See report dated September 12, 1991 Council Action Needed: ORIGINATING DEPT: Dept of Planning MEETING 911'i91 DATE. ITEM NO. $-Z PREPARED BY: Jeff Ellerbusch 1. The City Clerk will need to publish a notice of Public Hearing in the Post Bulletin no later then Saturday, September 7,1991. 200Written et nonotice o ftthe hearing should be sent to owners of property within han Saturday, September 7, 1991. 2. The Council may take action by motion. 3. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted to separately to City Clerk by Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Application 2. Recording Statement 3. $30.00 Recording Fee Check 4. Title Opinion 5. Residual Property Descriptions 6. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 7. 1 Original Plat Mylar 8. 3 Mylar Copies Mylar Attachment: 1. Staff report dated September 12, 1991 DISTRIBUTION 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Department of Planning File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered at a public hearing before the Common Council on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, sometime after 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers in City Hall 5. McGhie and Betts COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: B-4 R-3 R -I R - 1 ZONING MAP 1"- IDOO' = I R•Sa ESTATE A RESIDENTIAL LOGATID�i eF ESSEI� R-Sp ESTATE B RESIDENTIAL r 9-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GSiAi�S TRib FINAL iPLO R.2 LDN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-S MEDIUM DERS17T RESIDENTIAL 2-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 D-1. RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS B-IB NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS 8-2 CENTRAL BUSINESS R atf3 yam+ , {1 7 B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS GENERAL BUSINESS ` 9-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • +s _ 1 - 14-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL I INSTITUTIONAL R 2 PUD-R-6 N�• PUD-R-101 \.ti• - R-) 1. ESSEX ESTATRS ~- R-1 - PUD R—II- is 1 , _ •I� C DP -- W 1 R-3 R -1 M-2 R ate) --.:.. n—� B-4 a. a'!PUD ..W J El -lb 01PUD 1 R-3 R5 \ B - 4 M� c r I r p P c i e R• 1 9I DI.NN• 0 �p CH ESTEA. Nlyy pP.... .. fSp R�i[O.�UGU SS•5' ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION 5071285-8232 PUNNING 5071285-8232 HRA 5071285-8224 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner DATE: September 12, 1991 RE: Final Plat of Essex Estates Third Subdivision General Informatio Applicant: N.A. Realty, Inc. Franklin P Kottschade, President 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyor's/Engineers: McGhie and Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 Referral Comments: Public Services, Park and Rec, RPU Electric, Fire Dept: See Attached Map Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Composite Plat Map for the Essex Estates Subdivisions 3. Essex Estates P.U.D. Final Site Plan 4. Copy of Essex Estates Third Final Plat (2 pages) Plat Data: Location: .>._- _ This plat is located along the easterly side of the newly constructed Essex Parkway west of West River Road NW. The plat begins just to the north of the Aldrich Nursery School bolding which is presently under construction. Plat Size: 18.96 acres total. A portion of this plat is . part of a previously platted in Essex Estates First Subdivision Lot 1, Block 4. Lots: This plat creates 30 lots for single family homes and two large lots, Lots 6 and 7 of AN EQUAL OPPORTUNMYV AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Essex Estates Third September 12, 1991 Block 4 being 3.5 and 5.00 acres each. The large lots are the site of the Aldrich Memorial Nursery School and the approved Realife Cooperative apartment building. All single family lots in the plat exceed the R-1 Zoning District minimum standards. Preliminary Plat: The land involved in this final plat was part of the larger preliminary Planned Unit Development and preliminary subdivision plat approved by the Council on July 16, 1990. This final plat conforms to the street layout of the preliminary plan and plat. Zoning: The property being platted as Essex Estates Third is zoned both Planned Unit Development R-101 (Essex Estates) and R-1 (Single Family Residential). The two large lots in this plat, Lots 6 and 7 of Block 4, are within the boundaries of the P.U.D. The 30 single 4 family lots are zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential). The preliminary P.U.D. plans indicated that Lots 1-6, Block 4, of this plat were going to be used for two unit townhouses. When the is final plans were adopted for the Aldrich Memorial Nursery School and the Realife Cooperative projects in April of this year, the idea of the two unit townhouses as shown on the preliminary plan was scrapped. The developer decided to continue on with the remaining single family portion development under the conventional R-1 zoning district standards and not include the single family lots in this plat within the Final P.U.D. boundary. The staff has no objection to that approach since all lots and streets in this plat conform to conventional standards. The only development flexibility lost to the developer by not incorporating these single family lots within the P.U.D. is that a conventional front yard setback of 25' will have to be maintained whereas single family lots within the Final P.U.D. can have a reduced frontyard setback of 20'. The City loses no more control over the project. Streets: This plat lies adjacent to the platted right-of-way for Essex Parkway. At the south end of the plat just north of the Aldrich Nursery School a new street is platted off Essex Parkway called Cornwall Drive which in -turn connects to another new street at its north end called Londonderry Drive. Page 3 Essex Estates Third • September 12, 1991 Londonderry Drive also intersects with Essex Parkway and according to the plans will continue on to the east in the future. Off the north side of Londonderry Drive is a cul-de-sac street called Warwick Lane. The beginning of a future street called Plymouth Drive on the plat is platted to the west off Cornwall Drive. All street right-of-way widths conform to the Thoroughfare Plan design standards. Graff Recommendation: This plat conforms in principle to the approved preliminary plat and is recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. The plat should be changed to indicate that the correct name of Plymouth Drive NW should be Plymouth "Lane" NW. According to the preliminary plans, this street in the future will be a cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sacs are called "lanes" according to City street naming policies. 2. Before the plat is recorded, the developer should provide to the City metes and bounds legal descriptions of the unplatted remnant parcels within the City limits created by the approval of this plat. An unplatted parcel is created between Essex Parkway and this plat as well as a second unplatted parcel located to the east and north of this plat. Also, a metes and bounds legal description of the remnant platted parcel, being the remainder of the original Lot 1, Block 4 of Essex Estates Subdivision, created by this plat should also be provided. These legal descriptions are important to the Auditor's Office to correctly create the parcels. rj 0 � r � ROCHESTER DATE: September 6, 1991 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Services �t •gyp CHf.STEi. w�. `. �R.iTFD.eC6i 5Z •S'. DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SERVICES 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904.4718 (507)281-6008 FAX #(507) 281.6216 RE: FINAL PLAT #91-23 OF ESSEX ESTATES 3RD SUBDIVISION IN REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE MATTER, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. Essex Estates 3rd Subdivision is subject to postponed assessments for: Project J8475 - Northwest Water Tower @$1118.9183/per acre and also for Project J8476 - Northwest Trunkline Sanitary Sewer @$1222.045/per acre- 0 0 a 0 DATE: 6 September 1991 TO: Rose Johanns ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION M E M O R A N D U M FROM: Denny Stotz RE: Essex Estates 3rd Subdivsion The parkland dedication requirements of this subdivision have been met through the September 20, 1990 agreement between the City and the applicant, North American Realty. This agreement included the dedication of 7.0 acres of land to the City by the applicant. U 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-281 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 September 5, 1991 TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design { Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Final Plat #91-23 of Essex Estates Third Subdivision, a plat of 30 new single family home lots and two large tracts being the future site of the Aldrich Nursery School (under construction) and the • Realife Cooperative retirement apartments. This plat is located along the north side of Essex Parkway NW extending from West River Road (CR 133) northerly. We have no objections to this final plat as it is outside our 1974 service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve this area in the future. Sincerely, Roge Kanestadt ks Enc. c: R. Pawelski W. Lorber A. Amundson T. Adkins, City Attorney J. Chase, Attorney L 0 ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division FROM: Gary J. Smith, Assistant Fire Chief DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT #91-23 Our department has no difficulty with this proposal as long as the following guidelines are followed: 1. Adequate water flow for fire protection measures Is present and fire hydrants properly placed. Our recommendation is to have a fire hydrant located in each cul-de-sac along with the accepted standard of distances no greater than 400 feet between fire hydrants in a residential neighborhood. 2. Cul-de-sac radius/diameter shall conform to the minimum distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle access. 3. Cul-de-sac lengths shall conform to the distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle operations. 4. Street widths shall conform to the minimum distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle operations. 'lee Gary J. Smith Assistant Fire Chief is �,f0 �g�RR0W9 tssexU. =srares _-=3-T'N"`=! �.. t •,� ,fir",.. PaDp -46D ESSEX ESTATES THIRD I,I � L fir'""--� p T•�• I •� , `�� ` ' ESSEX ESTATES" ESSEX ESTATES S£Ct7N0 {il: — �;' � �.Iti I' • -t L� Ili -_____�,� �.— _•ram —� R: pl. AT..' S'JRP.:S: ArP.drA"JSo-N _.-,...:.`' : r' Si•BL I _j c.T T'T ia1 SOn'9. -� r 1.•dA�,q I wU N P 1 ..,7 r. P �.j.l� j --y i — / I � 1 �" ��• ` 1 R•. i 1 ; •! a `� 1� _ i ° 1 `�� I •( • •,( ` ` 1 \ram-V' \ � .77 11� -1_-1 /��•14h.ate! .�^��" X- �••- _� I r E 12 `� j 41 �I F . ,� a � IYI ; i , LP 1 IIE"T UN16M L I, •i s� .- .: DTI �� _, _ .,._ ::�aE •aNCi f IfF1a .i I�•- - It I C W:a�i: �; E.rw E� _ E[IEXIM ESSEX ESTATES" poaK ""� ESSEX ESTATES FINAL PLAM LA m 0 • _0 _ E .o llei seetei le-•Yi pia. m e!si m lit! . :to n N REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9 / 17 / 91/ AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. B _ 3 Hearinas Public Service IM DESCRIPTION: Reconstruction of East-West Alley Between E BY:4 13th & 16th Ave. S.W. and Between 1st & 2nd St. S.W. Tod is This is a hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. 9115 J No. 9205 "Reconstruction of the East-West Alley Between 13th Avenue S.W. and 16th Avenue S.W. and Between lst Street S.W. and 2nd Street S.W." The estimated costs are: Materials $16,120 Labor & Equipment 13,600 Engineering 840 Interest 500 Total $31,060 The work would be performed by Street Maintenance with the property owners being assessed at $5.00 per foot. The additional • costs would be paid for from Street Maintenance funds. 'i Council Action Requested If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since this was initiated by Council Action, a 6/7th vote is required. i OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: I L Report On Feasibility Of Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 9115 J No. 9205 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing "Reconstruction of the East-West Alley between 13th Avenue S.W. and 16th Avenue S.W. and between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street S.W.", was referred to the Public Services Department on August 19, 1991 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. Engineers Report We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The existing alley is in poor condition and does not drain properly. We propose regarding of the alley to proper elevation and installation of crushed rock base and bituminous surface to the "V" section necessary to provide drainage from the adjacent properties onto the alleyway. Approximately 400 feet of storm sewer pipe would be installed. The project would be constructed using Department of Public Services personnel and materials purchased from pipe suppliers and seasons supply of crushed rock and paver laid bituminous material. The estimated.costs of the project as follows: Materials $16,120 Labor & Equipment 13,600 Engineering 840 Interest 500 Total $31,060 We recommend that Special Assessments be levied abutting property at the rate of, $5.00 per assessable the assessments to be spread over a two year period. Albert JV Toddie, Jr. Assistant City Engineer against the foot with 1] 0 Is BUDGET AND ASSESSME14T SCHEDULE / FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Ij. No. 9i15 Date (Orig.) August 12, 1991 J No. 9205 Description & Location Reconstruction of East-West Alley Between 13th Ave. S.W. and 16th Ave. S.W. and Between 1st Street S.W. and 2nd Street S.W. Project Budget F na Costs Contract Cost Construction- Date: Materials 16,120 Labor & F,g,}upment 13,600 & Easements- 0 40ght-Of-Way gineering- _ 840 Interest- 500 Contingency - Total Construction & $31,060 Expense DISTRIBUTION To be Presently ASSESSED 5,635 Deferred Assessments State Funds Federal Funds City Funds Street Maint (1991) $25,425 Total $31,060 Make Initial Disbursements from P•1.R• Fund 19 W PROJECT NO. 9115 J NO. 9205 % RECONSTRUCTION OF ALLEY BETWEEN 13T" a 16T" AVE. S.W. AND. BETWEEN 2ND a IST STREET S.W. EST. COST 310060 N 4 0 30 100 200 SCALE 1-2 f00', x /01e.4 221ND ST. S.W. 10169 x I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9/17/91 DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Administrator IV-1 I'Wu nr-grRiPTInN PREPARED BY: Alvin Bell to be Heard S. Alvin Bell of 103 - filth Street SE has demanded an opportunity to appear before the Council to discuss what he indicates is violence in his neighborhood. Mr. Bell has appeared before the Council approximately one year ago to discuss a similar subject. Mr. Bell recently had a dispute with some people attending a party in his neighborhood and received a severe cut on his thumb. ACTION: Main &r. Seeaid by: . to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING OATS: 9 17 91 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Administrator DESCRIPTION: I PREPARED BY: Davies Printing Company for a Revocable Permit I G. Neumann The attached letter from the Davies Printing Company requests that the City Council approve the issuance of a revocable permit to allow construction to be commenced on an expansion of their building. The issuance of a revocable permit would allow them to begin construction instead of waiting for the completion of the utility easement vacation process. Davies has indicated that they will be petitioning to vacate the easement, but the vacation has not been applied for to date. The staff would recommend that the Council approve the revocable permit contingent upon Davies applying for and proceeding with the vacation of the utility easement. Thus far, the Public Services Department has found that there are no public sanitary sewer, watermain, or storm sewer lines in the easement. The Planning Department will be attempting to check with RPU and the telephone and cable companies to determine whether they have any facilities in the easement to be vacated. If there are any other utilities in the easement area, arrangements will have to be made by Davies to r6place them elsewhere or the revocable permit could not be issued. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the revocable permit subject to there being no utilities in the easement area and contingent upon Davies being required to file the petition to commence the vacation. ACTION: Modon br by to: DAVIES PPRINTING COMPANY Post Office Box 6471 2713 Pennington Ct. NW Rochester, MN 55903-6471 Telephone507/288-9297 Facsimile 507/288-4867 September 9, 1991 City Council City of Rochester Attn: Mr. Steve Kvenvold 0 Re: Davies Printing Company Office Expansion Dear Mr. Kvenvold, Please accept this letter as an application for a revocable permit to begin footing and foundation work for our new office expansion project. The new office will be built in a utility easement which we are petitioning to vacate. This revocable permit would allow us to begin construction during the petitioning process. Sincerely, Susan K. Dripps Vice President /-/14-7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION UEETIN9 9/17/91/ DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Administrator 1E .Z M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Fill Site Agreements - Stage 2B G. Neumann The City has negotiated with the owners of the US Auto and Marine and the Baptist Church properties to utilize portions of those properties as fill sites for the Corps Stage 2B project. The City is required to locate fill sites under our agreement with the Corps. The agreements with these two properties specify that the City is able to utilize the property for the placement of fill at no charge to the City and that the City will in return designate these properties as optional fill sites which are available for the Stage 2B contractors use. The estimated amount of fill that can be placed on the US Auto and Marine property is 23,700 cubic yards. The estimated fill that can be placed on the Baptist Church property is 18,900 cubic }lards. There are some additional lands which are owned by US Auto and Marine which will be needed for the actual construction of the channel. Those lands will still need to be acquired by the City and are not subject to this agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the agreements with the owners of the US Auto and Marine and Baptist Church properties for the placement of fill. UNCILACTION: Made. ey: Secondbr. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:9/17/91" AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING OEPT: ITEM NO. Renorts and Recommendations City Administrator I ?J for Fill Material with The City is responsible for finding material from the river channel in Rodney Youngs to see if the City woc material on property which he owns 2nd Street SW and West Circle Drive, acceptable fill site for Stage 2B reasonable hauling distance for the G. sites for the disposal of the excavated Stage 2B. The City was contacted by ld be interested in placing some of the >n the SE corner of the intersection of The site proposed by Mr. Younge is an )f the Corps project as it is within a contractor. Therefore, the City and Mr. Younge have reached an agreement whereby he will allow the city to utilize his property for the placement of fill at no cost to the City, and he has agreed to pay the City 50 cents a cubic yard for the material, estimated to total 150,000 cubic yards, for a total payment of $75,000. The City, in return, has designated this property as a mandatory fill site for the Stage 2B contractor. The staff recommends approval of the agreement for fill material with kodney Youngs. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Approval of the agreement for fill material with Rodney Youngs. ACTION: Moft. br. S9=1 d by: 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE. 4, 1 7 i9t AGENDA SECTION: MPORTS AND R PARKING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER ORIGINATING DEPT: The Council authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of use as a parking lot for the Senior Citizens Center. The by the City at $i00,000. City funding for the project Community Development Block Grant program. ITEM NO. -De -q PREPARED BY: DOUG 205 North Broadway for property was appraised is to be paid from the The property is owned by Gander Distribution, Inc. Mr. Gander paid $104,000 for the property in 1990. He also incurred several thousand dollars in costs for an environmental assessment prior to his purchase. A copy of the assessment was given to the City. The City negotiated with Mr. Gander for several months. We made a final offer for the property of $112,000. The offer was originally rejected. The realtor handling the transaction then agreed to waive his fee and Mr. Gander accepted. I An environmental assessment conducted in April of 1990 indicated the presence of hydrocarbon contamination. The report indicated that the likely source of contamination was the adjacent Amoco station. Pvelopment District staff has discussed this matter directly with Amoco epresentatives. Amoco has completed initial environmental tests at the gas station site. The testing indicates evidence of leaking tanks with a ground water movement to the northwest. Under current regulations, the owner of the leaking tanks is responsible for the costs of clean-up. Amoco has proposed additional testing which would include the installation of a monitoring well at 205 North Broadway. Once that data collection is complete, Amoco will file a clean-up plan with the PCA. Actual clean-up work, to the extent it is required, would probably not begin until the spring of 1992. If for any reason it was determined that Amoco was not responsible for the clean- up, PCA representatives indicate that the City would be eligible to apply to the Petro Fund for 90% of the clean-up costs. The PCA indicated that in cases like this, the clean-up process typically involves the use of aeration and filtering equipment rather excavation of the contaminated soils. COUNCIL ACTION REOUSSTED 1) Approve the purchase of 205 North Broadway for $112,000 contingent upon the owner agreeing to hold the City harmless from and indemnify us from any costs associated with clean-up of the site. 2) Authorize the staff to obtain bids for the demolition of the building. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: KA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/1 /91 AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Airport U__ S FAA Lease for space at the Rochester The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: . 1. Enter into a new Lease Agreement with the United States of America (FAA) for 3,850 sq. ft. of -office space at the Rochester Airport. United States of America Lease No. DTFA14-91-L-R1382. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Lease Agreement for the City. NAPE 9/13/91: PREPARED BY: S.W. The term of the lease is for 1 year. The FAA is agreeing to lease 3,850 sq. ft. in the Tower and the Station Building at a base rent of $5.87/sq. ft. with.an additional $4.43 for janitorial, heat and. air conditioning. The total payment is $39,308.50 for the lease term. *NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration August 21, 1991 Mr. Steve Leqve Airport Manager. Rochester Municipal Airport Rochester, Minnesota 55902 Dear Mr. Leqve: Great Lakes Region Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin 2300 E Devon Avenue Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 Enclosed are 3 copies of Lease No. DTFA14-91-L-R1382 between the City of Rochester and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the FAA space in the Tower and Station Building. The space has been measured according to Government standards and the annual rental based on the measurements and your proposal sent to Steve McMahon on June 20, 1991. Please review the document, and if in agreement, have the proper authorities complete pages 15 & 16. Return all 3 copies in the self- addressed envelope and we will forward you a fully executed copy as soon as we receive them. If there are any questions, contact Chuck Faso at 708-699-1524 as he is in charge of the file. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, _ Donald P. Russo Supervisory Realty Specialist Enclosures 3 .'. f� a U.S. Department Great Lakes Region 2300 E Devon Avenue of Transportation ninols, Indiana, Michigan, Des Plaines, Illinois 6CO18 Minnesota, North Dakota, Federal Aviation Ohio, South Dakota, Administration Wisconsin Lease No. OTFA14-91-L-R1382 Rochester, MN. ATCT and AFU Rochester, Minnesota LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THIS LEASE, made and entered into this day of , 19 by and between the City of Rochester, Minnesota whose address is: RocTester Municipal Airport, Rochester, Minnesota 55902, and whose interest in the property hereinafter described is that of owner hereinafter referred to as the Lessor, and the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the Government: WITNESSETH: The parties hereto, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, covenant and agree as follows: I. DESCRIPTION. The Lessor hereby leases to the Government the following described premises: Approximately 3,850 square feet of space in the Tower and Station Building at the Rochester Municipal Airport in Rochester, Minnesota II. TERM. To have and to hold said premises with their appurtenances for the term beginning October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1992, subject to termination and renewal rights as may be hereinafter set forth. 0 Page 1 of 16 REQUEST FOR -COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9/16/91 DATE: , AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. r Rochester Public Utilities Reports & Recommendations RIPTION: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action PREPARED BY: Mary Hines The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on September 10, 1991 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: to approve a resolution declaring the week of October 6 - 12 be designated Municipal Public Power Week in Rochester, Minnesota, in order to honor the utility, its employees, and its consumer owners who work together to provide the best possible electric service and to celebrate the benefits of municipal public power in serving the public interest here and across the United States of America. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: RESOLUTION 0 WHEREAS, we the citizens of Rochester, Minnesota, are proud of our choice to operate a community owned, not -for -profit electric utility, and WHEREAS, we, the citizens of Rochester, Minnesota, are both consumers and owners of our municipal public power system, and WHEREAS, Rochester Public Utilities provides our homes, businesses, social service and local government agencies with reliable, efficient, and cost-effective electricity employing sound business practices designed to ensure the best possible service at the lowest possible rates, and WHEREAS, public ownership of Rochester Public Utilities assures not -for -profit electric rates and citizen participation in electric utility operations and policies, and WHEREAS, not -for -profit rates and citizen participation combine to insure that Rochester Public Utilities operates in the public interest, and f WHEREAS, Rochester Public Utilities is one of a community of 2,204 publicly owned municipal electric utilities in the United States, ensuring competition in the electric utility industry and benefiting all electric consumers; 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Public Utility Board requests the Rochester Mayor and Common Council declare the week of October 6 - 12 be designated Municipal Public Power Week in Rochester, Minnesota, in order to honor the utility, its employees, and its consumer owners who work together to provide the best possible electric service, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that this community joins hands with others served by locally owned and operated electric systems in a nationwide celebration of the public benefits of municipal public power, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that Rochester will undertake appropriate activities to celebrate and honor the benefits of municipal public power in serving the public interest here and across the United States of America. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 10th day of September, 1991. sident Secretary REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9-17-91 / DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. SPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY CLERK E - 7 MW DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: LICENSE AND BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES D. Schott The following licenses and bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for your consideration and/or approvals. All are pending departmental approvals, submission of the required fees, documents and bonds and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT A.F. of L Labor Temple 405 1/2 S. Bdwy. Rochester, Mn. SIGNS Signs of Success 9/15/91 PO Box 209 Oronoco, Mn. MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE Rochester Track Club 9/21/91 Stride for Fitness Running Race Olmsted Community Hospital to Rochester Community College Mayo High School 9/27/91 Homecoming Parade Soldiers Field to Central Park John Marshall Student Council 10/11/91 Homecoming Parade Soldiers Field to Central Park Rochester Track Club 11/2/91 Road Race Willow Creek Jr. High & Bear Creek Trail COUNCIL ACTION'REWESTED A motion to approve the above licenses and bonds. L ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING --_ DATE. AGENDA SECTION: _T' ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. — Reports Recommendations City Clerk EM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Renewal of On -Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License - Masters Judy Scherr A request for renewal of the On -Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor Licenses has been made by the corporation, Masters Restaurant Associated. The restaurant, located at 7 Second Street S.W., was formerly known as Tinklers and then Waters Restaurant, but has remained under the same corporation. It is anticipated that the restaurant will reopen approximately October 1st under the business name of Ruby's Southwestern Grill and Cantina. Since it has been less than one year that the restaurant has been closed, it is not necessary to request and receive a new investigative report on the corporation. Corporate officers have not changed since that time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the issuance of the On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses to Masters Restaurant Associated, Incorporated DBA Ruby's Southwestern Grill and Cantina. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: AnpZicant's Date of 8.ittz 7 39 Date Received 9 /0-4 Receipt NumbeR a 783 A Amount Pdid /gQQ,it CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Application For Renewal of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Covering the Period of through March .31, 19 92 Name of Applicant John Vincent Rimsrri4 Address of (F-41ut) (.Fu.0 %Zdae) (L.aAt) Applicant 219 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Name of Corporation Ruby's Southwestern or Association Masters Restaurant Associated Incorporated dba Grill and Cantina Address of Corporation t or Association 219 North Second Street Social Security Business Identification — - Number 475-38-2756 Number 4208789 The following items must be completed and/or accompany the completed application form. Whoever shall knowing y falsify the answers to the following questions shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punished accordingly. In answering the fol- lowing questions, one of the officers or a corporation or partner of a partnership shall ccmplete the application for all corporate officers, directors and stockholders, or all members of the partnership. i. Name under which applicant will be doing business (name of restaurant, hotel, or club). Name Ruby's Southwestern Grill and Cantina Business Address 7 Second Street S.W. Rochester, MN 55902 Telephone.._ (567) 285-9711 2. Type of Applicant (check one) Individual Partnership xx Corporation Other 3. Have there been any changes in individuals, partnerships, or corporations during the past year? Yes If Yes, list an reverse side in space provided or enclose y_ No a roster of individuals and positions. ( tun ove REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 09_17_1, DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports $ Recommendations City Clerk — M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Request to Set Hearing for Weeds, Trees, Snow and Debris Removal Judy Scherr This is a request for the Common Council to set a hearing to assess outstanding billings for Weeds, Trees, Debris and Snow Removal. The hearing is to be set for October 7, 1991. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to set a hearing for Weeds, Trees, Debris and Snow Removal.for October 7, 1991. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:g/17/91 ENDA SECTION: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: Department of Finance ITEM NO. E -(0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: Paul C. Utesch Respectfully request a motion (submitted separately) in the Less: Any exceptions to approve payment of Accounts Payable amount of $2,365,066.29. { COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION M ETIN 9i17i AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND CATIONS FINANCE 1.-fit EM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: AWARD FOR BIDS FOR CONCRETE REPAIR - PARKING RAMP DAVID WERNEW Bids were opened at 11:00 a.m., September 9th, for concrete repair work on the underside of the decks at the Second Street Parking Ramp. A tabulation of the bids is attached. Acceptance of the low bid of Restoration Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $18.30 per Sq. Ft. is recommended. They have done similar work in the past for the City. Expense is to be charged to the Parking Fund, 4961-11230. COUNCIL ACTION Adopt a resolution awarding the Inc. for $18.30 per Sq. Ft., a estimated quantity. The City quantity by 25%. bid to Restoration total of $16,470.00 may increase or Technologies, based on the decrease thq NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: § Lu § 0 � � .�—�.. -------- ... % \ / ry D \ § j b 7 a k / \ k d ` a R m 2 5 - CL e @ CD k 3 v a 0 ON e / ] d 0 P 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9/17/91 DATE: AGENDA SECTION: .e. _ , .,,.. ORIGINATING DEPT. AWARD OF BIDS FOR FERRIC CHLORIDE g" WRP ITEM NO. DAVID WERN a(Z Bids were opened at 11:00 a.m., September 9th, for one year's supply of anhydrous ferric chloride for the Water Reclamation Plant. A tabulation of the bids is attached. Acceptance of the low bid of Hawkins Chemical, Inc. in the amount of $203.90 per dry ton is recommended. The price is 5.2% higher than Hawkins contract last year. COUNCIL ACTION: It is recommended that a resolution be adopted awarding the bid to Hawkins Chemical, Inc. at $203.90 per dry ton, a total of $122,430 based on the estimated quantity. I ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: *DNI Is3Z)2II10SZH .11 CI1� NWco IGIN - m I 1r SDINONO:)a AqHaNa I I . C14 7voiwaHO SNIXMVH ro a) c 10 (a .H H P Q4 0 r-4 r 0 -rq 4J r4 U9 4J 0 E t CC C 4J r-I r-4 ii 10 en •r4 H G. r-I r-I M Z (D (D Ln E. m I 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^EETE "%" DATE. AGENDA SECTION: rPORTS AND RECOPD9ENDATIONS ORiGiNATING DEPT: Dept of Planning DESCRIPTION: Application for General Development Plan of Diamond Ridge September 13, 1991 Ci 'latnine end Zonine Commission Review: ITEM NO. E- 13 PREPARED BY: Jeffrey Ellerbus on September 11, 1991, the City Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed general development plan of Diamond Ridge. The Commission was presented a new version of the General Development which attempted to address the comments in the September 6, 1991 staff report. The Commission was told by representatives of the developer that the plan as presented, including the phasing plan, adequately addressed all the concerns in the staff report. The applicants indicated that their desire was not to change the proposed street intersections on 7th Street but if necessary they could make a slight modification to the street intersections so a street would be directly across from the future Manor Park Drive intersection as planned in the Manorwoods West General Development Plan. The Commission was also informed thit the developer would agree to work with Mr. Maynard Salley, owner of one of the properties surrounded by this plan, toward providing additional access points to his property. The developers indicated to the Commission that their project should not be required to submit to an Environmental Assessment Worksheet because the overall size of the project, which exceeds the mandatory EAW thresholds, was requested by the City and they should not be penalized with additional regulations because of their commitment to do a larger plan. The Commission was also told that all the plats in this development will be FHA approved and the Federal Government will do an environmental review of the project as part of their approval process. The Commission received comments from representatives of Johnson, Drake, and Piper, adjacent property owners Salley and Barnes, and a resident on Valley Drive NW. Mr. Fogarty moved approval noting that items a and b of the staff recommendation have been satisfied by the revised General Development Plan submitted. The revised plan which changes the westernmost cul-de-sac to a loop street and the developers proposes that 7th Street NW will be reconstructed by the City in the future and the hill reduced thereby creating acceptable sight distance for the westernmost street which intersects 7th Street. He stated as for item c of the staff recommendation, the City Traffic Department has looked at this issue and as of this time they appear to have no objection to the proposed street pattern which does not plan for the alignment of the streets. The City Council should make the final decision of whether or not these streets should align. Mr. Fogarty noted that under FHA rules the developer will be required to receive environmental approval through the Federal Government, thus a State EAW COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: J� Page 2 RCA September 13, 1991 should not be required. In addition, he noted that the preliminary park proposal will be sufficient and should be added to the plans. Ms. Combs seconded by motion. The motion carried 5-0. Mr. DeWitz abstained. Plannine Staff Recommendation: The concerns of the staff were summarized in the staff report dated September 6, 1991. The revised plan as submitted, including a phasing plan addresses some of the concerns in the staff report but the phasing issues are still of concern. 1. The phasing plan as submitted should be reviewed by Park and Rec and the City Public Services Department to determine if the phasing plan is acceptable to them. Specifically the Park and Rec Department should determine at what phase in the development of this area will the park be acquired and built to provide service to residents of this area. Also, the Public Services Department should evaluate if the City is going to rebuild 7th Street and in which phase it should be planned. 2. The plan should be designed so a major north -south uninterrupted through F street should align directly with the future intersection of Manorwoods Drive with 7th Street NW. The revised proposal and the fall back option proposed are not adequate in our opinion. 3. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be required to be done. The Council should instruct the developer to submit to the process. Any approval of this General Development Plan should carry the qualifications that it is conditional on a future finding of no significant environmental impact after the EAW process. Council Action Needed: 1. Council may take action by motion. 2. A resolution approving the General Development Plan may be adopted. Plans dated "Received September 11, 1991, Rochester Olmsted Department of Planning and Housing", may be referenced in the resolution._ Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Reduction of the revised general development and phasing plan submitted to the City Planning and Zoning Commission on 9/11/91. 3. Excerpt from General Development Plan showing applicants possible street reconfiguration to line up with Manorwoods Drive intersection. Distribution: 1. City Clerk NOTE: The revised plan was submitted to the Planning Dept. at 4:00 p.m, on Wednesday, September llth and it was approved by the Planning Commission at the 7:30 p.m, meeting on that same day. There still appears to be several issues relay to the parkland, street layout, and the need for an EAW which I believe the staff should have more time to review. Therefore, I would recoamend that this matter be tabled and referred to a Ccmnittee meeting.(��V r0000 �i Z/500 VZOO , Srsoo JSJOJ _ 32201 -AU7 7322�02 _ - 'LOCATION O F I ANCOMD Met av +: _-' CITY L�M1T5 iJrl�. 5'a:. _ ,c• 333G2 � 333q�� -_ - — _ _ 3400:: rfir 368706 tlt 35 35306AE " �Y 4 _ , R n L e �"��` ` _ . 14 IT E CITY WITS i `-• �-afmJ JfOOCi �di -=- r3�iOP _ ._. .. _ � t. T . 0.pCH ESTEP•„l.tiy % t: ! mil_.,-✓'_ '.�� CO i DA'�Tf D•AUGU`+Z •5 ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION 507/285-8232 PLANNING 507/285-8232 HRA 507/2B5-8224 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner DATE: September 6, 1991 RE: Revised Diamond Ridge General Development Plan At the June 12, 1991, City Planning and Commission meeting the Commission tabled consideration of a proposed general development plan for the Diamond Ridge area. The original proposal in June covered only 75 acres of land, 35f acres of which was already platted in the first three Diamond Ridge Subdivisions. The planning staff recommended that the proposed general development plan be found unacceptable because the plan was too small in area to be an effective planning tool creating more questions than it answered. The City Planning and Zoning Commission, at the request of the applicant, tabled consideration of the general development plan until August 28, 1991, to provide additional time for the applicant to provide a plan that would encompass a larger area. The applicant provided a revised plan on August 22, 1991. There was not enough time to prepare a response to the proposal for the August meeting, so the matter was carried over to the September Planning Commission meeting and new notices of the meeting were sent to surrounding property owners. Attached to this report is a copy of the staff report originally presented to the Commission on June 12, 1991. General Information on Revised Diamond Ridge General Development Plan: Location: The revised plan includes lands located between 7th Street NW and TA 14. The area is bounded on the east by Country Club Manor 7th Subdivision, Westway Manor Subdivision and Radichel Subdivision and extends three quarters of a mile west just past the home at 4925 7th Street NW. Project Size: This plan includes approximately 175 acres of land. In the southeast corner of the plan 35.08 acres has already been platted as the Diamond Ridge 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Subdivisions. The platted subdivision contain 109 single family lots. This plan shows 517 new single family lots on approximately 131 acres of the land. In the northeast corner of the plan there is a six 0 0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAF.FIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 General Development Plan . September 6, 1991 acre area shown for commercial use. At the northwest corner of the plan is a 2.7 acre outlot abutting TH 14. Future Land Use Map and Zoning: The Future Land Use Map for the Rochester Urban Service Area indicates that the vacant land in this plan is for the most part designated for low density residential land use. The northeast corner of this site is zoned B-4 (General Business) in the City. The area of the plan not presently in the City limits is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) district. Streets: The revised plan shows the entire street layout for this development. The road paralleling TH 14 that extends to 7th Street NW has a 66' wide right-of-way as well as the east -west street immediately to the south which is an extension of the existing Valley Drive NW. The north -south road connecting ? 7th Street to the northerly most road is shown with a 60 foot right-of-way. All other streets are designed with a 56' wide right-of-way and all but one of the cul-de-sacs has a 50' right-of-way. Only one road in this plan is shown to provide access to adjacent properties not in the plan. 7th Street along the south side of the plan is a residential collector street planned for an 80' right-of-way. Utilities: Sewer and water mains would be extended into this area from the east. This property lies outside the 1974 RPU electrical service territory. Attached to this report is a letter from the owner of the Cascade Business Park. The Public Services Department has indicated that the trunk sewer serving this area was designed and oversized to accommodate this entire drainage area and adequate capacity is available. Parkland: Attached is a memo from the Park and Rec Department outlining their recommendations for a new neighborhood park which should be included in this development. This plan presently shows no parkland and the number of • dwelling units, (626), rivals the size of Country Club Manor which has a neighborhood park and a school site. Previously Approved Page 3 General Development Plan September 6, 1991 General Development Plans: This revised Diamond Ridge plan incorporates • the remainder of the Cascade West general development plan which is the westerly 63 acres of this site. Across 7th Street NW from this plan is the Manorwoods West General Development Plan - last approved in 1985. A composite map of the Diamond Ridge and Manorwoods West plans is attached. Also attached to this report is a letter received in our office on behalf of the developers of Manorwoods West property. Staff Recommendatio The staff recommends the Commission take no action on this General Development Plan. Additional information initially requested of the plan back in June has still not been provided. This plan cannot be reasonably considered until a preliminary. drainage study is provided to the City Engineer. A drainage study will address the need for stormwater detention areas which may have to be incorporated into the plan. ; Drainage detention areas may affect street patterns and could possibly be incorporated into a park or open space elements of the plan. Secondly, a neighborhood park meeting the suggested parameters outlined in the 9/3/91 memo from the Park and Rec Department should be shown on the plan. Finally, a project of this size should have an anticipated phasing plan and a pedestrian sidewalk plan incorporated into the general development plan. When this additional information is provided a reasonable review of the project can be made. In addition to the normal City review of this plan, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be required by the City to be completed before final approval of this plan. An EAW would be necessary in this case because of the size of the project (in excess of 250 unattached units) and the development will convert over 80 acres of agricultural land to a more intense land use. The staff suggests the following specific modifications be incorporated into a revised plan: a) The western most cul-de-sac be redesigned as a loop street. This cul-de-sac is over 1,000 feet long (600 feet is a recommended maximum length) and it appears this lengthy cul-de-sac can be easily avoided by redesign. b) The western most road connecting to 7th Street in this plan should be evaluated as to sight distance for cars entering 7th Street, especially for cars coming from the west on 7th Street. c) The plan should be revised so that the major north -south street in Diamond Ridge lines up with the planned intersection at 7th Street of Manor Park Drive extended as shown in the Manorwoods West Plan. It is poor planning to require motorists to make an additional turning . movement on 7th Street to gain access to this through street. Page 4 General Development Plan September 6, 1991 •Attached: 1. 1,000 Scale Location Map 2. Future Land Use Map 3. City -County Zoning Map 4. Diamond Ridge General Development Plan as Revised 5. Composite Map of Diamond Ridge and Manorwoods West Areas 6. Referral from Park and Rec 7. Referral from Public Services 8. Referral from Fire Department 9. Referral from RPU 10. Letter from Land Consultants for E. L. Forbrook 11. Letter from P. Radichel - Cascade Business Park 12. 6/7/91 Staff Report on the Original Diamond Ridge Submittal E •...._ _ •ate � I p I i I DiAmatiD RteI±eJ u+ Gin MAL DW&LOPMEWT (If I - - PLAN — — FUTURE LAND USE MAP r•� ov LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • • N¢DION DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CQPKRCIAL 2z/ B INDUSTRIAL L' LLKEmCAL, FACILITIES PORtIL FACILITIES OPEN SPACE ! r. FLOOD Pon -Wlz • • • • • • • y�f'Y JN • • • •••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •ko" • • • i •••••• I ��7f / I/ I I� •. d . . � 1 cb. �LMST� Ca ZONNINGING DISTRICTS � CIT`E'OFKCCNES� , LLk3 A•I AGRICULTURAL pRorMTON DISTRICT ZONING MAP ' ("' `1�/ �r R EST x AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION DISTRICT 1... -S AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ARC AGR�.TWJL RESSIIDENTIAGLUSSION TER DISTRICT R•jA ISTRICT ESTATE RESIDENTIAL RSD RURAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT R-SN ESTATE 6 RESIDENTIAL RA RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R-1 SINGLE IANILY PESICENTIAL R-I LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 9.2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIS R•t MIRED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TRICT R.S NEDIUN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL fl•S MEDUNI DEN9TY RESIDENTIAL OSTRICT R"A NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I , �\ RC RECRE AnONAL COMAIERCIAU DISTRICT t-IA RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ri ; \ CS CDMMERCIA: SERVICE DISTRICT 6-10 NEIGNF.OPNOOD BUSINESS NC NIDIM'AY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 64 CENTRAL BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL B4 GENERAL BUSINESS I Ml MEDICAL INSTITUTIONAL B-A GENERAL BUSINESS I-- Fw iLDODwAY DISTRICT '%TII) N-I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL r..•rn N•x GENERAL INDUSTRIAL FFA FIDDD FRINGE DISTRICT ��•y E INSTITUTIONAL iFB FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT i"'•L' ) / - -� FP fL000 FLAW DISTRICT J ... G _. ��♦. ,- - -_- A- _ fwAs.i .\ R_I _OMM IS MA 1 ; _ i - � - �-- •' ' ' tip z W cn LLJ 3,5 pZ _ LLI W z ED a Q O 0 OIt LLJ J / 'f. w A max,\y _,� T, 11 i � �1r_�F_I i 1 l L C (' MPostTE HA? ^• _ .. RECEIVED AUG 221991 ! rlrr - _ :7•�� AOCIIESTERIOLMSTEO DEPT. OF PUNNING d • I � 'r .�����Y�T��-CZr�-�I��•i�,-r'�r /r r r r'��� -� NOtA1NG Ty1j Dfik 7. u_y �F—_�__� I 'itr �' �_�+ �= •� I -1 r'-.'^li�-t2� r r r�� Z�. • r-�'rt--{ �,� r, I'I'; i 'r Y�� 1'c__ i"�\ �`„f"� rr'>>1'� .S/k,<'!,''j �_rr---•-r• ♦ / i-{ I r 1l_ ♦.� r rC ��1♦ t:{i �+ i.r i =\ 1At ♦ Y a Lr r r r ���,%�i tiF'1•+JjI I III ; _� r•_-�(T `r ri.T Jr f�� r ., \ -r r: iFlT .:� `�C J� r $� 1���'�• ir;;-r r i J T.-Tr I I i I I �•� �� •' LLLJ� �I ' n r„� !'� J ,� 1'4 r.E I �J 1 I I T7, 7�-7 {'i'I'r T-� � 1 I r r T'-i pit< i:L•i ?�'�..5 ?><��/'`Ji _�Li �,' �J I i i� _�-t- �I.I-ifl,� I•I I I �_'._, �' La LC4{yi ,fir--_F,i^il �1 -'�,C '_��—��i-y-�: ��'j\� r' - �,� / ♦ ♦C�'_ _ --T L_ f +L2i-�1'7� ��-� L_ 4' '�,`i �rti _rmf �� r r— \♦``'? ,.. I 1n-t YIr 1. �-�r}-� 177 I I _� , r ♦ 1 J 1�11at.�•ffr•, f I t�auoeWooDS west Arta Ga, DEi. Raa rI AA s j S'ftJEETS �APYE111m 0 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 3 September 1991 TO: Rose Johanns FROM: Denny Stotz RE: Revised GDP Diamond Ridge The GDP consists of approximately 600 dwelling units on 200 acres of land. The density of the development will require approximately 12.0 acres of neighborhood park land. The need for a neighborhood park in this area is, identified in the Park Acquisition Master Plan as approved by the Planning Commisssion, the Park Board and the Common Council. Parkland dedication requirements for plats submitted in this GDP will be met through the dedication of land until the amount of requested land is acquired. Future dedication requirements can then be met through cash in lieu contributions. Park and Recreation Department staff has not be contacted by the applicant regarding parkland needs for this area. Park and Recreation requests that: a. a 10 acre park be located approximately in the middle of the development b. the park should not front on 7 Street NW or on TH 14 c. the 10 acre park shall consist of a mininum of 5 acres having a slope of 4% or less and be unwooded d. the 10 acre park shall have neighborhood access from several sides e. the applicant should submit possible GDP plans showing the park in relation to the street layout f. the applicant should provide an approximate timetable for when the park land is to be dedicated and when the parkland will be accessed via public streets so that planning, development and budget can be programmed in the Park and Recreation CIP programs. 9 4 ° ROCHESTER DATE: August 29, 1991 T0: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Services `•`�EFtE Si E3•\I/yyf S� R'IrE I/..�l Gl4t•• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-4718 (507) 281-6008 FAX *(507) 281-6216 RE: REVISED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #91-109 FOR THE DIAMOND RIDGE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IN REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE MATTER, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. The row of lots abutting T.H.14 should be given extra depth to compensate for noise impact. An additional setback will allow room for trees, landscaping, etc. and also the extra distance will lower the sound levels. These houses could use extra insulation and tight windows to lower the sound also. The neighborhood park should be sited prior to final approval. This affects street patterns. 2. The need for and location of detention facilities should be provided also. t S tq_t Y71: �Yr1:11�YM TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division FROM: Gary J. Smith, Assistant Fire Chief DATE: September 4, 1991 SUBJECT: REVISED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #91-109 Our department has no difficulty with this proposal as long as the following guidelines are followed: 1. Adequate water flow for fire protection measures is present and fire hydrants properly placed. Our recommendation is to have.a fire hydrant located in each cul-de-sac along with the accepted standard of distances no greater than 400 feet between fire hydrants in a residential neighborhood. 2. Cul-de-sac radius/diameter shall conform to the minimum distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle access. 3. Cul-de-sac lengths must conform to the distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle operations. 4. Street widths shall conform to the minimum distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle operations. Gary J. Smith Assistant Fire Chief 0 0 i ern rY�WRI tn,r[S "Jeans C. Gauvin. ALS ; - '.z Cedric Schutz, RLS FROM: jeans C. Gauvin, RLS -_RE: General Development Plan 491-109 for Diamond Ridge Cn tehaif of Drake. Forbrook and Associates (Developers) we have been - 2%bad tz review the above Diamond Ridge Development Plan to determine its impact on the Manor Woods West Development area, which General Development Plan was approved in ISSB and amended version approved in Following are items we feel should be addreesed before approval of _...... the Diamond Ridge Plan. - -- Manor Park. Drive, which is designed as a collector street (80 foot right of- way),, has an alignment which was determined based upon the existing Rabnhl-tracts." The proposed Diamond Ridge glen cells for one 60' wide street_: exit onto 7th Street, and its location would be approximately 13S-140-feet East (centerline to centerline). Inasmuch as this proposed road appears to be the only North/South connector, it would seem - desireet:le to have these streets aligned, which could result in major revisions to the Diamond Ridge Plan. A Drainage Study, which was completed for the Manor Woods West _ development area, included a portion of the lands North of 7th Street (in. - the Dlamcnd Ridge Development area). As you know, the first and largest detention basin for the Manor Woods West Development area, has been conssr,.eted, and plans for the second upstream basin have now been acprzv_d for construction- We note that the existing Diamond Ridge eubdlvIsia•ns contain no detention areas, and find no areas designated in the proposed fienursl Development Plan. We are concerned about the impact of the increased runoff from development of this area on the Manor Woods West area avid its detention facilities, and feel this should be addressed before approval of the Diamond Ridge Plan. Should you wish any further information on the above items, feel free to contest our office. cc: E. L. Forbrook Public S-rvices BOUNDARY' SURVEYS LAND SUBDIVISION RECEIVED AUG 27 1991 ROCHESTER/OLMSTED DEPT. OF PLANNING & HOUSING • ENGINEERING SERVICES-•- September 41 1991 Mr. Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner Planning & Zoning Commission 515 2nd St. S. W. 55901 Rochester, Minn. Re: Revised General Development Plan Diamond Ridge Subdivision Along 7th Street Dear Sir: We have your notice of a hearing to be held on September 11, 1991 with regard to this Development Plan. This writer requests the engineering be studied -to determine if adequate sanitary sewer capacity is being held inreservefor our business park as planned when the sewer was built some ten years ago. Our Cascade Business park along highway 14 East has developed very slowly and we are not using much sewer capacity as yet. ,i4e intend to progress =uch faster now that Circle Drive is oeing finished on our property. Please ask engineering to matte a double ceck on capacity to protect our investment in sanitary sewer capacity. ill you -pass this information on to me before the planned hearing. Very tru oy�s,�/ chel Paul Rad President VenStar Corporation ?cx 167 Mankato, Mn 507-625-1018 (Radichel Realty Co.) 56001 i SEP - 5 mg 0 Cf pnCNE ST E DT �. O 0 .... r � R�TES� ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION PLANNING HRA TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Senior Planner DATE: June 7, 1991 RE: General Development Plan 091-109 for the Diamond Ridge Area Consolidated Planning: Department Review: Applicant: Robert DeWitz Western Walls,.Inc. 602 llth Ave. NW Rochester, MN 55901 507/285-8232 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 Plan Designers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: The following agencies comments are attached to this report: 1. Park & Recreation - 2 pages 2. Public Services 3. Fire Department 4. RPU Electric Map Attachments: 1. 1000 Scale Parcel Maps 2. Future Land Use Plan Map 3. Copy of Proposed Diamond Ridge GDP 4. Composite Map of Adjacent GDP's PLAN INFORMATION: Location: This property is located along the north side of 7th St. NW, from the seventh house east of the 41st Ave. NW intersection westerly a little more than one half mile. The western boundary of the plan along 7th St. abuts the property of the first home site on the north side of 7th St. (4705 7th St. NW) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 GDP #91-109 Meeting Date June 12, 1991 General Development 0 Plan Size: This plan encompasses approximately 75 acres of land. The eastern 35 acres of the area is already platted as Diamond Ridge I, II and Three Subdivisions. Diamond Ridge I and II are already developed with houses completed and under construction. Diamond Ridge Three was just approved in April and is just beginning to be developed. Approximately 40 acres of this general development plan is unplatted property. The plan indicates a total of 247 lots including 109 already platted in the first three subdivisions. 138 new lots are actually shown on this plan. Existing Land Use: The majority of this property is or was farmland. Along 7th St. NW there is a stand of trees and bushes. Through the Diamond Ridge Three Subdivision is a row of trees along a former property line. The eastern 18.53 acres is presently developed for single family houses. Future Land Use Map: This property lies within the planned "urban service area" of the City of Rochester. The Future Land Use Map designates the undeveloped . area in this plan for "low density residential" use. A portion of the already developed Diamond Ridge I and II subdivisions was planned for "medium density residential" use. Annexation: The majority of the unplatted part of this plan is outside the City limits in Cascade Township. Annexation would have to be accomplished before this property could actually develop. Topography: The undeveloped portion of this plan has generally gently sloping terrain. The high point on the site is to the north of the second cul de sac to the east of the west plan boundary. New Streets: 7th Street NW along the south side of the plat is a residential collector street. It is - designed with an 80' right of way with curb and gutter where it is adjacent to the developed platted areas. The remainder of 7th St. is a blacktop township style road without curb or shoulders. This plan shows one new street, in addition to the existing 41,st Ave., intersecting with 7th St. NW. This 60' wide intersecting street extends through the entire width of this property and will provide access to lands to the north of this property. Valley Drive NW, as platted in the first three Diamond Ridge Page 3 GDP #91-109 Meeting Date - June 12, 1991 Subdivisions, is an east -west major local street which is planned to extend to the west of this plan. There is a 56' wide street shown on the plan which parallels 7th Street (called 8th St. in Diamond Ridge Three). This 56' wide street extends toward the west side of the plan where it ends providing access to two cul de sacs (50' wide). There is another 50' wide cul de sac planned off the south side of Valley Drive extended. In addition to the new north -south through street in this plan, there are two other stub streets which extend to the north edge of the plan. One is a 50' wide stub for a future cul de sac across from the cul de sac south of Valley Drive. The other stub street to the north is 60' wide and is located about 500 feet east of the west line of the plan. Utilities: Sewer and water mains would be extended into this property from the east in 7th St NW, the platted right of way for 8th St. in Diamond Ridge Three, and in Valley Drive as platted. This property lies outside the 1974 Rochester Public Utilities service territory, so electric services initially will be from Peoples Co-op. Parkland: No parks are located north of 7th St in this area at this time. The nearest park to this development is Manor Park to the south of 7th St via 43rd Ave NW about one half mile. The Park and Recreation Department in their acquisition plan has identified this area in need of a neighborhood park. In the attached referral from Park and Recreation they have identified a 5 acre neighborhood park site where the first cul de sac south of Valley Drive is shown. Previous General Development Plans: Two other general development plans have been previously approved which lie adjacent to this plan, one is in fact part of this site. To the south side of 7th St across the road from this property there is an approved general • development plan for the Manorwoods West area. The Manorwoods West plan was last revised in 1985. The approved 1985 version was an update to a plan approved back in 1958. Page 4 GDP #91-109 Meeting Date - June 12, 1991 The east quarter of mile of this proposed plan was part of a previously approved (1987) general development plan called Cascade West. The Cascade West plan extended north to Highway 14. A composite map of this proposed general development plan and the two approved plans is attached to this report. The street system in the Cascade West Plan no longer works based on the Diamond Ridge I and Three plats. The staff requested a general development plan for this area when the last two Diamond Ridge plats were considered and approved. When Diamond Ridge Three was approved by the Council in April the developer was to submit a general development plan within 90 days. Staff Review: This proposed general development plan is too small in its scope to effectively plan for the development of this area. The plan obviously has intentions to be expanded to the north and west based upon street pattern. This plan is already almost half platted. It really plans for only 40 more acres of development or about three more plats. This plan does not take into account the approved Cascade West General Development Plan of which this plan is a part. The staff recommends that this plan be found unacceptable. It should be expanded to include all the land to the north to TH 14 and to the west to the west lines of Sections 32 and 29. This expanded area is the most logical unit of property for which a plan can and should be prepared. Any revised development plan should include a preliminary drainage study as recommended by the Public Services Department. It should identify neighborhood parkland as recommended by the Park and Recreation Department. This plan should also be designed to insure that the future roads which intersect 7th St. NW line up with the planned roads in the Westway Manor general development plan. An additional feature of the general development plan should be the graphic representation of ;:all future sidewalks within the development. JAE/clb 0 J 0 DATE: 6/3/91 TO: Rose Johanns FROM: Roy Sutherland ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION M E M O R A N D U M RE: General Development Plan #91-109 Diamond Ridge Subdivision This area has been identified in the Park Acquisition Plan as being an area of the city that is in need of a neighborhood park. We have identified a 5.0 acre site within the GDP to serve as the park site. The site is shown on the enclosed map of the subdivision. The Diamond Ridge subdivision currently has approximately 36 acres already platted. There remains about 45 acres left to plat. This unplatted portion of the plat will require approximately 3.0 acres of land to be dedicated as per parkland dedication requirements. The balance of the park •site would be purchased by the City. The entire Diamond Ridge Subdivision will have 247 dwelling units which requires approximately 5.0 acres of neighborhood park land. The Park and Recreation Department CIP currently plans for acquistion/development of this park to begin in 1994 and finishing in 1997. The location of a neighborhood park in the location as shown will povide neighborhood facilities for the entire Diamond Ridge Subdivsion, portions the Westway Manor Subdivision and parts of the undeveloped land to the west of Diamond Ridge. JJi,! - 4 lol A w cz dIr 11 1 �u-awpuc� crn 0 ROCHESTER - r�- DATE: June 4, 1991 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Services PCCH[i__i•��' �R11e D�Al Gt•-1•y DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 1602 41M Street S.E. Rocnester. MN 45904•4718 (507) 281 6008 FAX #(507)281'6215 RE: GEN. DEV. PLAN f91-109 - DIAMOND RIDGE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IN REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE MATTER, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. The General Development Plan should be expanded to show the land to the north and what is the intended use of the quarry. It should also show what streets are platted to the south of 7th Street and the approved General Development Plan streets south of 7th Street also, o onthe various affectseacheother. Any wneighborhood parks sshould sl can also be shown. 2. A preliminary drainage study should also be included to show possible detention areas, increases in runoff, etc., and how drainage affect built up property. FIRE DEPARTMENT TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division FROM: Gary J. Smith, Assistant Fire Chief DATE: June 4, 1991 SUBJECT: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #91-109 Our department has no difficulty with this preliminary plat as long as the following guidelines are followed: I. Adequate water flow for fire protection measures is present and fire hydrants properly placed. Our recommendation is to have a fire hydrant located in each cul-de-sac along with the accepted standard of distances no greater than 400 feet between fire hydrants in a residential neighborhood. 2. Cul-de-sac radius/diameter must conform to the minimum distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle access. 3. Cul-de-sac lengths must conform to the distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle operations. 4. Street widths must conform to the minimum distances as set by the Rochester Code of Ordinance, thus allowing for proper emergency vehicle operations. Gary J. Smith Assistant Fire Chief 0 An h 4 ■ /z aC2 a V J �u f� �^ w T N N - In n r ry O w� •� ° � it _. _ - all l FUTURE LAND USE MAP / �,l000 1� LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • • MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / - LI -n- KIW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL J ® COMERCIAL ® INDUSTRIAL • ® MEDICAL FACILITIES / R �s PUBLIC FACILI71ES _.. -- -- OPEN SPACE FLOW PRONE I • • I • •• ••••• .Rlwjiy�!I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •T�• ••. A t I DtArsonra RtaGE .V N G&&OLAL DEVELOPMENT JI` ' i' I Li/ r• - PLAN "11 .• m I'. L.-- T., Gj • • goof 0 o O 0 m m D r r m .-i m i .. sR T j= J d J ` . w i t 5 4f 7 ?! 30 n ?rrf r, 0 n � T !sv N M - — �Nc / D C H � C.�C1t'�51i� MI' OF APPROVED AND 'PRD�D ED F AI6 PRDecS� DiAmcwD R10GE GEu. Div. R.au r_S 1,.I , � T- 4:..X--L .�_5, n E.MAINDE - 6; CASUDE WEST Guj. DEU RW4 _- r1 u >4 "> WFsT GEm. Del. :_-! I �• � Ise i p ND SCALE 11/'1r1�1 r� ii_r•1 I ••,.�,.:, _. ....I_� !_s h.-�- ' � Iq la LLJ LLJ rq �y � I''_y ). � -,j I J .mil �-! }•_ J . b_J4 L �r`IL ;I��� f�v r I,ti`�-I"-11,�1i��j�! I airy _J• ��J� 1jJ,l � 1 �r ���t%�:.'..::.. \ ell - 96 Li '"� � J'� 1 I l i l I I rj ,� / •I . I i I I � �l f� j C I y6. r POSSIBLE I �� O�EHTION POS61aLtTo PkWIDL AM IMTERSF.Cnotj By AcftS&• . Mum %L 1 . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION U ATE 9r DAT=. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dept, of Planning and Housing PREPARED BY: Metes and Bounds Unplatted Land #91-13 Consolidated Planning Department Recommendation See Attached Staff Report dated September 5, 1991. Council Action Needed: Terry Spaeth 1. If the Council determines that the proposed metes and bounds conveyance should be approved, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting the metes and bounds conveyance of this property. Attachments: 1, Staff Report dated September 5, 1991 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Consolidated Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:30 p.m, on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. UNC1L ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: `\.PQ�N ES.... M,\\f s ip : .O �9A TE O.�IIGUS'(•5'' ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION 507/285-8232 PLANNING 507/285-8232 HRA 507/285-8224 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Terry Spaeth, Planners /� DATE: September 5, 1991 RE: Metes and Bounds Conveyance of Unplatted Land # 91-13 Consolidated Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): Michael Younge 1652 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN. 55902 Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting approval of a metes and bounds conveyance to convey approximately 16.73 acres of land from the remainder of the Arboretum property. Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of 31st Avenue NW, south of the Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire Second Subdivisions. Zoning: SD-1 (Special District) with the underlying zoning being R-1 (Single Family Residential). Referral Agency Comments: None to date. The applicant is proposing to convey approximately 16.73 acres from the Arboretum property. A portion of the land had been platted as part of the Arborglen Subdivision and a portion of the land had been unplatted. The streets (a portion of Arbor Drive NW and 33rd Avenue NW) located within the proposed parcel were vacated in 1988. The Rochester Subdivision Ordinance states that the Council may approve the metes and bounds conveyance of unplatted land if it determines that the following conditions exist: 0 1. That the restriction against such conveyance will create an unnnecessary hardship. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYi0FIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 0 0 11 Page 2 September 5, 1991 2. That such conveyance will not interfere with the purposes of the subdivision regulations 3. That the dedication of public utility or street easements is not involved. 4. That such conveyance involves the division of a parcel into not more than three separate parcels. 5. That the new and residual parcels of land which would result from the conveyance will meet the frontage and area requirements of the zoning ordinance. Consolidated Plannine Department Recommendation: The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the proposed metes and bounds conveyance. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Certificate of Survey and Legal Description �o o 2218- 3000 2218- o a a z = 2900 8 c n OObI 00£I -912Z '912Z Oo 0051 -ylzz � BRP� p0Z1 91ZZ ^� p091 0> 912Z O N 0011 -91ZZ �N Z p9 i of oetiti J A 0. c Z i 00 S O 8 01 0 ,0 OO�titi °N a� pQ'� 8(p oN ww OO` Qp N UI p 1$ o N � , V Y a N ^ v 8 V1UP\ C g q O N w o� 8�0�0. �1NC W 8� D p9LF N W °� M O N N topN ip^W pN W �N. N o N 0 8 y v W 9 w .0 uw o W o 0 °0 $ � w m z 0tp 0 OU W ~ p w o W Ja v, F1 �1 0 JA O ° th JWi � � ° 3 V D .9 .D`„ %3 O W O 0 001 N gw Q vu� hto � 'N O t o Pw Jw ° XGLEN �-pt $� U1w N �In -iw .�N o °o �w ako O ° N IT $ In O u o� $ Jou+ 9w v m%A �6s 0 31 AVENUE 00, o w s � � S` CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ARBOROLEN SUBDIVIBION AND S°W° 1/4 SECTION 1S T9107N. R°14W° OLMSTED COUNTY# MN Jr. ::,+;:v.1..'V5�H.'RE su a:r/5/O.R' I I I 7ci:C•.rV �. 23? „ -- 5Cit9.1�.•J0A6LEit' � I 9 I 89°29' PAR K 62 7941 I I Z s• 1 9°.ii . °��e r '�� I opj ni O Cch Y .1 IF t I 2 o 70. ° o %6 29'22, N N0 100 2C)O 300 400 °lj SCALE IN FEET BEARINGS Plat bearings are Minnesota State Plane Grid Azimuths measured to the right from Grid North. SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION PROPIENTYY LOCATION MAP T107 . 1 IC) 1 'N R 14 W ppOJECT NUM9EF73052 ®I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETINATEG 9/17/9' ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ENDA SECTION: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT—�� ITEM DESCRIPTION: City Council Initiated vacation #91-11 of the Alley PREPARED BY: Right -of -Way Adjacent to Block 1 and 3, Hamner and Jane Kansier September 12, 1991 city Plannine and Zoning Commission Review: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting on September 11, 1991. The vacation of this alley right-of-way was initiated by the Common Council at the request of a property owner along this block. The existing sight -of -way is only 7.5' wide and there are already several structures located within the alley. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this vacation. Even though there are telephone lines in the existing right-of-way, the Commission did not fee it was necessary to retain an easement over this area. Motion by Bellinger, second by Schwartz. The motion carried 6-1 (Fogarty voting no). Plannine Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated August 22, 1991. The Planning staff recommends approval of this vacation subject to the condition that an easement be retained over the right-of-way to protect the existing telephone lines. The Council may wish to narrow the easement to 5' to eliminate the encroachment by some of the existing garages; however, the telephone company should approve this plan. The staff recommends the Council schedule this vacation petition for public hearing at the first available date on October 7, 1991. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date on this .matter.in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. 2. The City Clerk will need to publish the notice of hearing and notify property owners. 3. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the easement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: csr¢o. N,ns _ c DQ DkAlE D .A UGU SZ.b� ' ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION PLANNING HRA TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Terry Spaeth, Planner DATE: August 22, 1991 RE: Vacation # 91-11 Consolidated Planning Department Review: 4 0 507/285-8232 5071285-8232 507/285-8224 Petitioner City of Rochester Common Council initiated this alley right-of-way vacation on August 5, 1991 Requested Action: Vacate the existing 7.5 feet wide platted alley located along the west line of Blocks 1 and 3, Hammer & Fannings Addition to Rochester. Referral Comments: None of the referral agencies contacted have any objections to this vacation request. Analysis: The Common Council has initiated the vacation of the unimproved 7.5' alley right-of-way located along the west line of Blocks 1 and 3, Hammer and Fannings Addition. The 7.5' alley -imht of way was platted as part of the Hammer & Fanni.ngs AdditiL.. in 1917. As the property to the west was platted in 1922 as -the West Lawn Addition no additional alley right-of-way was dedicated in that subdivision plat. The existing alley right-of-way has never been improved. If the vacation of the alley right-of-way is approved, the 7.5' wide strip of land would become part of the abutting lots located to the east, in the Hammer & Fannings Addition. Staff Recommendation: The Planning staff would recommend vacating the alley right-of-way since there are no plans to improve the alley and it would not appear to serve any practical purpose as right-of-way. 0 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 August 22. 1991 It is the staff's understanding that telephone lines are located within the alley right-of-way. The staff would suggest that an easement be retained over that portion of the vacated right-of-way wherein the telephone lines are located. We are awaiting additional information on this matter from U.S. West Communications. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of Hamner & Tannings Addition 3. Reduced Copy of West Lawn Addition 4. Copy of Topographic Map indicating location alley proposed for vacation 6/in Reviewed By " C7' • 0 - - - e • - _ nn I V:' I v .- \� )rlx• ♦On IaYrr. IVllr, I� J \Y)fr• rllrlr II-r < P Oil. .00 Iwwu• .Inn ti - e A --- --- la Ir IM. Iw •.. IUN. . OY IwMr aN L..- •r. • 1- • O .S �i ♦ IawV• hf IwV. Irr ."' I"" LOCATION OF ALLEY TO BE VACATED LY1.• 1:1r,.. )uo-aooa. ; Ivan- ner 7lfe�Ga nau. .I II-: IYY1.- IIYI: ilea .. Icw'n. "Inn CV a➢hlo- )xOn YwaV• lIW r--Ic 11••_ wM• lun Ice I.YL• uIW. 11•' Pen Hf .Yyu lVnu 1 w,rr MN 11.11. HMu • I.YIr \IM• )WIh I>YII -IIN•- j.Mr )MI '• \qM \Y YYhn• Y,11 IIMr 11 or- Hn11 , -- - �• `' ,� ILMI )111111 .H.A:. iry1 -- - . - wNl• )1011 ` r ' Y.NI• IIXIO 110Ir .MI LY4- IIaM lallll LIr. • Iwlr- ]Ilu IaYO- Illnl IIYII. )\I•n 40. 710n r,afr' ,rlll )N0-6)00 wrr J]OY �/a Y)✓ Y•Nr Ills - IWr•. -PIS) i.Vlr. 1•IM ' uIM ,1.,,.� n.n. ran; fill �1• ..I ✓ ,Von .. ]s>o->soo I • ": • 1 > r I lm veCew, ED 2{JUL33- j -l.al.. ..l.r. ..... w.Ir ],nn Q _1 _ :14 u- .... - _ I.VIh /nY/ Iwlr )YYn I.1 )11)O-)100 _ - .b1 uYn .•.•o- LPI• /Wy I 11•» Ilan •-•• > ]Yn- au0 1 LI/�5 M11h rho L.Ir luwl 11... rbxl QI ••, con Ln 1 H)�Yn.. _ - 1, 901300 � I•Mr :•IM' r.M• • )NM 111.. \a5Y- Inmr 11•II- rm Ilar. Co • `! •�.>A. _IarY- .]mr � )lYll �I 7%'0- flue w.n. lulu .lfq! 11.... >Y1M ,_ \w\n- \➢1111 laa: a.111. I,v1. lye MI r..o✓L ]jnn. I _ ..,•_ nM, 11 Yn^ +aYrr ,ann , ,YYyn. wuOL Ilan- 21 n.• • r \ 'Il1W 1' _ S } ,• _ Ia Ylr .]LIIII Ia+J- --•rIr ] I..n - >.nn r )Y•! YY1.r ➢n'Mr NN•..lnn .... tOVn• 111.11 � 11.M ]]nY '. INY-%.1-1 ♦ laalr l,Ml Ilan ]OnO� 7YrY.-IY00I _ )Y>h NWI )qlr NOY .�'+ •T,- - - µan. »oc � laa(r >rWi 11.n- 7]nn -p>O• floe )Y>e- MM' - -. .•. ~./ • w=. ,�n�_ fool YaY- )T00 Ilan- fuw 1.00 Ila ,Pn lla; - - 2i�• e e i � c .• - _ i a � •� � e Vie' ♦ 11 j110•IGOD _ •e � e1 = Ile- ap• ,I IY• MM. - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9 / 17? 9 1 �. DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PORTS AND REC0M11IIdDATIONS Dent of Planning —�(o EM DE SCRIPTION:Vacation Petition 1f91-13 by HyVee Foods North Store PREPARED BY: petitioning to vacate a ten foot utility easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Parkway Jane Kansier September 11, 1991 Petitioner: H & D Edelbrock Living Trust H. H. Edelbrock, Trustee 5200 Alta Canyada Road La Canada, CA 91011 Requested Action: Vacation of the 10' wide utility easement located north of West River Parkway and west of 3rd Avenue SE, at the southeast corner of the Hy-Vee North store on Lot 1, Block 1, Parkway Plaza Second Subdivision. Reason for Petition: According to the petition, the remodeling of the Hy-Vee store will require that the utilities within the easement be moved. A new easement has been granted near the southwest side of the new addition of the building. Referral Comments: No comments or objections have been received at this time. P anninz Department Recommendation: The staff recommends the Council schedule this vacation petition for public hearing at the first available date on October 7, 1991. Referral agencies have not yet been given the time to respond with comments on this petition. However, it is anticipated that no objections will be forthcoming since a new, replacement, easement has been dedicated. Any comments from the referral agencies will be made available at the public hearing. If there are no objections from the referral agencies, the staff recommends approval of this request. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date on this matter in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 RCA September 11, 1991 2. The City Clerk will need to publish the notice of hearing and notify property owners. 10 3. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the easement. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Vacation Petition 1. City Clerk: List and Labels Attached 2. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council for scheduling of the public hearing sometime after 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, in the Council Chambers in City Hall. 5. McGhie and Betts, Inc. 0 TKO Tc) -aE �/�ca-ram EXH k L31-i �^C72 HY-V EE Fc=c sill=zcs r••4O' I Na'27�42°w --- W N�, ---- STS J --- 339.96 I . d I' IS� Do--- y.y,ln�n,.raa II -IT OF CC�RCCn hi \ , �11oK F•4 Ur MAY. 1 Pacl b,2.CXv+atED • � (i�U�r, Y'QiLC1i9CTPJ •\ 7 //�:�/� 10 -U-T LI'TY . 1 A .r f fP m y ' TO 3F. CaZ J �lo • m 04 .. J .. Qp• ¢fir ' a24aj• .' U nn,,, II 335.52 ,. f �E.�PTIOIJ: SEE /STi��C.W ED PREPARED BY: McGHiE B BETTS, INC CONSULTING ENGINE. PLANNERS ! dh'DSURVEYDRS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME=TING 13 DATE: AGENDA SECTION: MPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: Dept of Planning fEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition "91-13 by John and Margaret Davies September 12, 1991 ITEM NO. E-17 PREPARED BY: Jane Kansier Petitioner: John and Margaret Davies 305 17th Street NE Rochester, MN 55906 Requested Action: Vacation of the 10' wide utility easement located at 2715 Pennington Court NW (Davies Printing). This easement is located on the common lot line between Lot 1, Block 1, Pennington Business Park and Lot 2, Replat of Portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Pennington Business Park. Reason for Petition: Davies Printing would like to build a 4,302 square foot addition to the existing building. This addition will be located on the existing easement. Referral Comments: The City Public Services Department has noted that there are no sewer or water lines in this easement. Rochester Public Utilities has noted that there are no electrical lines in this easement. We have not heard from US West or People's Natural Gas at this time. Planning Department Recommendation: The staff recommends the Council schedule this vacation petition for public hearing at the first available date on October 7, 1991. This easement was originally platted as part of the Pennington e Business Park Subdivision. As noted on the attached site plan, a large portion of the original easement was vacated in 1979, in order to allow the construction of an addition to the original Davies Printing facility. There does not appear to be any public need for this easement. If there are any utilities in the easement, they'most likely serve Davies Printing. These utilities can be relocated, at the property owner's expense, when the addition is built. If there are no objections from the referral agencies, the staff recommends approval of this request. If any utilities must be relocated, this should be done at the property owner's expense. The COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: i Page 2 RCA September 12, 1991 applicant must also submit a legal description of the easement to be vacated. The Council has also been asked to issue a revokable permit to allow the applicant to begin construction immediately. The Planning staff has no objection to this permit. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date on this matter in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. 2. The City Clerk will need to publish the notice of hearing and notify property owners. 3. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the easement. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Vacation Petition DISTRIBUTION: . 1. City Clerk: List and Labels Attached 2. City Attorney: Legal Description will be submitted by the applicant at a later date 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council for scheduling of the public hearing sometime after 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, in the Council Chambers in City Hall. 5. Tom Prendergast, Alvine E. Benike, Inc. 1, 0 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9; 17/91 / DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dept of Plan ning E "(9 ITEM DESCRIPTION: vacation Petition #91-12 by Zumbro Lutheran Church PREPARED BY: Jane Kansier September 12, 1991 city Planning and Zoning Commission Review: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting on September 11, 1991. The petitioner is requesting to vacate this 15' wide alleyway since they own the property on both sides of the alley. There are no plans to build anything over this alleyway. It will continue to be used as a driveway to the church parking lot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this vacation subject to the condition that a 15' wide utility easement be retained for access to the in -place utilities. Motion by DeWitt, second by Combs. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated September 4, 1991. The staff recommends the Council schedule this vacation petition for public hearing at the first available date on October 7, 1991. Council Action Needed: 1. I£ the Council wishes to proceed it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date on this matter in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. 2. The City Clerk will need to publish the notice of hearing and notify property owners. 3. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the easement. Attachments: , 1. Staff Report dated September 4, 1991 DISTRIBUTION: 1. City Clerk: List and Labels Attached COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: apf XCSTCR•p, ,A, / MATED •A UG USZ S- ROCHESTER OLMSTED PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION 507/285-8232 PUNNING 5071285-8232 HRA 507/285-8224 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Terry Spaeth, Planner \� DATE: September 4, 1991 RE: Vacation 0 91-12 Consolidated Planning Department Review: Petitioner Zumbro Lutheran Church 624 3rd Avenue SW Rochester, MN. 55902 Requested Action: Vacate the existing 15 feet wide platted alley located adjacent to Lots 4 - 11, Block 88, original Plat of Rochester. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities has stated that alley should not be vacated until a utility easement is granted to cover existing electrical facilities. People's Natural Gas and U.S. West Communications also would need an easement for existing service lines. Analysis: The petitioner is requesting the vacating of this portion of the north -south alley, since they own the property on both sides of the alley and use the surrounding land as a parking lot for the church. The existing alley right-of-way serves a driveway to the parking area. Staff Recommendation: The Planning staff would recommend vacating the alley right-of-way since there are no plans to improve the alley and it would not appear to serve any practical purpose as right-of-way since the remainder of the alley was vacated in 1968. 10 Approval of this alley right-of-way vacation should be subject to retaining a utility easement over the vacated alley right-of-way for access purposes to the existing in -place utilities. a cni ­ I c er+ina "40, ro,Cn + „_ty of Rochester, Minnesota ust 13th 1991 TO: Mayor and Common Council _._.,_. City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota 55901 J° We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein escribdescrip- to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate fist showing the legal tion and full ownership of each adjoining p OWNERS NAME (If 1n joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) 7K Zumbro Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rochester, Minnesota a religious corporation is We hereby petition the Common Council of the following described public property: The North -South alle' a LEGAL DESCRIPTION Block 88, Original Plat Of The City Of Rochester and the Vacated Alley Lying Between Lots 12-14 and Lots 1-3 in Said Block 88 the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate of the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: 1 2. 3. uses the all the Ci i of Rochester and has no use for the c thi as it and instead is merely a parking lot for petitioner's con re -.7-•. �.���q77 .y. !•l.•1N0 SMOD, OP wry �T ►• •,L }qM NDO L)0- w0ot• - �•. . i • f. w- s•ee -.r. w- 144D _ .. e- �'.\^ .,n ysT ... ;� '.:i,oM • 1830_ won `,.00 r T �aw ym .00 I.oa • }•/0-. 1}M HIM '..eD; :. •..N l./M •..or • +.,OM }AM -74e _ •) uj Lu Lu .. .--.> I11\.� }.YY f•}M I•r.Nl > ,ae_'IINq-1 .. , �. surf. •:. �' •T•, �• __ 1 1 ,.r�l HN }•_" /roc Cv •� • - }tee .. - Wes' •. •- ti. � ..... .... .� . —�. .. .. .. A.-. •000- jr C fu: 6 ST. S . W F HESTER PUBLIC UTILITIE�Sc 0 0 507/280-1581 August 30, 1991 TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-28Q 5071280-1540 FAX: 5071280-1542 SUBJECT: Vacation Petition #91-12 by Zumbro Lutheran Church to vacate the north -south alley lying adjacent to Lots 4-11, Block 88, of the original plat of the City of Rochester. RPU isn't willing to vacate alley until utility easement is granted to cover existing electrical facilities. Sincerely, 40ro Roger Kanestadt ks I��l'siili'L SEP — 31991 ROCHEMR-0LMSTEO UMWESr • COMMUNICATIONS 195 South Broadway Rochester, Minnesota 559904 September 5, 1991 Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Attention: Rose Johanns SUBJECT: vacation 91-12 U S WEST Communications is requesting the alley right-of-way in block 88 of the original plat of the City of Rochester becomes a decated utility easement. 0 Any questions please feel free to call me on 507-285-2353. Yours Truly, S2.!orge s n M-Eng" eer 5EP - 6199► REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:9/17/91 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ab,Reports and Recommendations Police Department EM c -Iq M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Recommendation of Preferred Vendor for LEC Computer Equipment S. Rvenvold The C.O.W. has previously heard a presentation from representatives of the City and County organizations on the preferred vendor to supply the equipment for a computer system for the Police and Sheriff Departments. The total cost of the requested computer system is $937,300, to be shared on a 50/50 basis between the City and County governments. $95,940 of the cost will be paid during 1991, at the signing of the contract. The.remaining costs will be appropriated as follows: 1992 1994 $174,470 reserves $148,860 reserves 97,370 operating transfer 148,860 County 271,840 County The portion of the reserves are transferred from a fund which was set up for the Police Department training facility on 41st Street NW. Since there is not sufficient reserves to fund the entire City costs, it will be necessary to utilize a portion of the operating transfer monies used to fund 1992 CIP projects. The main computer system will be installed in 1992. The mobile computer units to be placed in the law enforcement vehicles will be installed in 1994. One of the vendors complained about the staffs preferred vendor choice. Their letter and a brief response is attached for your review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion indicating that the County Board should enter into a contract with EAI Systems to provide the LEC computer system. UNCIL ACTION: modonoy second eye m: Rochester Police Department MEMORANDUM To: Stevan Kvenvold From: Chief Farrell Date: August 26, 1991 Subject: Vendor to Replace Present Law Enforcement Computer System On August 12 at a joint meeting of the Common Council and the County Board, representatives of the Police Department, Sheriff's Department and County Informa- tion Systems Center presented our collective analysis of proposals received on our Law Enforcement Automated System. Qualified proposals were received from Public Management Systems (PRC), Management Systems (MaSys), EAI Systems, Inte- grated Computer Concepts (IBMACCI), Cantus Corporation, and US/West Public Safety Group (US/West). After an extensive review of the proposals and several on -site observations of their products in working environments, the vendors were subject to a rigorous analysis. Working independently, all the reviewers selected EAI Systems as the vendor of choice. Their judgment was based on the quality of the product, the firm's ability to support the product, and the price for that product. We recommend that the Common Council endorses this choice and conveys that selection to the County Board, requesting that contract work begin as soon as practical. E II 1120 E. 80th St AVIAV Miite 201 MN 55420 �C ` August 15, 1991 � /�c1 612-85"303 Mr. Stevan Kvenvold / l City of Rochester 212 City Hall, 224 S.W. 1st Ave. e' Rochester, MN 55903 Dear Mr. Kvenvold: An important matter concerning the proposed Public Safety Computer System will be coming before you shortly. We at Cantus Corporation would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to review the important points of this decision so that you will be able to make the most informed choice possibie. We are aware that the priority of importance of these facts may be interpreted differently by each individual, so our intention is to merely present the facts as clearly as possible, as we see them. We have been informed by the individuals responsible for evaluating the bids that the Cantus Corporation proposal would fulfill the needs of both the Police and Sheriffs Departments. If any real difference between the three finalists existed it resides in individual functions rather than overall performance. Based on these facts, we feel it extremely important to relay the following additional information before awarding the bid. We ask that you please consider the following facts: 1. System Costs: In the initial base bid Cantus Corporation was low bid. Obviously with the numerous options proposed, confusion can be created in analyzing what the true low bid is. If you include the base bid with options 2 and 9, as we've been told you will do, we feel you should also include the cost of maintenance of the system. Based on the information provided the Cantus solution will be approximately 100K less expensive when looked at for a 5 year period. This number was determined by the following analysis: Five Year Maintenance Totals Cantus Corp. EAI Hardware $ 69,170.00 $153,660.00 Software $ 54,850.00 $ 69,540.00 TOTAL $124.020.00 $223,200.00 SAVINGS $99,180.00 0 August 15, 1991 Page 2 In addition, the Cantus maintenance figures were calculated in error. Should the City/County elect the Cantus solution an additional $26,236 savings could be achieved by reviewing the current published maintenance prices and the acceptance of these new prices. 2. Cantus Corporation is a Minnesota Company with over 200 customers nationwide and over 40 customers within the State, including Olmsted County. This is critical for timely support, knowledge of Minnesota Law, familiarity with the needs of the Law Enforcement Center, and our close working relationship with the State BCA in Data Communications. 3. LOCAL Financing: It has been arranged for Norwest Bank of Rochester to handle the leasing agreement should you chose to select this method of financing. It is always our intention to work with local community organizations to maintain strong public support and cooperation. 4. Olmsted County is currently a Cantus customer. Based on this, we included at no extra cost, capabilities that the other vendors will only be able to achieve at a later date for a much higher price. Two examples of this are: Communications to the new state court system, (designed and implemented by the Bull Corporation) and the integration of the Cantus Civil Processing System to the new . automation system. 5. The overall evaluation that the City/County did of the applications software was very through, however, we have discovered some misunderstandings that have since been communicated to ISO, and feel some key points might have been overlooked because of this. They are; - Of the finalists, we proposed the ONLY Jail software that had more than one or two installations. One vendor has none. - Ours was the ONLY bid to address Drugs, HazMat, Personnel Scheduling or Civil Processing. - Our system could in the future offer the City/County additional savings by eliminating costly E911 equipment currently rented. 6. Our bid was the only bid to propose Open Systems Design as regulated and adopted by both the Federal Government and the State of Minnesota. 7. Of the three finalists only ours and Masys have the State Communications already implemented on the hardware proposed. I August 15, 1991 Page 3 In conclusion, it is our estimation that the total cost savings (E911, maintenance, additional software capabilities, and communications) places well over a $200,000 difference between our bid and the next closest when looking at a total cost of operation over a 5 year period. When comparing costs to features our solution is without exception the best solution for the City of Rochester and the County of Olmsted. In todays world of revenue instability and taxpayer dissatisfaction we feel these facts should be considered thoroughly when you make your final decision. Thank you for your attention to thi in the future. Should you have any Craig Zachman from the Bull Corp. Sin rely,( 'W �- ,�,( V=q Phillip L. teat President, Cantus Corporation 0 0 s matter. We look forward to working with you questions, please feel free to contact myself or at any time. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED SYSTEM EAI CONCERNS FROM NON -RECOMMENDED VENDORS Analysis and Findings CANTUS' Phil Staat• 0 1. CANTUS/BULL proposal bid -price is lower than EAI's. This in fact is true. But CANTUS's software was found inferior to EAI's software, and does not allow the open architecture we have determined we need. 2. CANTUS has over 200 installed sites, with over 40 sites installed in Minnesota: This is true. However, none of the sites have all the various components of the system our system will have which includes CAD, RMS, JAIL and MDTs. In addition, a very large majority of the installed sites are not running on BULL equipment, but have the PC version of the CANTUS system. 3. BULL has done preliminary work in arranging local financing for the project at NORWEST Bank in Rochester: This is true, but the County (and probably the City) will not be seeking outside financing for this project. 4. The issue of networking to the TCIS System and the integration of the current CIVIL PC system: (See reference to the same issue from the previous page). . 5. Software module issues relative to the Jail Module, Drugs and Personnel Scheduling: (See reference to the same issue from the previous page). 6. CANTUS/BULL bid was only one to propose 'Open Systems Design': This, I believe, is relative to the communication/network architecture, which was not a particular issue in the RFP. 7. CANTUS/BULL have achieved State CJRS interface on their proposed hardware (BULL), while EAI has not: While EAI does not have a Minnesota site communicating with the State CJRS/CJIS system running on the proposed NCR equipment, EAI does have sites communicating on a different hardware platform, and Douglas County is communicating with the state with NCR equipment using another vendor's application software system. 11 LAW E2FORCEMEIrr AUTOMATED SYSTEM! / EAI CONCERNS FROM NON-RECONKENDED VENDORS Analysis and Findings ALSYS John Henak/Ernie Swartout: NW 1. NCR has (has had) several lawsuits relative to problems with their hardware: * There were lawsuits involving NCR equipment, but most revolved around software type problems, not hardware. * The NCR equipment specified in these lawsuits were old platforms and operating software that NCR does not sell or support any longer. FA 0 LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTOMATED SYSTEM EAI CONCERNS FROM NON -RECOMMENDED VENDORS / Analysis and Findings BULL - Craig Zackman: 0 I. NCR focusing all future efforts into UNIX (not PICK), leaving purposed PICK Operating System stagnant and unsupported: Documentation from EAI, NCR/ADDS and trade articles state that: * The PICK operating system will continue to be supported, enhanced and also migrated to the NCR newly announced system 3000 series. 2. NCR MENTOR 7000 equipment (purposed hardware) will not be supported or enhanced because of newly announced 3000 series: Documentation from EAI, NCR/ADDS and trade articles state that: * The 7000 series hardware is still in production and there is no date for it's discontinuance. There will continue to be new enhancements added to the equipment at least through 1992. * It is one of the more successful NCR platforms and NCR has sold more than 100,000 processors and will continue to protect that client base. 3. NCR equipment unable to connect to the State CJRS because of equipment problems: Conversions with the 2 counties in question (Douglas and Mower): * Douglas county had problems with a vendors application software. They still have the same NCR equipment, are running with a different application software and are transmitting data to the State CJRS system. * Mower county is not currently using NCR hardware. Their previous problems were application software related, not hardware. 4. Dollar 'value' of BULL/CANTUS's proposal is greater than EAI's proposal based on the fact that BULL would migrate the current CIVIL PC system unto the central processor, connect the TCIS system to the network, save us money on our E911 controllers and provide other miscellaneous software modules: * The migration of the current CANTUS CIVIL PC system to the central BULL processor would be nice, but there was no mention of 'integrating' the CIVIL system into the central software. * Having a network connection to the TCIS system would be nice, but item is not of high priority, nor an issue in the RFP. * The issue of saving money on our E911 controllers is not clear. BULL is under the misconception that we rent our E911 equipment, when in fact, the County owns the equipment. * The other miscellaneous software mentioned included Drugs and Personnel Scheduling. While EAI does not provide specific modules for these functions, the open architecture of the system allows us locally to define these and any other files we may need. EAI Jail Package still being written: • Documentation from EAI states that the Jail package being purposed is currently in production in several sites in Michigan. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9 / 17 / 91 / AGENDA ORITEM N O. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I PUBLIC SERVICES I � 20 I �A DESCRIPTION: REVISION TO ORDINANCE #2469 REGARDING PREPARED BY: WATER SERVICE AVAILABILITY FEES R. PLUMB feQ When Ordinance #2469 was adopted it was our intention that the fee would apply to all parcels where new buildings .requiring water service were being constructed on parcels which had not previously paid special assessments for the construction of a water storage facility. It has been brought to our attention that the wording of Section 2 of that ordinance may preclude charging the fee for new developments on previously improved properties. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared ordinance revision to change the wording of Section 2 of Ordinance #2469 to allow the City to also charge a water service availability fee for new developments on previously improved properties which have not previously paid a special assessment for the construction of a water storage facility. cc: Terry Adkins Attachment ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: .74��p it IISO LILT ION BE IT RliSOLVr:D by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the Council, pursuant to authority provided for in a certain ordinance establishing a water service availability fee, and a h-,AI+A1- 'IAA 14AW't1- t.+l'1•ir0 N-Oi1H0.-1I.NA .-hjkgo, I101'0j%V 0t1JINIIt11Ot 1110 following fee or connection charge to be effective November 1, 1985. Water Service AvailabilFee, $1,100 per acre; Sewer Service Connection Charges, $25.00 per front foot of the property to -Ee—served; Water Service Connection Charges $21.00 per ront f-o-ot--o-C the property to »served. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the water service availability fee and connection charges established by this resolution shall be effective until October 31, 1986, or until otherwise modified by the Common Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF i C/L., 198S. A, hlt=-NT OV. SAID-CUMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved this day of K')p�hPr� 1985. `- L i 1MR OF SAI CITY 1. (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 0 0 ORDINANCE N0.c2y& AN ORDINANCE RFLATING TO AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGES FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE: ESTABLISHING AN AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE FOR ALL LANDS SERVED BY CITY WA'rER AND SANITARY SERVICE IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION THEREOF; AMFNDING THE. ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING A CHAPTER THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. The Rochester Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a Chapter to read: 28. WATER AND SANITARY,. SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHANGES 28.01. findings. The Common Council of the City of Rochester find—s—tTiat it is in the best interest of the City and its inhabitants that, the cost of construction of a water storage facility, watermain, and sanitary sewer line which serves a particular parcel of.property should be borne by the owner of the property which is served, and not the general property taxpayers of the City. The Common Council .Further finds that in certain instances, because of rapid urban growth an owner of land served by a water storage facility, watermain or sewer line has not paid a share of the cost of construction of these facilities. In order to preserve the fiscal integrity of the City, to provide sufficient funds for expansion of existing facilities, and equitably apportion the cost of construction of water storage facilities, watermains and sanitary sewer lines among all landowners in the City, the Common Council finds that a service availability fee and connection charge should be established for water and sewer service which is applicable to all lands in the City as provided in Minn. Stat. §444.075. 10 / 28.02. Purpose. ,The purpose of the service availability fee and connection E arge established by section 28.03 of this Chapter is to ensure that the City obtains sufficient fends to • pay the cost of construction of water storage facilities, watermains and sanitary sewer lines from the owners of property served; to reimburse the City for the cost of making and supervising any connection by the property served by said facilities; and, to equitably apportion the cost of construction of said facilities among all landowners served.. 28.03. Availability Fee and Connection Charge- Established. Subdivision f. A water service ava�livi- ity fee, in an amount to be determined by resolution of the Common Council from time to time, is hereby established to apply to any parcel of land in the City which is connected to and served by water service, and which has not heretofore been assessed for the cost of construction of a water storage facility. Subd. 2. A connection charge, in an amount to be determined by resolution of the Common Council from time to time, is hereby established to apply to any parcel of land in the City which hereafter is connected to City water and sanitary sewer service, and which has not heretofore been assessed for the cost of construction of a trunk watermain or sewer line. 28.04. unpaid Charges. A water service availability fee or connection cfTarge t at is not paid within ninety days of the date billed shall be considered delinquent. On or before October 1 of every calendar year, the City Clerk shall certify any such delinquent charge to the County Auditor and the same shall be added, with interest at the then legal rate, to the taxes against the land in question, and collected thereafter as other taxes are collected. Provided, that such delinquent fee or charge may, in the discretion of the Common Council, be billed on the tax statements in installments over time, with interest to apply on the unpaid balance thereof, at the rate set forth in the resolution certifying the same to the County Auditor for collection. Section 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 of this ordinance, the water service availability fee established therein shall not apply to any parcel of land°,%hich, •ten--t-p cat=.•- date e#- t-b-rs o.cdiaawEa, a structure isn already being adequately served by direct connection to water service provided = by the City. 0 Section 3. Thi's ordinance shall be effective from and after its publication. • PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CO%tMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS_ DAY OF ji 1985. PRESIDENT 0 ' SA- oh1MON0 ]— Nl�-I L r ATTEST: CITY C1i A Approved this day of �� 1985. MAYOR OF SAI Ty - (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) • A910d ALI-IMMACTIT ER /V ROCHEST December 7, 1990 /Gnu TO: Stevan Kvenvold FROM: Roger Plumb RE: Water Service Availability Fee • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904.4718 (507)281.6008 FAX #(507)285-8256 Section 28.03 of the City Ordinances is worded as follows: 28.03. Availability Fee and Connection Charge; Established. Subdivision 1. A water service availability fee, in an amount to be determined by resolution of the common council from time to time, is hereby established to apply to any parcel of land in the City which is connected to and served by water service, and which has not heretofore been assessed for the cost of construction of a water storage facility. In line with this ordinance, we will be notifying the following project owners that their projects will be charged a Water Availability Fee of $1,100 per acre: 1. Salvation Army Thrift Store - new building on undeveloped site. 2. S.E.L.C.O. Office Building - 107 T.H.52 Frontage Road - new building on undeveloped site. 3. _Northwoods Outfitters - 1400 5th Place - new building. 4. Civic Square (Gagne) - new buildings on former residential area. 5. Riverbend (City -County) - new building on residential/commercial area. cc: Al Toddie Francis Clark 0 7. .i (l.,.d�,;,. 11., .-.!irr iai-1 g_.f-,,". REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/ 1 7/ 9 1 AGENDA SECTION: --]Public ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Services/Traffic IM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: L.E.C. Parking Spot in C.B.D. D.M. Rossman Lt. John Edwards of the L.E.C. requests designation of a parking spot for L.E.C. vehicles on 1st Avenue S.W. at 1st Street. spot is in front of the Peace Plaza and presently a "No The Parking Zone". Council approval is recommended. Council Action Requested Adopt the prepared resolution adding Paragraph (5) to Section C "Special Parking Zones" of the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution Book to read: 5.) First Avenue S.W. on the East side of the street at First Street, "At All Times" for Law Enforcement Vehicles. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: U U LJ LJ U,�-ROCHESTER- z ©PUBLIC, ❑ D ❑ ❑� TRAL PARKING EN PARK L� 7TH PRINTING _71 E 2ND ST. N.W. yy SENIOR a� CITIZEN CENTER w ROCHESTER -N- 15T T. N. PARK a AEC. ❑ METHODIST Z HOSPITAL w •� U. V_ NWID HIRE rA*KWJ E j� ROCNFSTFR II11 R ESTER ART CENT[R CIv HFATRE r-- THEATRE AUDITORIUM OLMSTED COUNTY MAYO PEACE COURTHOUSE CLINIC PLAZA TAYLOR ARENA 2 $ MAYO CIVIC 3 CITY < CENTER HALL as : p 3RD i .S. cc °0 FUTURE �T x CITY -COUNTY B GOVERNMENT 3 � CENTER 4TH T. S.W. 4TH ST. S.E. METER COLOR i+ Private lots A CODING: G C & B available Red .... 12 minutes ° °ai (4 evenings & Yellow .. 30 minutes weekends for Gray ... 2 hours - Gold ... 3 hours Mayo Civic vi Blue .... 4 hours Events. Green .. 10 hours . ui METER HOURS: 7 6TH FO HR. < "- a� Ll Meters are enforced 8:00 AM to 5:00 Res dr y a d P A"1A i;V% se,4 PM, Monday thru Friday except ma at holidays: New Year's, Memorial, In�e- "= 0 pendence, Labor, Thanksgiving, and 1 Christmas Days. LOCATION/NUMBER - DURATION RATE (Subject to ange) SPACES 2nd ST. RAMP 1. VARIABLE 6042/HOUR (4.20 MAX./24 HR.)(48.00/MO.) 476 CENTER ST. RAMP 11. VARIABLE 6041/HOUR (4.20 MAX./24 HR.)(50.00/MO.) 393 FIRST ST. RAMP 19. VARIABLE 604/HOUR (4.20 MAX./24 HR.)(48.00/MO.) 501 LIBRARY LOT 6. 2 HOUR 254/HOUR 82 CITY HALL LOT 10. 2-HOUR 254/HOUR 68 ZUMBRO MARKET LOT 13. 2-HOUR 25R/HOUR 63 BROWN LOT 15. 2 HOUR/4 HOUR 254/HOUR 83 FIREHALL LOT 2. 10 HOUR 254/2 HOURS (1.25/10 HR.) (QUARTERS ONLY) 69 STATUARY LOT 3. ALL DAY/EVENTS 33.00/MO. (2.50/DAY)(1.50/EVENTS) 25 CIVIC CENTER NORTH 17. ALL DAY/EVENTS 20.00/MO. (1.25/DAY)(1.50/EVENTS) 37 1 MAYO FIELD LOT 14. ALL DAY/EVENTS 60C/DAY (1.25/EVENTS) 135 CIVIC CENTER SOUTH 12. ALL DAY/EVENTS 12.00/MO. (754/DAY) (1.25/EVENTS) 242 O.ON STREET METERS 2-HOUR/3 HOUR 25C/HOUR 998 ), Bike Rack 10 HOUR 254/2 HOURS TOTAL 3403 Skyways (Prices Subject To Change) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 09/17 t Reports and Recommendations I Public Services / Engineering I E -Zy NW Water tower. A. J. TODDIE, JR. OVI&V . We recommend preparation of the resolution necessary to levy a portion of a previously postponed assessment on the following Public Improvement Project: 7703 parts 1,23 &4 (J8475) " Construction of Water Reservoir and connecting trunkmains to serve the low district of NW service area lying north of 41st Street NW." The total construction and expense of this project was $ 892,831.57. We originally and subsequently assessed $ 860,588.53, leaving a postponed balance of $ 32,243.04. We propose to assess $ 27,871.93 plus 7.5% interest for 3,650 days = $ 20,903.94 for a total of $ 48,775.87. This will leave a postponed balance of $ 4,371.11. Average per lot rate = $ 335.02+- Mutti-Family area = $ 1,118.9183 per acre COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt the resolution declaring the previously postponed assessment to be levied and order preparation of the assessment roll. 2. Adopt the resolution ordering a hearing on the previously postponed assessment for October 21, 1991. NUPE: The 4 assessments relating to North American Realty property were agreed to be levied against the property instead of paid up -front by virtue of the Essex Park Development Agreement. The Council has recently taken a position that it will no longer levy the assessments for new developments but will require payment up -front. However, the City is contractually obligated to do so in this instance.(W COUNCIL ACTION: monoN BY: SECONDED BY: TO 0 REPLAT OF . ✓INNSBRUCK x4 x ESSEX YY 26 xi ESTATES ,r xe 3 I. SUMMIT z N 3 SQUARE u S uMMIT . MANCI 1° Is SQUARE f.5tpt � 2. 4 31 M S�OpaO I� SUM�MiT I K I SQUARE .4 bill 3T STREET BELAIR FIRST b-fl! REPL �� to " �%VI- X '4KM' a I PARKWAY PLAZA P 2 3CLI �PQ �f. I 3 PKWY. II /s. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 09/17191 Reports and Recommendations I Public Services / Engineering I E - Z.3 NW Trunkline Sanitary Sewer. A. I. TODDIE, IR. We recommend preparation of the resolution necessary to levy a portion of a previously postponed assessment on the following Public Improvement Project: 7301 (18476) "Northwest district Trunkline sanitary sewer ,pumping station, forcemain , and outfall sewer." The total construction and expense of this project was $ 791,764.99. We originally and subsequently assessed $ 705,989.30, leaving a postponed balance of $ 85,775.69. We Vopose to assess $ 16,010.95 plus 7.0% interest for 3,650 days = $ 11,207.67 for a total of i 27,218.62. This will leave a new postponed balance of $ 69,764.74. Average per lot rate = $365.90 +- Aldrich Nursery area = $1222.045 / acre COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt the resolution declaring the previously postponed assessment to be levied and order preparation of the assessment roll. 2. Adopt the resolution ordering a hearing on the previously postponed assessment for October 21. 1991. COUNCIL ACTION: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY. 0 °• REPLAT OF /INNSBRUCK 2. U7 O La2] 2S „ ESSEX V2 22 26 21 ES?AYES ,2 z• 2 ° " SUMMfT Z1° N 3 SQUARE u 14 MMIT MANOR 1° R SQUARE v�1 22. 0 S . N.W. H , A S:C00Np i3 SUMMIT I S U R T SQUARE 4 bl 1 97 STREET N.W. BFLAIR I MIS -ow < 2 10 1 rTih 1 1 / 1 .�2 _.nKWP� 1'1• iJ�I� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEEITNG DATE 09 17 t Reports and Recommendations I Public Services / Engineering I.B.M. Trunkline Sanitary Sewer. A. J. TODD1E . JR. QXl /96,10. We recommend preparation of the resolution necessary to levy a portion of a previously postponed assessment on the following Public Improvement Project: 5622 (J8059) -I.B.M. Tnmkline Sanitary Sewer. - The total construction and expense of this project was $101,502.36. We originally and subsequently assessed $ 93,410.52 , leaving a postponed balance of $ 8,091.84. We propose to currently assess $ 5008.05. This will leave a postponed balance of $ 3,083.79. Average per lot rate = $55.04+- Muhi-Family area = $ 234.91 / acre COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt the resolution declaring the previously postponed assessment to be levied and order preparation of the assessment roll. 2. Adopt the resolution ordering a hearing on the previously postponed assessment for October 21,1991. COUNCIL ACTION: MOTION BY: SECONDEDBY. R J 6069 MsMof MHc r 0 REPLAT OF /INNSBRUCK 74 x ESSEX I, xx n » icr x, ESCATES sr x° i r ° 1° SUMMIT N 3 SQUARE z w SUMMIT MANOI ° ,x SQUARE E5� 40 31 • H 5sG0N0 13 ISM UMIT i SQUARE .4 .1 1 B EL AIR FIRST /� I 1 A t S U R N.W. PA R K WAY 1 we P� PLAZA Q T /�rFiCWY. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 09/17191 Reports and Recommendations I Public Services / Engineering I 'E-ZS 41 st Street NW. A. J. TODDIE , JR. /WK We recommend preparation of the resolution necessary to levy a portion of a previously postponed assessment on the following Public Improvement Project: 6241-4-77 (J8591) "Watermain in 41st Street NW from west line of Replat #2 Sunrise Estates to a point 660' east of the NW comer Section 23 Cascade Township." The total construction and expense of this project was $ 55,252.83. We originally and subsequently assessed $ 37,109.61 , leaving a postponed balance of $ 18,143.22. We propose to currently assess $14,528.27. This will leave a postponed balance of $ 3,614.95. Average per lot rate = $147.98 +- Multi -Family area = $11.95201 / foot COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt the resolution declaring the previously postponed assessment to be levied and order preparation of the assessment roll. 2. Adopt the resolution ordering a hearing on the previously postponed assessment for October 21, 1991. COUNCIL ACTION: MOTION SECONDED BY: TO o'er J 99 t Ae5ESSM ffJTMkP py x n P ■ z c r - 4B ■ EL 0 Om .Q - 1116i111"l�13111q � TE ®o 0 ©z F .. n UBDIVJ ION @0 WRPm w PR RPM w La L-j CZ YiI1L� ■ l,N� �® SUMMIT UARE � o ■ i s�� o�����oa■■■■■o� `m'�111 MEN Simla 0 00 7!1PARKWAY RIM Jihi - MIN mPLAZA �3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9/17/91 DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. s FLUTIONS AND ORDrMNICES CITY ATIORNEY'S OFFICE F DESCRIPTION: F. 1. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. F. 2. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). PREP6nWY: TERRYLADKINS (a) Annexation of Approximately 11.78 Acres of Land Situated in Portions of Section 9, Rochester Township. (b) Ordinance Amending Sections 106.02, Subd. 2, 106.03, and 106.13 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to Licenses and Rabies Vaccinations for Dogs, Cats and other Animals. (c) Ordinance Amending Section 38.13 of the Rochester Code .of Ordinances Relating to the Housing Registration Fees. (d) Ordinance Amending Section 50.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Composition of the State Building Code Applicable Within the City. (e) Ordinance Amending Chapter 55 of the Rochester code of Ordinances, Relating to the Adoption of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. F. 3. MISCELLANEOUS. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ITEMS 1) Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of 8/5/91, 8/19/91 and 9/9/91 • 9 STANDING COD ROOM 4v AUGUST MITTEE AGENDA CITY I=L s, 1991 CONNITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:00 P.M. 1) Report of Urban Design Task Force Entrances Sub -Committee (attachment) 2) Review Flood Control Plans for Corps Stage 2A (attachment) 3) Discussion of the Formulation of a Policy for Rewards for Information Leading to Seizure of Assets (attachment) Oka r~ �� 4) Review of Proposed Riverbend Agreement (attachment) 0 E 0 STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL AUGUST 19p 1991 COMMITTEE OF THE WROLE - 3:30 P.M. 1) Duane Madsen Requests to be Heard RE: Amendments to Noise Ordinance (attachment) 1401 2) Request to Barricade Alley Behind Holiday Inn Downtown (attachment) �.,.... dam.--,- 3) Review Denial of Streetlight Request for a Portion of 22nd Street //NE (attachment) �® 4) Proposed 1992 Dues for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (attachment) 7d dz� STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 90 1991 COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE - 3200 P.M. 1) Review of Number of Remaining Issues in the Proposed Land Development Manual (attachment) 2) Pro osed Traffic Improvements to South Broadway (attachment) Y 3) Review Solicitation Proposal for Development of Former Alexander Properties (attachment) 4) Historic Train Staging in Rochester October 5 6 6, 1991 (attachment) 5) Request to Undertake Infiltration/Inflow Study (attachment) 6) Review of Plaques for the Peace Plaza (attachment) 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 09-17-91 DATE: DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports & Recommendations City Clerk DESCRIPTION: On -Sale 3.2.Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - Deli Peppers ITEM NO. 45-27 PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr Michael Wees, owner of Deli Peppers, 102 South Broadway, is requesting approval of his application for an on -sale non -intoxicating malt liquor license for the business. Deli Peppers is a small deli -type eating establishment. The business is in a B-2 zoning area which allows for the serving of alcohol. The approval is pending departmental approvals. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or deny the issuance of an On -Sale Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2) for Deli Peppers,.102 South Broadway, pending departmental approvals. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Date Received %—%z ��(ca3 Receiptflunbet �79DJ ' Amount Paid CA-0 CITY OF ROMESTER, MINNESOTA Application For Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License /On-Sale Covering the Period of: , 19 Off -Sale through March 31, 19 Name of Applicant/ Corporation -cc hprcI �� b� C�_�i�ELL� Address of Applicant/ Corporation 10a 5. Drcwduj+ Social Security Business Identification Number _ 4JZY-J0-6t-)W- Number The following items must be completed and/or accompany the completed application form. Whoever shall knowingly falsify the answers to the following questions shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punished accordingly. In answering the following questions, one of the officers of a corporation or partnership of a partnership shall �complete the application for all corporate officers, directors and stockholders, or 11 members of the partnership. 1. Name under which applicant will be doing business (name of restaurant, hotel, club, etc.) Name Business Address Telephone 'SDi _ �S2_ py 3-1 2. Tvpe of Applicant VofIndividual Corporation 0 (check one): Partnership Other REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1GENDA SECTION: & RECOMMENDATIONS LICENSES AND BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY CLERK MEETING 9/17/91 DATE: ITEM NO. ADDENDUM TO #7 PREPARED BY: DONNA J SCHOTT The following ADDITIONAL licenses are submitted for your consideration and/or approvals. All are pending departmental approvals, submission of the required fees, insurance and bond requirements and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. AUCTION PERMIT March of Dimes Benefit Auction 9/19/91 Kohler Hotel Rochester, Mn. CIGATETTES VENDING MACHINE D & R.Star for Nick's Ribs & Other Good Things - Airport Rochester Municipal Airport Rochester, Mn. • SIGNS Crosstown Sign Company 10166 Central Avenue Blaine, Mn. ,e7;r1I�1;[e' 10/1/91 to 12/31/91 Rochester WAMSO - Raffle at Mayo Civic Theatre 11/7/91 Mayo Park rochester, Mn. STREET USE Knights of Columbus 5th St to Center St Rochester, Mn. - Marathon - 10/5/91 to Soldiers Field COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses and miscellaneous activities. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: