HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1991_RegularCITY OF ROCHEBTF
COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING NO. 14
REGULAR ADJOURNED
A) CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MI3MES
NOVEMBER 18o 1991
7:30 P.M.
Reassessment'of 50 Lot's in "Golden `Hill, Hilmer's High View Acres,
7i4L/i! Tooqood Plaza, Oak H111s, Kleist's Replat, Cavilima and Tongen's
Petition to Annex 21._63 Acres by, Rodney Youngs and Rezone to the
Flood Fringe District•'at'°the Time of Annexation
3) Hearing on"the Proposed Zone Change by Daryl Nigon and Donald Krahn
from the B-lb District to the B-4 District
4) Request to Amend:;the Final PUD Plans for Barclay Square Shopping
Center
5) Proposed Changes to Fares on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
6) Final Draft "Transit Development Plan"
C)
ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
D)
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
. E)
REPORTS AND ; RE COMMENDATIONS
1)
City Adm nistratPr -;Charitable Gambling Ordinance
2)
City. Administrator 1992 CDBG Appropriations
3)
City Adpihistrato;-Rental.''Agreements/218 & 226 let Street NE
4)
City Administrator Purchase of Commercial Bldg at 826 6th Ave. NW
5)
City Administrator -Amendment to CGMC ByLaws
6)
-City Administrator ,Retention of Landscape Consultant Services -
Corps`of Engineers Project
7) -
Public Utilities Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
8)
`City C? rk'='Rev1iidn- of=•Resolution Vacating Utility
Easement/Vacation Petition 91-13
9)
Finance`.- Approval af;Accounts Payable
10)
..Finance ' AWard,of Proposals for Fuel at the Pump
li)
.R]anningoDept .- Adoption of 1992 Cooperative Agreement with City
Pf, RoCtYester Public Services
12)
Public`Serviceo Partial Acquisition of the Oakwood Cemetery for
Flood,7Control, Stage iB3
13)
,Public 5e7cvices. ;Approva`1_of Preliminary Plans for the Improvement
" of T H::63 from T.H. 14 to Meadow Run Drive
14)�
Public Services - Curb &Gutter, Sidewalk, Driveway Approaches and
Watermain in 1st Ave NE & 1st St. NE Adjacent to
ciaric Square
15)
Publie`seiVices Award=of Bids/operation of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
16)
Public Services - Solids Handling Improvements at WRP/Contract
Modification No. 4
Council Agenda
November 18, 1991
Page two
F) RESOLUTIONS AND
G) TABLED ITENB
1) on -Sale Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License/Adjouri's
2) Award of Bids for Demolition of Houses at 1017 and 1027 West Center
Street
3) Vacation by Western Walls to Vacate a Five Foot Utility Easement
Along the West Side of Lot 8, Block 3, Cimarron Fourteenth
•
0
•
•
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/18/91
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Hearings
Public Services
GM DESCRIPTION: Reassessment of 50 Lots in Golden Hill,
PREPARED BY:
Hilmer's High View Acres, Toogood Plaza, Oak Hills, Kleist's
A.J. Toddie
This is a reassessment hearing to consider the levying
of the
reassessed amounts to certain properties in Golden
Hill, Hilmer's
High View Acres, Toogood Plaza, Oak Hills, Kleist Replat,
Cavilima and Tongen's regarding the following local
improvement
projects:
1. 8705 (J-8995) "Extension of Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain in
48th Street N.W., Tongen Avenue, 51st Street and
West
Frontage Road T.H. 52 to Serve Tongen and Cavilima
Subdivision." Three lots are affected.
We originally reassessed these three lots =
$16,699.76
We propose to reassess currently =
$12,704.83
Additional City Share =
$ 3,994.93
7703 I, II, III and IV (J-8475) "N.W. Water Tower and
�teservoir" - Same three lots are affected.
We originally reassessed these three lots
$ 1,366.29
We propose to reassess currently -
=
$ 1,045.21
$ 321.08
Ca� Additional City Share
7301 & 7301A (J-8476) "N.W. Trunkline Sanitary Sewer". Same
three lots are affected.
We originally reassessed these three lots =
$1,633.95
We propose to reassess currently =
$1,249.97
Additional City Share =
$ 383.98
4. 6107-87 (J-8952) "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain and Service
Connections to Serve Golden Hill, Hilmer's High View Acres
and Toogood Plaza". 18 Lots are Involved.
We originally assessed
= $198,101.57 „
Proposed reassessment
= $ 83,937.53
Additional City Share
= $114,164.04
j �bad°//6lQ'
(Continued
on next page)
UN ACTI N: Motion by: Second by:
to:
Page - 2 - 0
Hearing on Reassessment
5. 6107-88 (J-8993) "Sanitary Sewer, Wartermain and Service
Connections to Serve Oak Hills and Kleist's Replat". 29 Lots
are Involved.
we originally assessed = $313,247.88
Proposed reassessment = $120,633.29
Additional City Share = $192,614.59
6. 8101 (J-8752) "Trunkline Sanitary Sewer along South Line
Section 14 and West Line T.H. 63 plus Watermain Crossing
T.H. 63." 29 Lots are Involved.
We originally assessed = $ 21,484.57
Proposed reassessment = $ 8,359.23
Additional City Share = $ 13,125,34
7. 8006 (J-8729) "Water Tower and Trunkmains to Serve the High
Level District in Southwest Rochester". 47 Lots are
Involved.
We originally assessed = $52,598.20
Proposed reassessment = $20,794.54
Additional City Share = $31,803.66
TOTALS
50 Lots Involved
Originally Assessed = $605,132.22
Proposed Reassessment $248,724.60
Additional City Share $356,407.62
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
1.) Adopt the resolution levying the proposed reassessed
amounts.
is
NGEN'S RE -ASSESSMENT
10/29/91
PLAT/PARCEL
..'-.,.,..n.
13821 -00300
J8476
.. ....,.
S548.621
J8996
TOTAL
NAME ADDRESS
......... K .,.�„r,• _fin ., ..:..
CHARLIE HAYOSTEK_
J8475
_w.,.,-_...w _..ir_...i.".�w...
1 $458.75
w..s,1•.�..-;,m'.yry-..vwn..rxw.-..M/
$6.700.00
3007 - 51 ST STREET NW
"$342.35
$409.42
$4.248.23
$5.000.00
ERWIN LEDEBUHR
3821 -00200
$448.76
$536.70
$6.014.52
$7.000.00
3003 - 51 ST STREET NW
$320.56
$383.36
$4,296.09
$5.000.00
_.. - --
G_ENE-MATZKE_ _
5022- TONGEN AVENUE NW
TOTAL PREVIOUSLY RE -ASSESSED
NEW RE-ASSESSMENTTOTAL
.-- --.
382 -00400
-
$458.76
$548.63
-- -- -
$4.992.61
- --
$6.000.00
$382.301
$1.366.29
$457.19
$4,160.51
$5.000.00
$1.633.95
$16.699.76
$19.700.00
$1.045.21
$1.249.97
$12.704.83
'' $15,000.00
OITY SNAR,�
$321.081
$383.98
$3.994.93
$4,700.00
•
GOLDEN HILL, HILMER'S HIGHVIEW
10/29�91
AND TOOGOOD PLAZA RE -ASSESSMENT
1991
..., NAME AND ADDRESS
DALE ARNDT
PLAT/PARCEL
::
1295 -18200
J8952
$2.246 33
J8729
2�.','a5&<"
$346.88
TOTAL
w.
1295 - 25300
1 $7.363.50
$847.92
203 -17TH STREET SW
$9.609,83
$1.194.80
$10.804.63
$4,447.09
$552.91
$5,000,00
ARNOLD BERGLER
3822 - 01400
$15.96 8
$732.30
$16,700.88
615 - TOOGOOD COURT SW
$4.790.761
$219.24
$5.000.00
JOHN HANSMEIER
1704 - 01300
$11.054.39
$950.70
$12.005.09
511 -18TH STREET SW
$4.604.04
$395.96
$5.000.00
SCOTT HARRIS
1295 - 24201
$8.269.29
$346.88
$8,616.17
415 -18TH STREET SW
$4.798.70
$201.30
$5.000.00
KEITH KING
1704-02500
$12.442.04
$616.67
$13.058.71
418 -18TH STREET SW
$4.763.89
$236.11
$5.000.00
WILLIAM KLAUSE
1704-01500
$11.561.01
$937.85
$12.498.86
605 -18TH STREET SW
$5.096.56
$413.44
$5.610.00
EDWIN KNOKE
1295-24400
$15.796.451
$693.75
$16.490.20
1702 - 4TH AVENUE SW
$4.789.661
$210.35
$5.000.00
RICHARD LICHTY
1295-23800
$7.194,62
$578.13
$7.772.75
1717. 4TH AVENUE SW
$4.628.10
$371.90
$5.000.00
GORDON McKINNON
1704-01400
$11,054.39
$950.70
$12.005.09
515 -18TH STREET SW
$4,604.04
S395.96
55.000.00
MICHAEL PERSINGER
1704-01100
$11.149.39
$950.70
$12.100.09
503 - 18TH STREET SW
$4.607.15
$392.85
$5.000.00
FERDINAND REGAL
1704-01000
$11,291.24
$963.55
$12.254.79
419 - 18TH STREET SW
$4.606.87
$393.13
$5.000.00
PAUL ROBERTS
1704-02600
$10.771.67
$860.77
$11.632.44
412 -18TH STREET SW
$4,630.01
$369.99
$5,000.00
KENNETH SPE_RRY _
1739-4TH AVENUE SW
1295-24000
$8.432.20
$693.75
$380.10
$9.125.95
$5.000.00
$4,619.90
DONALD SUKKE
1704-02900
$10.103.83
$616.67
$10,720.50
1808-5TH AVENUE SW
$4.712.39
$287.61
$5.000.00
JUDY TRIPP
1295-22700
$13.321,23
$668.06
$13.989.29
1624 - 4TH AVENUE SW
$4.761.22
$238.78
$5.000.00
MARK VanNORMAN
1295-25601
$13.979,59
$693.75
$14.673.34
1803-4TH AVENUE SW
$4.763.60
$236.40
$5.000.00
$11.992.24
$5,000.00
THOMAS WALKER
518 -18TH STREET SW
1704-02100
$11.054.39
$4,608.98
$937.85
$391.02
WILLIAM WESSELMAN 1295 - 23500
$5.047.431
$385.42
$5.432.85
1705-4TH AVENUE SW
$4.114.581
rt�$4,114.58
TOTAL PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED
1 $198.101.571
$13.772.30
1 $211.873.87
TOTAL TO BE REASSESSED
$83.937.53
$5,687.051
589.624.58
CITY SHARE
1 $114.164,041
$8.085.25
� $122.20.29
OAKHILLS AND KLEIST'S REPLAT
10/29/91
RE -ASSESSMENTS
PLAT/PARCEL
un
2790 -1700
J8993
$8,880.37
J8952
J8752
$908.81
J8729
$1,644.70
TOTAL
$11.433.88
NAME AND ADDRESS
ESTHER BENIKE
2573 OAKHILLS DRIVE SW
$583.36
$397.42
$719.22
$6,000.00
C_U_RTISBOETTGER
256S OAKHILLS DRIVE SW
2790- 01800
1 $8,880.37
$4.097.37
5696.26
$321.25
$1.260.05
$581.38
$10,836.68
$5,000.00-
ABBIE CRIBBS
2790-02900
$11.613.85
$857.50
$1.551.85
$14.023.20
2533 OAKHILLS DRIVE SW
$4.140.94
$305.74
$553.32
$5.000.00
DAM ERWIN
2790-00500
$8,212.06
$454.40
$822.35
$9.488.81
2705 SOUTH BROADWAY
$4.327.23
$239.44
$433.33
S6.000.00
DAN_IEL VANHOOK
2790 - 02100
$8.880.37
$637.631
$1.153.94
$10.671.94
204 _2_5TH STREET SW
$4,160.62
$296.741
$540.64
$5.000.00
KEN_NETH FREEMAN
2790-02000
$17,080.82
$1.289.92
$2.334.41
$20.705.15
2557 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.124.78
$311.50
$563.73
$5.000.00
LEO HERRICK
$8.890.37
$1.114.02
$2.016.08
$12.010.47
2790 - 00800
2637 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$3.696.93
$463.77
$839.30
$5.000.00
JAMESMANNJUDISCH
2790-01000
$7.120.55
$1,121.35
$2.029.35
$10.271.25
2621 OAK HILL DRIVE SW
$3.466.25
$545.871
$987.88
$5.000.00
BAXfER KIMBALL
2790.03400
$12.129.76
$593.66
$1.074.36
$13.797.78
2650 OAK HILLS DRICE SW
$4.395.55
$215.13
$389.32
$5.000.00
VIRGINIA KNUTSON
2790-02600
$9,429:80
$696.26
$1.260.05
$11.386.11
2507 SOUTH BROADWAY
$4.140.92
$305.75
$553.33
$5.000.00
RICIRARED MCCALLUM
$1.216.63
$2.201.77
$20.499.22
2790-01500
$17.080.82
2581 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.166.21
$296.75 1
$537.04
$6.000.00
PAUI MITTELSTADT '
$14.604.83
$806.20
$1.459.01
$16.870.04
2790-00700
2677 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$3.030.04
$167.26
$302.70
$3,500.00
-
-S TEV-EN -MO--L-D-E----------
279-0- --- 012 0-0 -
$10.520.45
$90. 8-
--$1-.6-44- .-7._0
$13,073.96-
260OKHILLS DRIVE SW
$4,023.44
$347.56
$629.00
$5.000.00
GLENN MULHOLLAND '
2790-01600
$8.880.37
$461.73
$835.61
$10.177.71
2569 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.013.64
$208.69
$377.67
$4.600.00
HARLEN NORGREN_
2790-03000
$11.613.85
$857.50
$1.551.85
$14,023.20
25.41.OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.140.94
$305.74
$553.32
$5.000.00
RONALD O'BRIEN
2790.035W
$11.449.94
$593.66
$1,074.36
$13.117.86
2660 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.364.22
$226.28
$409.50
$5.000.00
i
JOHN RASMUSSON
2532 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
2790-04100
$11.449.94
$4.398.75
$557.01
$1.008.04
$13.014.89
$213.99
$387.26
$6.000.00
LE_SLIE RUPKALVIS
2790-03300
$12.934.12
$703.59
$1.273.32
$14.911.03
2570 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.337.10
$235.93
$426.97
$5.000.00
RICHARD LOCKWOOD
1959.00700
$8,880.37
$513.04
$928.46
$10.321.87
2645 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$5.162.07
$298.23
$539.70
$6.000.00
RICHARD MANN
1959-00600
$8.818.55
$600.99
$1.087.62
$10.607.16
210 LINDEN COURT SW
$4.196.45
$285.99
$517.56
$5.000.00
JA_ME_S PETERSON
1959.00800
$8,890.37
$513.04
$928.46
$10.321.87
2653 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.301.73
$248.52
$449.75
$5.000.00
HAROLD SCHM_IDT_
1959 - 01000
$9.864.42
$513.04
$928.46
$11.305.92
2669 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.362.50
$226.89
$410.61
$5.000.00
KENNETH STEIER
2790-04300
$9.562.64
$461.73
- $835.61
$10.859.98
2690 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.402.70
$212.58
$384.72
$5.000.00
GERALD STRAUSS
2790.01100
$10.524.83
$W8.81
$1,644.70
$13.078.34
2613 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.023.76
$347.45
$628.79
$5.000.00
RICHARD TIMM__
2790-03700
$11,494.84
$593.65
$1,074.36
$13.162.86
2550 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4,366.39
$225.61
$408.10
$5.000.00
DA_YLE VALENTINE_
2790-00900
$8.880.37
$1.043.73
$1,883.45
$11.807.55
2629 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$3.760.46
$441.98
$797.56
$5,000.00
HERBERT WINTER
2790-03800
$12.134.68
$593.66
$1.024.36
$13.752.70
2670 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4,411.741
$215.83
$372.42
$5,000.00
DAVID WINTERS
2790-03200
$12.934.12
$703.59
$1,273.32
$14,911.03
2640 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
$4.337.10
$235.93
$426.97
$5.000.00
JoANN YAGGY
$564_34
2790-04000
$11.630.25
511.021.30
$13.215.89
2680 OAK HILLS DRIVE SW
TOTALASSESSED
$4,400.10
$313.247.88
$213.51
$21.484.57
$396.39j
$38.825.90
$5.000.00
b373.55MISS
TOTAL TO BE RE -ASSESSED
$120.633.29
1 $8.359.231
$15,107.491
$144.100.00
CITY SHARE
5229.458.35
$192.614.90
$13.125.34
$23.718.41
i
RE -ASSESSMENT 10/2911991
GOLDEN HILL HILMERS HIVIEW
ACRES. TOOGOOD PLAZA
J8993
J8952
$198.101.57
$93.937.53
J8752
J8729
$13.772.30
$5.687.05
TOTAL
$211.873.87
$89.624.58
18 PARCELS
OAK_HILL_S, KLEISTS REPLAT
$313.247.88
$21.484.57
$38,825.90
$373.558.35
29 PARCELS
S'. ...m q.uxiae sAdQ-
(TOTAL 47 PARCELS
$120.633.29
..,...wul.nue...,s«..
, u...+.: A
$8.359.23
....:. .... .,.Si
$15.107.49
«. i� ��uu�ktm...
$144.101
x� ...e.u..
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED
$313,247.88
$198.101.57
$21.484.57
$52,598.20
$585.432.22
TB BE RE -ASSESSED
$120.633.291
$83.937.53
$8.359.23
$20,794.641
$233.724.59
CITY SHARE
$192.614.591
$114.164.041
$13.125.34
$31.8M.661
$351,707.63
1
is
ROCHESTER
November 13, 1991
.off. . • o
$tT£D.ALGUSS•
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
1602 4th Street S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-4718
(507) 2816008
FAX #(507) 281-6216
TO: Stevan Kvenvold
FROM: Roger Plumb
RE: Oak Hills - Kleist Replat Sewer & Water Extensions
Prior to proceeding with the Oak Hills and Kleist Replat sewer and water
project, the City had "before and after" appraisals prepared by two
different appraisal firms for two of the properties involved. A
comparison of those appraisals and the special assessments is as
follows:
• LOCATION
2550.Oak Hills
Drive SW
INCREASED ASSESSMENT BASED
VALUE PER 1988 ON FINAL ASSESSMENT
APPRAISALS HEARING
$27,700 (Property $13,118
Appraisals)
$13,200 (Blekre)
ASSESSMENT
NOW PROPOSED
$ 5,000
2661 Oak Hills $11,700 (Property $10,322 $10,322 (Not
Drive SW Appraisals) Appealed)
$ 9,000 (Blekre)
It is unfortunate that the initial appraisals provided by the appraisal
firms were substantially higher than subsequent appraisals and the
actual assessments now being necessitated by the results of court
litigation.
A summary of the apparent actual assessments and City project share for
the Oak Hills, Kleist Replat project, are as follows:
To Be Assessed
Postponed (Sch. Dist. #535 Property)
Subtotal
City Share
Water Dept. Share (Oversize &
Deadheading)
is Total Project Cost
Continued:
$290,175
11,317
$301,492
$239,513
63,991
$604,996
An Equal Opportunity/!{ coati* Action Employe
Stevan Kvenvold
11/13/91
Page - 2 -
The attached report describes well water pollution and septic tank
drainage concerns expressed by two elderly property owners who live
immediately south of the Oak Hills, Kleist Replat area.
cc: Gary Neumann
Al Toddie
Attachment
0
0
� 4,/ ROCHESTER
May 23, 1988
y111.p111R9•AI(11/
.1U
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
1602 41h Street S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904.4718 _-
(507) 281 6008
TO: Stevan Kvenvold
FROM: Roger Plumb
RE: Well Water Quality Concern - 201 28th Street S.W.
Mr. and Mrs. Willard Schreiber, 201 28th Street S.W., advised me on
Thursday, May 19, 1988, that their well water tested poorly. They are
on a combined well with a neighbor. The water test indicated in part
as follows:
Coliform Bacteria
15-100
Nitrate Nitrogen
2,0
Chlorides
48.1
isSulfates
47.3
Nitrite Nitrogen
NiD
They advised that septic tank drainage from adjoining properties was a
problem. They mentioned the Harry Moore property, 2725 1st Avenue S.W.
and the David Johnson property, 110 Linden Court S.W.
Mrs. Schreiber further stated that the bad water had cost them $4,000.
in her medical bills last year. They. are presently buying water for
drinking purposes. They inquired as to the schedule for the sewer and
water extensions to the lots north of their lot since the septic tank
drainage comes onto their lot.
I advised that there will be a public hearing June 20, 1988 on the
proposed extension of sewer and water to the area north of their property.
They also inquired as to the schedule for sewer and water to their property.
I advised that it was not certain but that it would be at least two years and
probably longer.
cc: F. Suhler
A. Toddie
0
lie Equal l�flAlrfendA/7iUilmnfit: a11,n 'Gnpdyrr
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATc.
AGENDA SECTION:
C HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Department of Planning
ITEM NO.
�B_ Z
RNL—
IITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition to annex by Ordinance #91-10, 21.63 acres by I PREPARED BY:
Rodney Younge and rezone to the Flood Fringe District #91-13 at the time of Jeff Ellerbusch
annexation
November 14, 1991
On October 23, 1991, the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing to consider the annexation and rezoning of the portion of this property
within the 100 year floodplain to the conventional Flood Fringe district rather
than the Flood Prone designation. The Rochester Townboard's comments were
available to the Commission at the meeting. The Townboard had acted to not
object to this annexation.
The Commission unanimously recommended the City annex the property as
petitioned. Motion by DeWitz, seconded by Schwartz.
The Commission also unanimously recommended that the City at the time of
annexation zone the portion of this site within the 100 year flood fringe to the
FF (Flood Fringe) District as requested rather than the FP (Flood Prone)
District. The Commission determined that at this location upstream of a large
undeveloped area with additional flood storage created by the sand and gravel
operations the requirement of providing flood storage on this site was
insignificant.
Motion by DeWitz, seconded by Bellinger.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 4, 1991
Council Action Needed:
1, The City Clerk will need to publish legal notice of public hearing in the
Post Bulletin no later than Friday, November 8, 1991. Written notice of the
hearing will need to be sent to the owners of the land within 350 feet of
the property no later than Friday, November 8, 1991.
if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance annexing the property and zoning the portion of the
site in the 100 year floodplain to the FF (Flood Fringe) Distric
Attachments:
1. Staff report October 4, 1991
2. Minutes of October 23, 1991, CPZC Meeting
3. City Clerk's Copy of Petitions
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Page 2
RCA
November 14, 1991
4. Waiver from,Rochester Townboard •
Distribut
1. City Clerk
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:30 p.m. on Monday,
November 18, 1991 in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
5. Yaggy Colby
Note to Applicant: If you wish the City to consider expediting the ordinance
adoption process by waiving the normal waiting period before final adoption, you
must do so by contracting the Rochester City Administrator.
J
0
0
Car'"o:�
- � -ii - � W_• I
h•r
r
To BE Ali
zvwD R-
_.:-
7.
ZONING DISTRICTS
-- ---_
A-1 AOIDOLTUNLL PROr¢TCN DISTRICT .•«A+
,.. •-S AGRICULTURAL PIWTECTCN DISTRICT ,� CITY
_ A-S AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1
AN AGRCULTURAL' URBAN EiPANS10N gSTRICT- - v-1--:-•--- _
ARC AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT --
I RSD RURAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT
RA RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
•T. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT •• - `,
R-E III%E0 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
s R-S MEOUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
RC RECREATIDNAL ,CDMMERCYU DISTRICT
-' CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT
NC NIfiIWAT CDAAERCIAL DISTRICT ��; •,; -. .S 7JS - 1•
I INDUSTRIAL �-�
SR MI ►EDICAL INSTITITTIDNAL. .. _
+
FW _ FLOODWIAY DISTRICT •'
FFA FLODD ►RIIgE DISTRICT .... 'r uM/- .. •_---"
nt-. F�DDD FRWU DISTRICT -
FI, FIAOD FLASI DISTRICT _ 11 R `/\/�/
R�r II .Y
dW' K ♦�•
A. i
�pCNLST[R.q,,'('I
•p<'.... .
�''....... • ...:
p447LD.AUG-6611 '
ROCHESTER OLMSTED
PLANNING AND HOUSING
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
0
ADMINISTRATION 507/285-8232
PUNNING 507, 285-8232
HRA 5071285-8224
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner
DATE: October 4, 1991
RE: Petition to Annex by Ordinance #91-10 and Petition to Rezone at the
Time of Annexation to the R-1 FF (Single Family Residential Flood
Fringe District) a91-13
General Info
Petitioners: Rodney Youngs
214 4th Street SW
Rochester, MN 55902 •
George R. Kerr,. Attorney in Fact
500 1st Avenue SW
Rochester, HN 55902
Consultant:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Reason for Annexation:
To allow hook up to City sewer and water
service.
Reason for Zone Change:
To allow the placement of fill on the
property.
Size:
The total area proposed to be annexed is
21.63 acres. The net area of the property
not subject to County Highway right-of-way is
17.12 acres.
Location:
The property is located at the southeast
corner of CSAH 22 (Circle Drive -Historic
Society Road) and CSAH 34 (Country Club Road
SW). The land lies adjacent on the east and
south to the Rochester Golf and Country Club
and is bounded on the north by CSAH 34 and on
the west by CSAH 22. The land is presently
part of the Northwest Quarter of.Section 4 in
Rochester Township.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Petition to Annex and Zone Change
October 4, 1991
Zoning: Under the Olmsted County Zoning Ordinance the
property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban
Expansion) District. Approximately 11 of the
17.12 acres of net buildable land is subject
to flood plain overlay regulations. The
County Zoning Ordinance shows that the
portion of this property subject to flooding
from Cascade Creek is zoned in the "Flood
Fringe B" district.
Upon annexation, by operation of Section
60.506 of the Rochester Zoning Code, this
land would be automatically zoned R-1 (Single
Family Residential) and the portion of the
site subject to Olmsted County Flood Maps
would be zoned FP -Flood Prone District.
The rezoning petition under consideration
would be to rezone at the time of annexation
the portion of the site that would be
automatically zoned FP (Flood Prone) District
to the FF (Flood Fringe) District.
The FP (Flood Prone) district is a local
flood plain zoning district which is not
mandated by the Federal and State Flood
Insurance programs. The FP (Flood Prone)
district is more restrictive than the FF
(Flood Fringe) in its regulations on filling
in the 100 year flood fringe. Whereas.the FF
(Flood Fringe) District regulations allow a
property to be filled creating no significant
increase in upstream flood height, the FP
(Flood Prone) regulations of Chapter 69 in
the Rochester Zoning Code go a step further
in requiring that any filling in a presently
undeveloped flood fringe area will not result
in the loss of storage volume in the flood
plain to avoid increases in downstream flood
levels and velocities. The FF (Flood Fringe)
District allows filling to take place'upon
issuance of a grading permit with no regard
for loss of flood storage but the FP (Flood
Prone) district requires that a conditional
use permit be issued for the deposition of
fill and that the amount of fill deposited is
no more than the minimum amount necessary to
conduct the use on the property, that there
is no net loss of capacity for surface
storage of flood water on the property and
that the filling will not create an increase
in erosion potential.
•
In this case, if the property is rezoned to
the FF (Flood Fringe) District, a permit
Page 3
Petition to Annex and Zone Change
October 4, 1991
.could be granted to fill any or all ofthe
area to any elevation. If the property
remains zoned FP (Flood Prone) not all of the
site could be filled because some portion
would have to be retained to accommodate the
same amount of flood storage (i.e. acre feet
-of,water) as presently is provided on the
property. Generally speaking, on equal
amount of fill brought into the property
would have to be removed to create the same
amount of water ponding area. The FP (Flood
Prone) requirements really only allow a
redistribution of fill material on a site to
elevate the building and roadway areas while
leaving a low lying area for flood storage.
Adjacency to Municipal Limits: This land lies adjacent to the City limits
along its east and south sides. Minnesota
Statues require that a property touch at
least at one point for an annexation by
ordinance to take place.
Utilities: This area is subject to previously postponed
assessments for trunkline sanitary sewer and
water tower construction.- Water mains are in
place near the northwest corner of this •
property. Sewer service would be provided
from a main planned.to be extended from the
north through the Interlachen.Subdivision
across CSAH 34 to serve the Rochester Golf
and Country Club. The property lies within
the RFU Electric Service Territory.
Future Land Use Map: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Map
shows this property within the urban service
area boundary and planned for "low density
residential" use subject to the flood prone
limitations.
Townboard Action: The Rochester Townboard has not responded
with their decision on this annexation. The
Townboard will have its first regular
scheduled meeting since the submittal of this
petition on October 10, 1991. If the
Townboard offers no objection or does not act
within 90 days from receipt of the annexation
petition, the City can proceed to annex the
property by ordinance.
Staff Review:
The staff recommends the City annex the property. The land lies within the
urban service area, is adjacent to the City limits and is within reasonable
proximity to sewer and water. The City can proceed to annex this property at
such time as the Townboard acts on the petition. If it is possible without
Page 4
Petition to Annex and Zone Change
October 4, 1991
. holding up this petition, the staff would recommend that a small tract of
County Road right-of-way north of this annexation be included in the ordinance
annexing this property. The parcel owned by Olmsted County is shown as #5602
on the attached parcel map.
The rezoning of the ll+ acre portion of this tract from FP (Flood Prone) to FF
(Flood Fringe) at the time of annexation raises a policy question for the City
to decide. The main goal of the FP (Flood Prone) district is to avoid the
loss of flood storage in the undeveloped portion of the flood plain so as not
to increase downstream flood levels and velocities which would affect existing
structures in the floodplain. These goals are in addition to the normal flood
plain management programs which are designed to protect upstream properties
from damage caused by floodwater backing up due to filling practices. In this
specific case the amount of storage for floodwater along Cascade Creek
downstream of this site has been greatly increased because of the continuing
mining operations in the lake area to be northeast of this site across CSAH
34. The flood storage afforded by this site is probably accommodated many
times over by the downstream changes that have already been made. Also, the
planned flood control project improvements to Cascade Creek as it flows
through developed areas will provide downstream properties a level of
protection in excess of 100 year flood event. The concern of causing
increased flood damage to presently low properties downstream will not exist
upon completion of the Cascade Creek flood control project.
On the other hand,,the FP (Flood Prone) regulations were adopted by the City
and County after the 1978 flood to encourage a more conservative approach to
local flood plain management. Although these regulations are not as important
in this case, rezonings to the FF (Flood Fringe) District could begin to erode
the commitment to the FP (Flood Prone) District. The staff supports this
process of rezoning on a case by case issue from FP to FF so each site can be
evaluated on its individual merits.
In this situation with these unique downstream land uses it would be possible
to allow this rezoning to the conventional FF (Flood Fringe) District without
jeopardizing the concept of Flood Prone regulations.
Attached
1. Referral from Public Services (Note: all other agencies responding had no
objections)
2. Parcel Map
3. Olmsted County Zoning Map
4. Future Land Use Map
5. 500 Scale Olmsted County Flood Boundary and Floodway Map
JAE/rmj
�J
0%
ROCHESTER
mvi
DATE: September 30, 1991
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-474.4
FROM: Department of Public Services
"�*etr"::icy"si•.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
1602 4th Street S.E.
Rochester. MN 55904.4718
(507)281'6008
FAX *(507)281.6216
RE: ANNEXATION BY ORDINANCE PETITION #91-10 BY
RODNEY YODNGE OF 17.12 ACRES OF VACANT LAND
ION OF
LOCATED IN T8E SE QDADRANT.OF THE -INTERS
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SW AND CODNTy ROAD 122 & ZONE
CHANGE REQUEST #91-13':'
IN REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE
ABOVE MATTER, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
1, This 17.12 acre tract is subject to previously
postponed assessments for: Project J807i7-1"Country
Club Manor Trunkline Sanitary Sewer"
@$300/Acre = $5,136.00; and also for Project J8067 -
"Water Tower, West Service Area" = 17.12 Acres
@$159.6993/Acre = $2,734.05.
Combined Total = $7,870.05
:�Y F.iuil Lti'OMMYYi .��F.f�Ymin :7mo z"P%un
NNW
AXI
� {.: �1�, '7 , ; � T !M ra .,fit �r 1?i: tj j .��i � Air a i•4 �'i:-'
��!!//[[ ' • •,.'.• j w"9E {ei l: �� F Iri. t ,.Lf.. FF. )! 1�' .�1 ■ �.
„y�• • y �' � 1 :x'1,±x ��'tl}. r^. 'r :•��.+ ei,f 11 r - ', � k 1'k�? ,�t._
iz.
+•
{
.;* r. • I �{ypli�l''�K�ii^i�.ir.,Jt:Ntx,. .,b''. $'lli 1lldlidy. 1! JLG/0. �
I r..�r� .�.�ry .. -i s � i %. ai,:j.�pP„•�'k _,i ''SBBGj % v.. S :,
al
..'+ ,4bi%�� t7 S , ��:.-,: '� , S'; +�Xl,.{ � v fk. ��. ,''G 1 IL ���4 fir'• 1 ! ,' i ' ..
�' �', . / � �'- �S ;tip S . �"��•� ,:x'3�ri!'g 0 � "'"`7t'!"�' t '
AN
-1 11L! IF
A-,
± ',i �' }jt y- y 1 • �` r • " ,., s,Gl' 1 t«S ; ".17101�� t ~' S
:..�.
asr,{1 C q �'c i:•1y Tw.+P ,. " ; wi + i _
k:Ro c> 1 �S+re Twl P. t s=o= /„ ` �,�• ,
5603 —�►, - :, �
r + C 1� GO ''' Y�
tiQMRTY
°i. 6900
• F ft?
` 590
=C' 680D TDOY 5
Suit
iiaoAs ;_; u I I l H!=lori 'aI t
ea++wr H• =
Hill 1" RA
� t
a cove �I MA
rt_ F
tills
. . lea .sarat3sa� xati
��vs.
ok
-�•r n�
rr � F J - �r • h,.1 f e .sy �.17
MIA
co
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 23, 1991
Mr. Fiscus stated that the applicant does not have any control over this
situation.
Ms. Schwartz asked how far above the wall does the substation project over the
wall.
Mr. Fiscus stated that most of the materials will be hidden from view. This
proposal has been reviewed by the Park and Rec Department. There are no
problems with any of the conditions that are listed in the staff report. He
stated that they are going one step further with the removable solid wall.
No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Mr. Fogarty, Vice Chair, closed the public hearing.
Ms. Schwartz moved approval with the following conditions, seconded by Mr.
Bellinger. The motion carried 6
1. That a locked gate be provided at the entrances to the property
during unattended hours.
2. That the solid masonry fence enclosing the perimeter of the site be
at least 10' in heigbt.
3. That there be a removable solid wall continued along the north side of
the property to allow the railroad to complete the removal of switching
ties.
4. That a landscaping plan indicating the types, numbers and locations
of plantings to be used as screening be submitted for staff review
and approval prior to issuance of a zoning certificate.
S - - HS3 LC• • L �
Y=.
��1
Club Road SW and County Road 122 directly west of the Rochester Golf and
Country Club.
I*
•
Mr. Ellerbusch presented the staff report dated October 4, 1991. He noted that
the Rochester Townboard has reviewed this item and has no objection to the
annexation. He noted that it could be argued that going from a Flood Prone to a
Flood Fringe District is of little or no consequence. The planned Flood
Control Project will alleviate the problems for existing homes along in Cascade
Creek that are subject to flooding. There are reasons that this specific site •
can be removed from the Flood Prone District. Staff recommends this property
be annexed and rezoned to a Flood Fringe District.
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 23, 1991
Mr. DeWitz stated that the new culverts have been put in. He asked if they are
100 year culverts.
Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the design of the culverts were designed to accept
the floodway. The DNR also reevaluated the flood heights in this area. The
actual flood elevations are much lower. There is in fact a smaller area that
is under a 100 year flood.
Ms. Wiesner asked if any of the other properties around this property is in the
flood zone.
Mr. Ellerbusch stated no. He noted that the County has two different flood
zones, A and B. He continued to explain that on the edge of a subdivision that
is where the flood prone designation comes into play.
Mr. Bellinger asked if there are any plans to remap the flood areas.
Mr. Ellerbusch stated that they have already been remapped in part. The
elevations in the Country Club area have been lowered. The flood elevations
have been lowered. This area will probably be reevaluated at some point by the
request of property owners. The Department of Natural Resources administers
state flood plain management programs. It is a long convoluted process
involving many agencies to actually change a flood plain map. The property
owners that are going to benefit sometimes have to foot some of the costs. The
area from 37th Street NW to Northbrook Shopping Center has been restudied. The
City is paying for some of the cost to restudy the flood plain maps from 4th
Street SE to 7th Street.
Mr. Ron Bailey, Yaggy Colby Associates, stated that Mr. Ellarbusch explained
their proposal well. He noted that the source of the fill would be coming from
the City's own flood control project. They need to gat rid of a lot of
excavated materials. This land is not being proposed for any type of
development at this time. In the future it may possibly be a residential
development or a land swap with the Country Club for a driving range.
Mr. DeWitz asked how much fill is going in.
Mr. Bailey stated that there would be approximately 3 or 4 feet of fill. There
will be a detailed grading plan for the area which has to be submitted to the
City.
No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Mr. Fogarty closed the public hearing.
Mr. DeWitz made a motion to approve Annexation #91-10, Ms. Schwartz
seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Mr. DeWitz moved to approve the rezoning, Mr. Bellinger seconded the
motion. The motion carried 6-0.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETMG c
DATE.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS Dept of Planning
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Zone CHange #91-14 from the B-lb District to the B-4 District
November 14, 1991
ITEM NO.
8-3
PREPARED BY:
ane Kansier
The Planning Commission considered this petition at a public hearing on
October 23, 1991. The applicant is requesting this zone change to the
B-4 district in order to permit the construction of a woodworking shop
on the vacant easterly parcel. The western parcel, which is currently
the site of a dwelling, would remain as such for the time being. It
would probably be developed for other commercial uses in the future.
The Planning Commission found that this request is consistent with the
Land Use Plan Designation of the property. The Commission recommends
approval of this zone change.
Motion by DeWitz to recommend approval of this zone change, second by
Berndt. The motion carried 5-0. Ms. Weisner abstained.
Consolidated Plen iine Deeartment Recor®endation:
See staff report dated October 16, 1991.
Council Action Needed:
1. The City Clerk will need to publish legal notice of public hearing
in the Post Bulletin no later than Friday, November 8, 1991.
Written notice of the hearing will need to be sent to the owners of
the land within 350 feet of the property no later than Friday,
November 8, 1991.
2. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the zone change that can be
adopted.
Attached:
1. Staff Report dated October 16, 1991
2. Minutes of October 23, 1991, CPZC Meeting
3, City Clerk's Copy of Petition
ACTION!: Motion by: Second by:
to:
m
i
0 I� 1Q
2 J
T OIRLOT OUTI.DT R uMa
eEN HOME e
. rEK T "e" _ •B"
Nr IL ! ACRES V
il OUTLOT
I D
so�rycarE
AS AS G
A.O � m I : OMME IA
PARK t n
GRANDVIEW
MEMORIAL
GARDENS
.p �4
�O
4
iI 9
VIlL
0
: I
W
8 K 1
1
W z1
ROCH64TER
�v.
I •
US OWN
f .
RE LAT
WOW
TO:
too"" OE
City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Plannarnm��
DATE: October 16, 1991U[�
.p,,LSTEE•M,A
Off,A
30
b ,..
044rI S'�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION+ 507,285-8232
PUNNING
HOUSING,HRA 5071285.8224
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
wELL!SEPTIG 5071285-8345
RE: Zone Change 091-14 from the B-lb District to the B-4 District
Plannine Department Review:
Petitioners:
Location of Property:
Daryl Nigon
421 llth Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Donald Krahn
2904 Knollwood Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
The property is located along the south
side of Eastwood Road SE and along the
east side of Marion Road SE, directly
south of the new Post Office building and
north of Grandview Memorial Gardens
cemetery.
Requested Action:
Zone change from the B-lb
(Neighborhood Business) district to the
B-4 (General Business) district.
Existing Land Use:
Single family dwelling and vacant
Proposed Land Use:
A cabinet shop will be located on the
eastern parcel. Other commercial uses
will be located on the remaining parcels.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Post Office zoned B-4 and single
family dwelling zoned R-3
South: Single family dwellings zoned
B-lb and cemetery zoned R-1
East: Sand pit zoned B-lb
Page 2
Zone Change 091-14
October 16, 1991
West: Bear Creek Park zoned R•1 FF and .
single family home and commercial
business zoned B-lb
Land Use Plan:
This area is identified as "Commercial"
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan Map.
Transportation:
This property is adjacent to Marion Road
SE, which is classified as an expressway,
and to Eastwood Road SE, which is
classified as a collector. Access to the
property will be from Eastwood Road SE.
Referral Agency Comments:
No comments or objections have been
received from any of the referral
agencies contacted.
Report Attachments:
1. 600 Scale Location Map
2. 200 Scale Aerial Map
3. Zoning Map
planning Staff Recommendation:
The applicants- are - requesting this zone change in order to allow a
cabinet shop on a portion of the property.
The B-4 district is intended to provide a location for uses appropriate
to thoroughfare connections. In this case, the site is adjacent to a
collector street and an expressway. It is also adjacent to an existing
B-4 district.
The Planning staff finds that the proposed B-4 zoning is consistent with
the Land Use Plan and with the intent of the district. The staff
recommends approval of this request.
Reviewed by: v
Date
JAK
R-F
7�sue' -
lR IFF 6
%
3
It R-2 R-3
PUD
R-3
A
-TD
....... ...
7.
R
F
R-1
R-3
PU
L
.....
R-3 FF.:
R-2
Ff R-1
ZONING MAP
1.1, ESTATE & ll-fS 3"Iff IAL %
1.36 ES -ATE I =IorxTIAL
1.1 Sloau FAPULT ?zIcrmA
A-z Lod r.Z16177 WIDMIAL
Plolum DrRsm K=*I)[-.TIAL
A" KICK alms;17 FMIUNTIAL
S-la 133TWITIAL wMalls ............... w-sr
a- lb Ia:=Qm= m=IS ---.-ram —
j-lt CtKTM 9M:=
6-3 CExrxAL =IN=
as CEKMAL MSZVM
LI;W 11IM5121AL
CEMEML 11=711AL
Tr
FW
losilifflow
rL'= rRICX ML
rL=my
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 23, 1991
Zone Change Petition #91 14 by Daryl Nigon and Donald Krohn to rezone property
the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Marion Road SE directly south of
the new Post office.
Ms. Wiesner abstained from this item.
Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated October 14, 1991. The property is
adjacent to commercial uses and is identified as a commercial area. She noted
that the staff would recommend approval of this request.
Mr. Nigon, one of the applicants, stated that he has a cabinet shop and they
would like to build a new cabinet shop. He stated that they need the property
rezoned in order to build the shop.
Mr. Krahn, one of the applicants, stated that he owns the adjacent property, he
stated that the vacant property is being used as a dump site and this building
will upgrade the site considerably. He is not sure what he will be using his
property for at this time.
Mr. Ronald Briese, 1246 Marion Road, stated that he is not opposed, but he has
some questions. He asked if this would have any effect on the value of his
property.
Mr. Fogarty noted that the Commission could not answer that. .
Mr. Briese asked how loud the power tools are.
Mr. Nigon stated that the building will be towards the front of the lot, and
there have never been any complaints about the noise where he is at.
Mr. Briese asked about dust and waste.
Mr. Nigon stated that there is a machine that collects the dust and the waste
as the machine operates.
Mr. Briese asked what can go into a B-4 district.
Ms. Kansier stated that it is a general business district, it permits most
retail uses, it could have an entertainment use.
Mr. Briese stated that he says yes to Mr. Nigon's proposal, but he is concerned
about Mr. Krahn's request because he does not know what is going in there.
Ms. Nancy Craig, 1259 Marion Road, stated that she is not opposed to the
cabinet shop, but would like to know what is going on the other property.
No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Mr. Fogarty closed the public.
Mr. DeWitz made a motion to recommend approval of Zone Change #91-14,
seconded by Mr. Berndt. The motion carried 5-0. Ms. Wiesner abstained.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 11! 18/91 /
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITg NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Department of Planning � q
EM DESCRIPTION: Request to Amend the Final P.U.D. Plans (B-60) for PREPARED BY:
Barclay Square Shopping Center Jeff Ellerbusch
November 14. 1991
,. .
On October 23. the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to
consider this amendment to a planned unit development to permit the existing
Barclay Square shopping center building to be changed by adding glass
storefronts an the west side of the building; adding new tenant signage around
the entire building; interior alterations to eliminate most of the interior mall
area and the addition of a 6,000 square foot freestanding retail building south
of the main entrance.
The Commission had some questions regarding the type of freestanding building
that would be at the main entrance. It was noted that it would be some type of
a restaurant franchise, although at such time, the plans would have to go
through public review. In addition, the Commission felt that there was already
an agreement in place regarding the traffic light on CSAH 8, and if the
developer wanted to have that changed, he would have to renegotiate that with
Olmsted County.
Motion by DeVitz to approve the amendment with the following conditions:
1. Before any permits for construction of the 6,000 square foot freestanding
building and its proposed pylon sign are issued, the developer should submit
for approval all plans to the City.. The process of review of these plans
should be handled as Type III use with a Phase I hearing process as
described in the Rochester Land Development Manual. The Planning and Zoning
Commission should be the designated review body. The public review amounts
to a hearing before the Planning Commission and decision by the Commission
to approve or deny. This process is recommended since the application will
not be made until sometime next year when the Land Development Manual will
be in effect. The major issue of permitting a freestanding building will
already have been decided through this final plan amendment.
A landscape plan should be submitted before approval of this final plan
amendment. The landscape plan should catalogue all existing undisturbed
site landscaping that will rants+r. The landscape plan should provide for
the replacement of parking lot landscaping in the form of understory trees
in the new parking islands at the end of the new parking rows. Existing
landscaping lost to expansion of the parking lot along the southwest side of
the site should be replaced in kind in the same general locations. Existing
landscaping not disturbed because of reconstruction should remain.
ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:
to:
Page 2
RCA
November 14, 1991
3. There is an existing agreement for the traffic signals on CSAH 8. If the
owner and developer would like changes to that agreement, they should enter
into a new agreement with Olmsted County.
4. A revised site plan which dimensions the location of all the Dn
buildings and parking lot locations should be provided. The proposed pylon
sign location on CSAH 8 should be revised to remove it from the stormiater
detention area.
5. Tenant wall signs should be limited to those sides of the building shown on
the submitted exhibits, although a theatre entrance sign will be allowed.
6. All trash or recycling collection areas should be screened by a solid wall
or fence of similar color to the exterior of the building and be shown on
the site plan.
7. All other P.U.D. (B-60) plans on file for this project which are not
specifically altered by the submittals of this amendment should remain in
effect.
Seconded by Berndt. The motion carried 6-0.
PlanninzDenartment Recommendatio
See staff report dated October 16, 1991. The applicant has submitted revised
plans which address the conditions of approval raised in the 10/16/91 staff
report. •
Council Action Needed:
1. The City Clerk will need to publish legal notice of public hearing in the
Post Bulletin no later than Friday, November 8, 1991. Written notice of
the hearing will need to be sent to the owners of the land within 350 feet
of the property no later than Friday, November 8, 1991.
2. Council may take action by motion.
3. Adopt a resolution amending the final plans for P.U.D. B-60 with the
conditions listed in the 10/23/91 City Planning and Zoning Commission
minutes and accepting as revised plan documents the following all stamped
Amended PUD Final Plans: 1) one 24" x 36" plan sheet showing detention
basin modifications dated "Received October 7, 1991; 2) two 8 1/2" x 11"
pages dated Received October 7, 1991; 3) one 8 1/2" x 11" page dated
Received November 14, 1991; 5) four 24" x 36" plan sheets showing site
layout, building elevations and landscape plans dated Received November 14,
1991; 6) two 8 1/2" x 11" pages from Tanurb dated October 7, 1991.
Attached:
0
Page 3
RCA
November 14, 1991
1. Staff Report dated October 16, 1991.
2. City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of October 23, 1991
3. Revised Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Material Catalog
DISTRIBUTION:
1. City Clerk
2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department
4. Applicant: This item will be considered in the Council Chambers at City
Hall sometime after 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 18, 1991.
S. McGhie and Betts, Inc.
6. Tanurb Developments, Inc.
0
0
m
rye
1®
E ffEI�E g � Q 9 r c
m
;1 =
0 O
n
A_
'o
m
m
Cy N
o
G
Zm
m
z,
�. L-rA
`�
v
v`, v
x NO7
€Ep
= C9
sn
3I ��
ICI
mK
S
f
0
•
Uf m EII t *-Ml�
°n OA Ei i
i mr'�
r
.._.�.. a rH si--•_�_
a lap
fa
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner
DATE: October 16, 1991
LSTER
..............
0`' f�OA
1
np r0
��rI O.�YG UST'
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS OR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904.47"
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
RE: Amendment to the Final Plan for Planned Unit Development B-60 -
Barclay Square Shopping Center
General Information:
Applicant: I T L Inc.
c/o Barclay's Business Credit, Inc.
200 Glastonbury Boulevard
Glastonbury, CT, 06033
Developer: Tanurb Developments, Inc.
550 Queen Street East
Suite M150
Toronto, Ont. Canada
M5A IVZ
Architect:
Engineer:
Report Attachments:
Proposed Change:
KKE Architects
Minneapolis, MN
McGhie and Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
1. Referral Letters
2. Zoning Map
3. Letter from Applicant
4. Revised Site Plan
5. Revised Project Data Sheet
6. Existing Site Plan
7. Revised Building Elevations
8. Revised Sign Criteria
9. Memo on Stormwater Detention Area
The Final P.U.D. Plans for the Barclay Square Shopping Center were approved in
February of 1984. In May of 1989 the sign standards for the shopping were
revised to allow wall business signs around the building centered between the
0
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
PUD B-60
October 16, 1991
roof and the accent stripe and the addition of a second pylon sign. None of
the signage of the center was actually changed after the 1989 amendment.
The proposal at this time is to revise the final plan for P.U.D. B-60 to make
exterior modifications to the building by adding glass storefronts with doors
and canopies along the west side of the building. The interior mall area
would be reduced from approximately 18,000 square feet to 7,260 square feet.
The displaced mall area would become additional tenant retail area. All
tenant spaces in the shopping center except one would have direct access to
the outside. The project is basically changed to a style of shopping center
similar to Miracle Mile or other neighborhood shopping centers in Rochester
rather than a "mall".
Another change to the final plan would be the addition of a site for a future
6,000 square foot freestanding restaurant or retail store along the west side
of the parking lot just south of the entrance off CSAH 8. This new structure -
would displace 16 parking spaces and encroach into the present stormwater
detention (ditch) area. Excavation at the south end of the detention area is
planned to replace the loss of storage volume changed by the fill needed to
accommodate the new building.
The parking lot layout is modified in response to the addition of the new
building. The present plan provided approximately 745 spaces whereas the new
plan shows 737 spaces. The only physical expansion to the parking lot is at
the southwest corner of the site along CSAH S. The project proposes a
. different parking standard based upon 85 percent of the retail space being
open to the public with one parking space per 200 square feet of net retail
area. The existing plan was approved with the assumption that 75 percent of
the gross retail space should be used in calculating net floor area for
parking and one space per 150 square feet was be required. The proposed
change in parking standards seems reasonable based on present day parking
practices in shopping centers and exceeds the minimum standards for parking
found in the Rochester Land Development Manual for shopping centers of this
size and tenant mix.
The signage proposed for the building at this time is basically the same as
the package approved in 1989. The center will have three freestanding signs.
The sign at the CSAH 8 entrance will remain and a new sign of the same design
as the present one will be located along TH 52 at the northeast corner of the
site. An additional pylon sign for the tenant of the new freestanding
building will be located along CSAH 8 southerly of the building. Tenant wall
signs will be added to the west, north and east sides of the building. Anchor
tenant wall signs will replace the Barclay Square mall sign on the east side
of the building along TH 52. The actual name of the shopping center will be
changed and the pylon signage will reflect this change. The amount of signage
is still below what could be permitted in a conventional B-4 zoning district.
The signage exceeds the permitted amounts under the Land Development Manual.
Staff Recommendation:
The proposal is presently incomplete in that the building plans and the sign
• design for the freestanding 6,000 square foot building are not provided at
this time. As we understand, a specific tenant has not been found for the new
retail building at this time but the applicants wanted to make the proposal to
add the building at this time. The staff feels that review of the plans of
Page 3
PUD B-60
October 16, 1991
the building and sign in the future are necessary when the developers are •
ready to proceed with construction.
Also, a landscaping plan has not been submitted at this time. The
modification to the parking lot will displace approximately 39 existing trees
on the site presently located in various parking islands and along the CSAH 8
frontage. The staff feels that parking lot trees should still be included in
this plan as an amenity to the project. Some foundation plantings will be
permanently lost due to the proposed construction of the glass storefronts.
Another important issue is the planned traffic signalization of the CSAH 8,
Fox Valley Drive and Barclay Square access intersection. Previous owners and
developers of Barclay Square had a signed agreement with Olmsted County for
certain roadway improvements which needed to be done to allow access into the
site off CSAH 8. This agreement carried a condition that the owners of this
property.would pay a proportionate share of the costs of the signal
installation when warranted. The staff suggests that the owners and
developers should enter into a new agreement with the County which assigns one
fourth of the costs of a signalization to the Barclay Square development.
The staff would recommend approval of this proposed final plan amendment with
the following conditions:
1. Before any permits for construction of the 6,000 square foot freestanding
building and its proposed pylon sign are issued, the developer should
submit for approval all plans to the City. The process of review of these
plans should be handled as Type III use with a Phase I hearing process as
described in the Rochester Land Development Manual. The Planning and
Zoning Commission should be the designated review body. The public review
amounts to a hearing before the Planning Commission and decision by the
Commission to approve or deny. This process is recommended since the
application will not be made until sometime next year when the Land
Development Manual will be in effect. The major issue of permitting a
freestanding building will already have been decided through this final
plan amendment.
2. A landscape plan should be submitted before approval of this final plan
amendment. The landscape plan should catalogue all existing undisturbed
site landscaping that will remain. The landscape plan should provide for
the replacement of parking lot landscaping in the form of understory trees
in the new parking islands at the end of the new parking rows. Existing
landscaping lost to expansion of the parking lot along the southwest side
of the site should be replaced in kind in the same general locations.
Existing landscaping not disturbed because of reconstruction should remain.
3. The owner and developer should enter into a new agreement with Olmsted
County for their one quarter share of the traffic signals on CSAH 8.
4. A revised site plan which dimensions the location of all the new
buildings and parking lot locations should be provided. The proposed
pylon sign location on CSAH 8 should be revised to remove it from the
stormwater detention area. •
Page 4
PUD B-60
October 16, 1991
9. Exterior building elevations for the southeast corner of the project be
provided. Modifications are being made in this area according to the site
plan., but no elevation is provided.
6, Tenant wall signs should be limited to those sides of the building shown
on the submitted exhibits.
7. All trash or recycling collection areas should be screened by a solid wall
or fence of similar color to the exterior of the building and be shown on
the site plan.
S. All other P.L.D. (B-60) plans on file for this project which are not
specifically altered by the submittals of this amendment should remain in
effect.
JAE/rj
0
0
t
s
F tires"�
vss .
.aIAA _
-
,_ r is
1.2
-k
1 •'s r...Iie _
Xj
• `.--i F.V...—•+1 tom- .y—
= pVi- tilt:;;....•::::"i:i::::::::cam : --
sc�
S: ��.
}
ZONING MAP
•.f000"
"Y:- , '�' 3 - R-Sa ESTATE A RESIDENTIAL
l:•`::351:� " r W .. R-Sb ESTATE B 0.ESIOENTIAL
:.I: p ' R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
' m : R•2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Ff:"'''~. R-O MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDEtITIAI y
R-! NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
t.. - A. 8-la RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS
- 0,-- - Gelb NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
M •� _ - B-2 CENTRAL BUSINESS
B-S GENERAL BUSINESS
.,. W GENERAL BUSINESS
M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
�• �- . 01-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
I INSTITUTIONAL._
wlSy^•.i
L
ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO: Rose Johanna, Planning Secretary
FROM: Gary J. Smith, Assistant Fire Chief
DATE: October 14, 1991
OCT I A 1991 u
SUBJECT: AMENDED FINAL PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT B-60
Attached are the comments pertaining to site specific
requirements made by Lt. Felsch. '
As he outlined our department has no difficulty with this
request.
Gary J. Smith
Assistant Fire Chief
is
ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
DATE: October 10, 1991
TO: Assist C 1ef G. Smith, Support Services
FROM: Lt. 1,7] Velsch, Fire Prevention Bureau
SUBJ: P.L'.D.B-60 for Barclay Square Shopping,Center
Based on the informaion provided I see no objection to the
proposal. The relocation of three fire hydrants and structural
remodeling of the existing building is acceptable provided all
work is done in accordance with requirements of the Building
Safety, Public Service, Fire and other affected departments.
. 0
11
OLT � 41991 i
507/280-1561
October 10, 1991
4000 E. River Rd., N.E.
Rochester, MN 55906-2813
507/280-1540
FAX: 507/280-1542
TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division
Consolidated Planning Dept.
FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Amended Final Plan Planned Unit Development B-60 for Barclay Square
Shopping Center, _ . .
No objection:
Sincerely,
AzxD0
Roger Kanestadt
ks
lororic, um... Canaaa
VnS lv:
Tanurb
rai 61§•ya.55c.
In order for Barclay Square Shopping Center to become
competitive in the 1990's extensive renovations are
required. These renovations will result in leases with
new. tenants who will in turn make Barclay Square into
a viable Shopping Center.
Barclay Square suffers from basic design, layout and
signage flaws. A review of the layout of the mall
indicates that access to the three main anchor tenants
(T.J. Maxx, Carisch Theatre and Old Country Buffet)
is such that each can operate independently of the other.
The result is the three anchor tenants generate enough
sales to remain in business while "mall" stores cannot
survive.
Also there is no (identification for the mall tenants
from Highway 52 or the Apache Mall parking lot. These
are the two most visible areas for the shopping center
and increased signage is a necessity.
The renovation would consist of the following:
(i) An elimination of the majority of the "mall
common area";
A removal of the concrete front walls of the
center and their replacements with store fronts
for approximately nine tenants. All of the
new tenants will have access directly from
the parking lot;
(iii) Exterior tenant signage around the entire
building including the rear;
(iv) The addition of a 6000 square foot outparcel.
This will be used as either a traditional
retailer or a restaurant depending on market
demand; and
(v) The previously approved pylon sign on Highway
52 will be constructed.
RECEIVED
- 1 - Y,-.
OCT 0 1991
ROCHESTER/OLMSTED FINAL
DEPT. OF PLANNING & HOUSING
•
•
!W g-A0 V •
.r
•
0
0
-1177
111q
7I17
7117
Tanurb
it is anticipated that work will commence in the spring
of 1992. First occupancy for the new tenants would
be fall of 1992. The center will be renamed and
repositioned within the marketplace once the renovations
are complete.
The project team is the following:
Owner: I.T.L Corporation a division of Barclays
Bank.
Developer: Tanurb. Corporate information on Tanurb
is enclosed.
Architect: KKE Architects
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Engineer: McGhie and Betts Inc.
Rochester, Minnesota
- 2 -
Tanurb
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Wilfred Posluns
Mr. Sydney Loftus
Mr. Alan Brown
Mr. Tom Ehrlich
CORPORATE SUMMARY
Chairman of the Board,
Tanurb Developments Inc.
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer,
Dylex Limited
Chairman of the Board,_
Strathearn House Group -
Limited
Chairman of the Board
Tritor Developments Limited
President
Tanurb Developments Inc.
Vice -President, Real Estate
Dylex Limited
Director, Dylex Limited
President
Tritor Developments Limited
Vice -President
Tanurb Developments Inc.
Operating Partner Tanurb
(5 yrs)
10 year private architectural
practice
Vice -President
Tanurb Developments Inc.
Operating Partner Tanurb
(6 yrs)
Managing Director (4 yrs)
Tritor Developments Limited
0
- 1 -
•
L-J
1117
1117
7177
7117
Tanurb
Mr. Irving Posluns
Mr. Lionel Robins
Mr. Irving Levine
Mr. Irving Teitelbaum
Mr. Richard Posluns
Ms Wendy Posluns
Secretary
Tanurb Developments Inc.
Executive Vice -President
and Director, Dylex Limited
Secretary -Treasurer
Tritor Developments Limited
President of Dylex Limited
Director, Dylex Limited
Vice -President & General
Manager, Fairweather Division
of Dylex Limited
Director, Dylex Limited
Chairman of the Board
& Chief Executive officer
Suzy Shier Limited, a
division of Dylex Limited
Director, Dylex Limited
President
J. Kwinter Gourmet Hot
Dogs
Director, Dylex Limited
Partner
McDonald & Hayden
Barristers & Solicitors
Director, Dylex Limited
Corporate Counsel
Tanurb Developments Inc.
- 2 -
Tanurb
REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS
The partners of Tanurb have been actively involved in the
development, management, and leasing of the following real
estate projects:
SHOPPING CENTRES
Place Fleur de Lys
Champlain Place
Shopping Centre
McAllister Place
Shopping Centre
Regent Mall
Crystal Palace
Springwater Marketplace
Quebec City, Quebec
1,000,000 square foot
regional mall anchored
by Sears, K-Mart, Zellers
Department Store, Steinbergs
Supermarket, Pascal's
Hardware
Moncton, New Brunswick
700,000 square foot regional
mall anchored by Sears,
woolco, and Sobey's Supermarket
Saint John, New Brunswick
250,000 square foot regional
mall anchored by K-Mart
and Sobey's Supermarket
Currently expanding to
450,000 square feet including
Sears
Fredericton, New Brunswick
200,000 square foot regional
mall anchored by Woolco
and Dominion Supermarket
Currently expanding to
400,000 square feet including
Sears
Moncton, New Brunswick
120,000 square foot multi
use Hotel/Amusement Park
Barrie, Ontario
140,000 square foot strip
plaza anchored by Drug
World, Canada Trust, Sobey's
Supermarket .
0
L.J
- 3 -
�J
0
-li'11
7171%
7iMI-I
7iMI7
Tanurb
SHOPPING CENTRES (CONT'D)
Festival Marketplace
UNITED STATES
Loehmann's Plaza (sold)
College Plaza (sold)
Albertson's
Loehmann's Plaza (sold)
Rosedale Commons
Rosedale Marketplace
Burnsville Marketplace
Stratford, Ontario
250,000 square foot enclosed
mall anchored by Sears,
Towers, Canadian Tire
Greenville, South Carolina
135,000 square feet, anchored
by Loehmann's and an A&P
Family Mart
Santa Fe, New Mexico
175,000 square feet, anchored
by Albertson's and Grand
Central
San Antonio, Texas - 60,000
square feet
Amherst, New York
100,000 square feet anchored
by Loehmann's, Supergap
and Adams Drugs
Roseville, Minnesota
200,000 square feet anchored
by Children's Palace,
Jo -Ann Fabrics, Drug Emporium
Roseville, Minnesota
150,000 square foot retail
center anchored by Toys
R Us, Kids R Us, F & M
Drugs, Office Max
Burnsville, Minnesota
265,000 square foot retail
center anchored by Toys
R Us, Kids R Us, Marshalls,
F & M Drugs, Lee Wards,
Office Max, Jo -Ann Fabrics
- 4 -
Tanurb
CURRENT PROJECTS
Meadows Edge Shopping Center
Barclay Square
OFFICE BUILDINGS
Canada
550 Queen Street East
Queen Richmond Court
Current Projects
100 Broadview
100 Yonge Street
MIXED USE PROJECTS
Delisle Court
Marlton, New Jersey
50,000 square foot strip
plaza
Rochester, Minnesota
110,000 square foot redevelopment
including T.J. Maxx, Old
Country Buffet, Jo -Ann
Fabrics
Toronto, Ontario'
75,000 square feet
Toronto, Ontario
250,600 square feet
Toronto, Ontario
100,000 square feet
Toronto, Ontario
300,000 square feet
Toronto, Ontario
0
- 5 - •
Ev t-s
_ PROJECT
DATA`
STTP lRF�
PARCEL A
2.13 AC
PARCEL It
10.66 AC
TOTAL
12.79 AC = 557,132 SF
1F�CIRTP �RF• - - ,,.
i • RETAM .� ...
-
105 _71 SF
RESTAURANT
15,899 SF
.
' 1.117 ER _ - ;
13,S00 SF
134,670 SF
TOTAL G.L.A.
MALL
7,260 sy
TOTAL G.B.A.
142,930 SF
'REQUIRED, _y -
G Let 221,170 SF X 65% SALES X 1/200 SF 515 SPACES
~ . THEATER 23,500 SF/14 SF.PER SEAT/I SEATS
PER STAISB _ •_:::
193 SPACES
MAIL 7.260 SF/300 SF PER STALL
25 SPACES
TOTAL`
733 SPACES
PROVIDED.. -
REGULAR 9 X 23 : ' _
T22 SPACES
HANDICAP 12 X 18'
15 SPACES
TOTAL
737.SPACES
•
0
h
S
m
r27T—r
ti`! I
�l
�I I!
i!i�i
�tki
lIi11 �iLE
Y
�Y
oil
IIIII!! kfit i
M
I
1C
Yi
I
C
I
s
W
J
W
YY
Y• r
F
Y
Y
�
I
2
I
w
J
Y
BARCLAY SQUARE
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
TENANT SIGNAGE CRITERIA
LANDLORD:
I.T.L CORPORATION
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
ARCHITECT:
KKE ARCHITECTS
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 2, 1991
0
0
RECEIVED
OCT 0 7 1991 •
ROCHESTER/OLMSTED
DEPT. OF PLANNING & HOUSING
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................
1
2-4
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS ....................................
PROHIBITED SIGNS '.777...............................:........
5
APPROVAL PROCESS ..........................................
G
0
0
INTRODUCTION
This Criteria updates the exterior tenant
Minnesota. This criteria will preserve the
allowing individual tenants some flexibility.
constructed.
signage for Barclay Square in Rochester,
crucial uniformity of the sign system while
This sign system is well -designed and well -
Moreover, this Criteria has been developed to ensure the mutual benefits to Tenant and
Landlord which result from documenting signage detail and from articulating the
responsibilities of each with regard to a project's sign program - a sign program which
is designed to meet both economic and aesthetic needs.
0
0
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Section I - Shopping Center Signage
A. Pylon Sign
1. One existing sign on County Road 8 entrance, one new sign visible from Trunk
Highway 52 on the northeast corner of the site and one new sign on County
Road 8 southwest of the outbuilding.
2. The new signs shall match the current pylon sign character and appearance
including the stepped cap and channel letter mall I.D. area. See Exhibit 8.
3. The new pylon signs shall be U.L listed.
4. The overall dimensions of the new sign located on the northeast corner of the
site shall match that of the existing pylon sign. It shall be 17-8" in width and
forty feet in height The overall dimensions of the new sign located west of the
outbuilding shall be proportionally smaller. See Exhibit 8.
5. The mail I.D. section shall be sixteen feet in width and five feet in height.
6. Tenant sections backgrounds shall be white and set according to tenants'
needs... '
7. Color and type face of script shall match that of tenant
8. Minimum number of tenant cabinets shall be three and the maximum number
shall be five.
Section II - WALL -MOUNTED EXTERIOR SIGNAGE
A. Anchor Tenants
1. Anchor tenants' signage shall consist of individual. channel neon letters,
intemally illuminated.
2. Tenant sign shall consist of store identification. Tenant shall submit sign
location for approval by Landlord.
3. Tenant letters shall be restricted in size to 4'-0" maximum height with an
additional allowance of 2'-0" for ascenders or descenders. See Exhibits 1-7,
inclusive.
2
4. Logos shall be kept within the 6' maximum area created by the ascenders or
descenders. 0
5. The letter faces and logos (if used) shall consist of translucent acrylic. The
color and typeface may be consistent with the anchor tenant's corporate image.
6. No part of the sign shall come within 5'4r of an outside corner or within 3'-0"
of an inside corner of the building. See Exhibits 1.7, inclusive.
7. All signs are to conform with all federal, state and local codes.
B. Retail Tenants
1. The letter faces and logos (if used) are to consist of individual channel neon
letters, internally illuminated. The color and typeface shall be consistent with
W the tenant's corporate image.
2. Tenant sign shall be restricted in size to a maximum total height of 36". With
an additional allowance of 19" for ascenders or descenders, two lines of copy
are permitted. See Exhibits 1-7, inclusive.
3. Logos shall be kept within the 54" maximum area created by the ascenders or
descenders.
4. Tenant sign shall consist of store identification only. 40
5. A buffer zone of 2'-0" is required at each end of each tenant sign.
Consequently, a 4'-0" buffer zone shall remain between two separate tenant
signs. No part of the sign shall come within 5'-0" of an outside corner or
within 3'-0" of an inside comer. See Exhibits 1-7, inclusive.
6. Non -individual illuminated letter type signs may be acceptable subject to
review by Landlord and subject to compliance with all federal, state and local
codes.
7. All signs are to conform with all federal, state and local codes.
Section III - ENTRANCE PAVILION SIGNAGE
1. Tenant sign on the entrance Pavilion wall above the glazing shall be allowed
at the discretion of the Landlord. See Exhibit 1.
2. Tenant letter size shall be 3'-0" maximum in height. Any ascender or
descender shall occur inside this 3'-0" band.
3. Logos shall be kept within the 3'-O" ma3dmum area of the signage.
4. Tenant sign shall consist of store identification.
5. Letter faces and logos (if used) are to consist of individual channel neon
letters, internally illuminated. The color and typeface shall be consistent with
the Tenants' corporate image.
6. All signs are to conform with all federal, sate and local codes.
7. Non -individual illuminated letter type signs may be acceptable subject to
review by Landlord and subject to compliance with all federal, state and local
codes.
•
0 4
PROHIBITED SIGNS
A. The following types of signs or sign components shall be PROHIBITED. 0
1. Signs employing exposed ballast boxes or transformers.
2. Moving or rotating signs.
3. Signs employing moving or flashing lights.
4. Signs of box or cabinet type employing transparent, translucent or luminous
plastic background panels.
5. Signs employing moving or flashing lights.
6. Signs, letters, symbols, or identification of any nature painted directly on
surfaces exterior to the premised.
7. Signs employing unedged or uncapped plastic letters or letters with no returns
and exposed fastenings.
8. Cloth, wood, paper, or cardboard signs, stickers, decals, or painted signs
around or on exterior surfaces (doors and/or windows - address signage
excluded) of the premised.
9. Free-standing signs. •
10. Roof -top signs.
11. Signs employing noise -making devices or components.
12. Signs exhibiting the names, stamps or decals of the sign manufacturer or
installer.
5 1 0
APPROVAL PROCESS
A. Submit two (2) sets of prints to Owner prior to fabrication.
B. Prints are to include elevation with placement, overall height and width and colors,
length of leased space, site plan and sign specification drawings, consistent with this
document.
C. Upon approval, Owner will return one (1) copy to tenant for award of fabrication
and installation contracts.
D. Tenant or Tenant's sign contractor is to submit drawings to City for approval and
permit application.
•
. 6
TM
•
0
N
a
N=
�y
a
41
L�
r 1
U
•xvw
•
cm
ft
WF
W W
d
LU
2z
2.�
�J
J
Q
yW
22
ti
y
Q
u�..l.
Wp
J W
F—
WZ
Z
V J
O Z
�cc
G W
F-
Z Z
a
0
•
0
4
.0 .OV
H
a
Q
Oa
z
z
yz
LL
O
<O
U.
Z
W
H
G
z
z
F-
N
w
LL
w
cc
z
oZ
V
LLK
NW
oLL
-O
�
C7
e
W
�~
CQ
za
oc
O0
=
j
der j
�
V
Q
w
~
O
a
~z
=�
az
2°
w
m
LL
w
z
m
Iw
m
S
w
McGhee Betts, Inc.
Consulting Engineers . Land Surveyors
Planners
1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919
October 7, 1991
Mr. Don MacGillivray
1602 SE 4th Street
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Barclay Square
Existing Storm Water Retention Area
Dear Don:
Proposed revisions to the Barclay Square P.U.D. have been submitted to the
planning staff for review. These changes involve modifications to the traffic
flow, parking spaces and retail space. A proposed building is to be located
south of the main entrance and will involve a small amount of filling into the
existing ditch -retention basin. In order to maintain the same amount of
storage that now exists, we are proposing to excavate the south end of the
ditch (see Exhibit "A").
Using elevation 1012.0 as the high-water level (approximately 0.6 feet below
overflow), quantities were calculated to compare the amount of storage lost by
filling with the amount gained by excavation. The results are as follows:
Amount filled due to building
and parking lot 207 C.Y.
Amount gained by excavation of
south end 265 C.Y.
Based on these calculations there should be a net storage increase of approxi-
mately 58 C.Y. or 0.036 Ac. Ft.
I have enclosed a site plan with the proposed changes for your review along
with the proposed grade revisions (Exhibit "A"). I do not anticipate any
significant increases in flow to the detention area because of these proposed
changes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
assistant with this matter.
Yours truly,
RECEIVED
McGHIE & BETTS, INC.
LA
— OCT 0 1991 �, w
Thank you for your
Michael E. Gowin, P.E., R.L.S. ROCHESTERIOLMSTE '�
DEPT.OF PLANNING & HOUSING
MEG/dw
D %! } r
rL
is
11
K M McGhee. P E.R LS 1904- ! 975 waeam E. Toeaon, C.E.T President James E Swanson. A L.S vice Presldenr
Dovolas N. Sens. P E.. R L S Vice Pres,denl Allan J King. P c Nancv Amlol Kleine. P.E
Andrew R Kenrun o= Mao E S,!w•! :Cn P L c - Noma!,! E VO-w P
David L. Morrill, P E. Vice Preswenl
Lary J Shannon Ft L.5
Jenie, S 5!Ccerc r�ealoc:s'
0
•
W
N
Z
J
O
O
m
w
6
Z
y
Q
m
Z
O_
�
r
2
W
r
W
N
O
U
Z
r
N
X
W
m
v
Q
Z
W
N
N
uj
C
O
ao
G
J
�
d
=
x
J
LL
w
L)
U
0
s
C)
C9
RECEIVED
o a
OCT 0 1991
ROCHESTER/OLMSTED
DEPT. OF PLANNING & HOUSING
of F"• ` : .
s
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 23, 1991
storefronts on the west side of the building• adding new tenant signage around
the entire building• interior alterations to eliminate most of the interior
mall area and the addition of a 6.000 sauare foot freestanding retail building
south of the main entrance.
Mr. Ellerbusch presented the staff report dated October 16. 1991. He noted
that Barclay Square has been to the Commission on other occasions with
amendments to their Planned Unit Development. There have been no real
modifications made to the building since 1984. The structure will be
redesigned to be changed to a design similar to Miracle Mile.
There has been a revision to the plan since the staff report was written. Mr.
Ellerbusch noted that there will be no change to the southeast corner of the
building. There are 745 parking spaces on the site right now and the revised
plan shows 752 spaces. Reworking of the parking area added some additional
spaces. The staff noted that there was a referral letter received from the
Water Department after the report was written that if the square footage is
added, they will have to pay water availability charges and bring the meters up
to Code. The outbuilding that is proposed does not have a tenant at this
time. The site meets the Zoning Code Standards for setbacks. We would ask
that a landscaping plan be submitted and suggested that there should be
continuation of the same scale of landscaping that is taking place now. Mr.
Ellerbusch addressed the conditions of the staff report. He noted that the 5th
condition should be struck.
Ms. Schwartz asked when the traffic signal would go in.
Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the timing of the signal would be mandated by the
County. With the new road of Fox Valley West it is evident that the
opportunity for the signal has increased.
Mr. Tom Erlick, Tanurb Development, noted that this is a different group that
is working with this Barclay Square project than who has in the past. Tanurb
is from Toronto, and has developed many projects. He noted that they also are
involved in the retail aspect through some of our partners. Mr. Erlick stated
that their centers are not traditional strip centers. He showed to the
Commission some photos of centers which have been done in Burnsville. There
are different arches and a high level of design. Barclay has a very good
location, although it has two main strikes against it. This small enclosed
mall cannot compete with the large mall. In reality this is on the wrong side
of the Highway. Mr. Erlick noted that they can combat this problem by
increased signage. Retail needs to have "destination retail" where the customer
can go right into the store. We need to have signage, visibility, and easy
access in the parking lots. We also feel that a restaurant will enhance the
draw to this site. He addressed the conditions and noted that there are no
problems with conditions 1, 2, 4, 5 (not applicable), 7 and 8. He addressed
Condition #3. He stated that the owner has lost a lot of money on this
project. He stated that they are prepared to share in the cost of the light,
but would like a cap of $20,000. Regarding 06 he stated that there is no
problem with the signage, but would like to have a theater entrance sign to the
back door of the theatre. In addition they will be doing a lighting plan.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 23, 1991
SMr. DeWitz asked about the 6,000 square foot building and what would probably
be going in there.
Mr. Erlick stated that they would probably be going with a franchise that has
their own building specifications, thus it is difficult to say the exact size
of the building. He noted that they do not have a problem with coming back to
the Commission when a restaurant goes into this place.
Ms. Wiesner asked about the size of the letters for signage.
Mr. Erlick stated that the letters would not exceed 3 feet.
No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Mr. Fogarty closed the public hearing.
Mr. DeWitz made a motion to approve Planned Unit Development B-60 with the
following conditions:
1. Before any permits for construction of the 6,000 square foot freestanding
building and its proposed pylon sign are issued, the developer should
submit for approval all plans to the City. The process of review of these
plans should be handled as Type III use with a Phase I hearing process as
described in the Rochester Tand Development Manual. The Planning and Zoning
Commission should be the designated review body. The public review amounts
to a hearing before the Planning Commission and decision by the Commission
. to approve or deny. This process is recommended since the application will
not be made until sometime next year when the Tend Development Manual will
be in effect. The major issue of permitting a freestanding building will
already have been decided through this final plan amendment.
2. A landscape plan should be submitted before approval of this final plan
amendment. The landscape plan should catalogue all existing undisturbed
site landscaping that will remain. The landscape plan should provide for
the replacement of parking lot landscaping in the form of understory trees
in the new parking islands at the end of the new parking rows. Existing
landscaping lost to expansion of the parking lot along the southwest side
of the site should be replaced in kind in the same general locations.
Existing landscaping not disturbed because of reconstruction should remain.
3. There is an existing agreement for the traffic signals on CSAH 8. If the
owner and developer would like changes to that agreement, they should enter
into a new agreement with Olmsted County.
4. A revised site plan which dimensions the location of all the new
buildings and parking lot locations should be provided. The proposed
pylon sign location on CSAH 8 should be revised to remove it from the
stormwater detention area.
5. Tenant wall signs should be limited to those sides of the building shown on
the submitted exhibits, although a theatre entrance sign will be allowed.
6. All trash or recycling collection areas should be screened by a solid wall
or fence of similar color to the exterior of the building and be shown on
the site plan.
Page 7
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 23, 1991
7. All other P.U.D. (B-60) plans on file for this project which are not
specifically altered by the submittals of this amendment should remain in
effect.
Seconded by Mr. Berndt. The motion carried 6-0.
•I• •IJ - -Su - TIE• •'1fl I- - •T9 1
w�l��l7
Mr. Berndt abstained from this item.
Mr. Spaeth presented the staff report dated October 16, 1991.
Mr. Carl Schuller, representing AB Systems, stated that they agree to all of
the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Bill Adamson, the applicant, asked the Commission to allow the expansion of
their property.
No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Mr. Fogarty closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bellinger made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit *91-22 with •
the following conditions:
1. That the area to be used for customer parking be marked and indicated on
the site plan.
2. That any proposed signage be properly permitted.
3. That a traffic visibility zone (see attached diagram) be established at
the intersection of the frontage road and the private driveway serving
this proposed auto sales building according to Paragraph 63.527 of the new
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and land Development Manual. Parked vehicles
and other obstructions mentioned in Paragraph 63.522 of the new Zoning
Ordinance should not be allowed. A curb return should be established to
define the first parking stall adjacent to the traffic visibility zone (see
the attached site diagram showing the traffic visibility zone and
recommended curb return).
Mr. DeWitz seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. Mr. Berndt
abstained.
Conditional Use Permit #91-23 by Midland Residential Ventures to permit four
m„lri-family huildin¢s and a total of_28 units in the B-la (Residential
Fourth Subdivision and located on the south side of 48th Street NW directly
east of 18th Avenue NW This proposal is an expansion of the Brandywine
Apartment Development. 0
luj
a
Y
V
O
a
r
C �
i EE
It
.u.
I�IIIII CI l;j�l lip a �t ea0
'id 19
.
v
m
o
Z
m
� ca
Z
Z
/� 1
O
ti
W
Ca
O
C 0
ig y
0
so
pp
Y aA
iI
;'ms
-_
s
BARCLAY SQUARE
LANDSCAPING
PLANT MATERIAL EXISTING
PROPOSED
AVE. SIZE
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
Marshall's Ash 23
23
3" Cal.
River Birch. 26
16
3" Cal.
9
9
3" Cal.
Hackberry
Skyline Locust 7
7
2" Cal.
Buckthorn 5
5
Nannyberry Viburnum 40
28
4' Ht.
Arrowwood Viburnum 21
9
W Ht.
American Compact
1
3s' Ht.
Viburnum 1
Dogwood 34
2B
3'h' Ht.
Goldflame Spirea 6
6
3k Ht.
Potentilla 37
15
2' Ht.
Cotoneaster 9
9
1}' Ht.
9
9
lit' Ht.
Barberry
Mountbatten Juniper 10
0
7' Ht.
4
4
3' Dia.
Mugho Pine
3' Dia.
Pfitzer Juniper 12
12
Wilton Carpet Juniper 13
13
2' Dia.
Cal. = Caliper
Ht. = Height
Dia. = Diameter
u
RECEIVEDRECEIVED
Nov 101991
NOV 141991
ROCHESTER/OLMSTED
ROCHESTER / OLMSTED
DEPT. OF PLANNING & HOUSING
DEPT. OF PLANNING & HOUSING
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/18/91
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
sh Public Hearings
Public Service/Traffic
5
M DESCRIPTION:
PREPA
Proposed Changes to Fares
on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
.J. Kn
The purpose of this hearing is to consider an increase in fares
and establishment of fare zones on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride. The existing
and proposed fare structure is as follows:
Existing * Proposed
10 Rides $7.00/Weekdays 10 Rides $10.00 Urban Service
5 Rides $5.00/Evenings & Sat. 8 Rides $10.00 Suburban Service
* The proposed fare on a per trip basis would be $1.00 urban
and $1.25 suburban. The same fare would be charged weekdays,
evenings and Saturdays. The attached Exhibit "A" provides a
map of the proposed urban and suburban zones. Any trip
beginning or ending in the suburban zone would be charged
for at the higher rate.
BACKGROUND
A public hearing was held on August 19, 1991 to consider an
earlier proposal to double the fare from $.70 to $1.40. At the
hearing it was indicated that this would be a hardship for a
number of riders. The proposal was dropped after action by
Olmsted County to provide additional local funding. However, the
County Board indicated that an increase in user fees should still
be pursued.
FARE EVALUATION
The evaluation of fare changes should employ some type of
objective criteria. Two criteria that can be applied to this
process are the rate of increase in cost to provide the service
and farebox recovery. Attachment I. provides a history of fare
changes on ZIPS since its establishment in 1976. In its 15 year
history the fare has increased from $.50 to $.70. The cost per
passenger increased 38% between 1986 and 1991 from $3.04 to
$4.20. Applying this same rate of increase to the ZIPS fare would
equal a fare of $.97.
(continued on next page)
UNCIL ACTION: Malian by: Second by: to:
Page - 2 -
Proposed Changes to Fares on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
The draft "Transit Development Plan" proposes a minimum farebox
recovery of 20%. A past farebox recovery goal has been 25%. It is
estimated that the proposed fare changes would provide for a 25%
farebox recovery. The new rates would compensate for increased
costs for at least the next year and a half allowing the system
to maintain a stable fare. Attachment I also provides a summary
of dial -a -ride fares in other cities.
ZONE FARES
The support for the establishment of a zone fare is based on the
rationale that longer trips (in both time and distance) cost more
to provide with less density in suburban areas and therefore less
opportunity for revenue while enroute.
Various schemes for establishment of a zonal fare system were
looked at including straight line distance and jurisdictional
boundaries. The one proposed uses the fixed route service area as
a skeleton plus adding a 1/4 mile buffer. The area was then
further defined by using the nearest road, section line or
natural feature to create a boundary. The urban zone does include
non -City parcels. It is estimated that there are up to eight
regular riders outside the urban zone who would be under the
higher fare. Attachment I. provides a list of ZIPS registrants by
jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Citizens Advisory on Transit has recommended approval of the
fare change and establishment of urban/suburban zones. Staff is
also in favor of the proposal.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the prepared resolution approving the proposed fare
schedule on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride establishing a $1.00 per ride for
trips within the define urban zone and $1.25 per ride for trip
beginning and ending in the suburban zone. The effective date of
the new fares would be Monday, December 16, 1991. Outstanding
tickets would be honored through January 31, 1992.
C�
*10�
25
�.29'-
F27
EXHIBIT "A"
ZIPS
SERVICE
AREA
133
31
35
A
Ringe
3
W-t
ii, 4
6 52
-
u
C A S
,C•
IHI
A
E R
H
I -L
-,L
ily
7
9
17
...
............
..........
JIXHESTEI
-GAME
REFUGE:
FA,
.1\\.
L
19
19
21
3
23
3
55
..........
. . . . . . ...
........ .........
............
29
F.A5,
2
29
HESTER
25 c
2'
w
-\45
iu
3
5
ll,X
URBAN
ZONE
33
f
F. A,P�I.
wSr
li
wood
v
�j
ood
1;
09
cr.
13
IL .....
4•
1T.
SUBURBAN ZONE
19
L
19
23
......
........... . ......
........
0
L
25
27
4
29
29
u
2!,
•
FA.S
• 31
33•
1 31
.1
1
T
WT
simpw
5
16
5
/RICH
L
ATTACHMENT I.
Dept. of Public Services
November, 1991
SUMMARY OF TRANSIT FARE CHANGES
ZIPS DIAL -A -RIDE
DATE CHANGE
July, 1976 Established Fare of $.50 per Single Ride.
February, 1979 Increased Fare 10 Rides for $5.50.
January, 1983 Increased Fare 10 Rides for $6.00.
October, 1983 Established Evening and Saturday Pass
5 Rides for $5.00.
September, 1986 Increased Fare 10 Rides for $7.00
COMPARISON OF DIAL -A -RIDE FARES
Twin Cities
$1.70
Base - $.50 Surcharge for Peak House
Moorhead
$.70
per Ride.
Mankato
$.90
per Ride - $28.00
Monthly.
St. Cloud
$.70
per Ride - $28.00
Monthly.
Duluth
$1.00
per Ride.
LaCrosse
$1.00
per Ride (under
5 miles)
$1.50
per Ride (over
5 miles)
Rochester
$.70
per Ride weekdays
-
$1.00
Evenings & Sat.
L.J
ATTACHMENT II.
8/19/91
ZIPS DIAL -A -RIDE
REGISTRANTS BY JURISDICTION (ADDRESS)
City of Rochester
410
Marion Township
6
Cascade Township
3
Rochester Township
1
Haverhill Township
1
Dover Township
1
Mantorville
I
Stewartville
2
Dover
I
Zumbrota
1
Rushford
I
Winona
1
Mazeppa
I
Dodge Center
1
Spring Valley
1
WykoTwin
1
C T
Twin Cities
I
11
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM /N-O.
Haarincra - Public Service/Traffic 6 _/^
DESCRIPTION:
'Final Draft "Transit Development Plan"
This is a public hearing to present recommendations of the draft
"Transit Development Plan" and solicit comments from the public.
The plan will serve as a guide for the development of both
regular route bus service and dial -a -ride over the next several
years. An excerpt from the consultant's recommended "Operations
Plan" is attached. Also attached is a list of the recommendations
with comments from staff and Rochester City Lines (RCL) some of
which are highlighted below. A copy of the consultants' entire
report was provided to Council separately. Overall the study was
thorough and provides many good recommendations.
Service Changes
1. It is recommended that the Bandel Hills (north of 55th St.
N.W.) and Hallmark Terrace area be surveyed on a door to
door basis to more accurately measure demand.
2. It is recommended a peak hour route encompassing Willow
Heights, Bamber Corners and Green Meadows area be further
evaluated. Further that sidewalk be installed on the south
side of Salem Road from Bamber Valley Road to Greenview
Drive.
3. The recommended Saturday "Shopper Route" should stop at more
locations between Apache and 41st St. N.W.
4. The new "South Broadway Motel to Downtown" route should be
further evaluated as to whether it should be reversed from
Apache -Downtown -South Broadway to Apache -South Broadway (via
16th St.) - Downtown.
5. Staff and RCL recommend that a survey be conducted to
evaluate the potential for peak hour service to the Pinewood
area.
6. Staff and RCL recommend that a survey be conducted to
evaluate the potential for limited midday service to Country
Club Manor.
(continued on page 2) p�
L ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:
to:
Page - 2 -
Final Draft "Transit Development Plan"
7. Staff recommends that the City continue its role in
referring prospective vanpool participants to leasing agents
instead of purchasing and leasing out publicly owned
vehicles.
Financing
8. Staff recommends at this time that local funding continue to
be provided through the annual appropriations/budget
process. This gives the Council more of an annual review
function of thispublic service than a dedicated tax. In the
future Council may want to consider a combination of general
appropriations and dedicated tax but again it should ensure
the participation of the Council in the budget process.
Staff has prepared an alternate funding projection for 1992
through 1996. Staff's projection is more optimistic that
Federal and State funds will increase and therefore local
funding will not increase as sharply as projected in the
report. Staff's projections are included on Attachment II. A
summary of St. Cloud's 1992 budget and funding sources is also
provided on Attachment IL
Written comments received from Eileen Schneider are provided •
on Attachment III.
Council Action Requested
1. Close the hearing allowing for written comments to be
received through December 9, 1991.
Note: Staff will be bringing the plan back for final approval on
December 14, 1991.
t1bA
0
ATTACHMENT I.
(S Pages)
0
•
CHAPTER 8
Operations Plan
INTRODUCTION
The following recommended plan elements were identified by the consultant based
upon findings presented in the previous chapter as well as the initial reactions of
the City of Rochester staff, Citizens Advisory, Common Council, and public
participants.
Many of the details and rationale behind these recommendations are presented in
Chapter 7. The reader is directed to the preceding chapter to obtain additional
information on the plan elements presented in this section.
SERVICE PLAN
The analysis in previous chapters forms the basis for the recommendations
contained in this plan. The five-year service improvement program Is outlined
here, including capital Improvements and marketing support activities. Table 8-1
summarizes the recommendations for easy reference. Table 8-2 provides a
summary of the revenue and cost changes associated with the recommended
changes in service.
1992
Service Imorovements
Changes to the routes should be implemented on Routes 1, 2, 3, and 11. Route
6 should be extended to serve Channel 1 during the midday. This extension
would be for only two trips. The schedule change to provide earlier service to IBM
should also be implemented. Subscription service will be explored for potential
expansion of the service area. Actual implementation of the subscription service
8-1
•
Table 8-1
Service Plan
Year
Service Changes
Capital Equipment
Marketing
1992
Change Routes
1.2.3 & 11
Three buses
New schedules
Extend Route 6
Destination signs
IBM service
Subscription
service
Van
Christmas
promotion
Evening ZIPS
service
New route
Saturday retail
express
Prepare marketing
plan
Park and Ride
1993
New route
Transit Center
Guaranteed Ride
Home
Change Route 6
Van
Implement
Marketing Plan
Guaranteed Ride
Home
ZIPS vehicle
One bus
Six shelters
1994
Annual Review
Two buses
Follow Marketing
Plan
1995
Annual Review
Two buses
Follow Marketing
Plan
1996
Annual Review
Two buses
Follow Marketing
Plan
AN
Table 8-2
Financial Sun ffriq of Service Changes
Change in Change in
Service Change Revenue Cost
Modify Route 1 $1,000 $0
Mo* Route 2 $1,000 $0
Moddy Route 3 $D ($2,000)
Moddy Route 11 $0 $0
Moddy Route 6 $0 ($1,000)
Moddy Route 7 $0 $0
Saturday Retail E)pess $2,000 $10,000
MoteVApache Mail Route $18.000 $165,000
. will depend on an adequate number of subscribers at a reasonable fare of $1.25
per trip. ZIPS service will be provided each evening so that the service is compar-
able to the fixed -route service. Route 11 on Saturdays will be eliminated and
replaced with a Saturday retail express. The fare for ZIPS passengers will be
increased at the beginning of 1992.
11*
Steps should be taken to implement a park -and -ride program at one of the
childcare centers on North Broadway. This will require coordination by the City
of Rochester with the childcare center operators.
Capital Improvements
Purchase three new buses; two of these buses will be additions to the fleet to
implement the new route during the following year. In addition to the new buses,
a capital purchase will be made to Instal) route destination signs on all vehicles.
All new vehicles which are purchased will have electronic destination signs.
8-3
Marketing Activities .
New bus schedules must be prepared showing the route changes and schedule
changes. In addition, the schedule should reflect the route pairings so that
passengers may easily identify the continuity of routes. Special marketing
activities will be conducted to market the new service to IBM and the new route
which will be implemented in 1993. A Christmas promotion program will also be -
implemented at the end of 1992.
A marketing plan will be prepared for 1993 and later. This marketing plan will
provide detailed activities which will be conducted to market the services provided
by both RCL and ZIPS.
1993
Service Changes
Implement route changes to include establishment of the new route serving South
Broadway, downtown, and Apache Mall. Changes will be made to Route 6 so that
it primarily services the residential areas south of downtown. A Guaranteed Ride
Home Program will be.implemented as part of the service guarantee and the
marketing of transit services. The plan provides for funding of the Guaranteed
Ride Home Program by the City of Rochester. Marketing activities could be carried
out which will find private funding for this program.
Capital Improvements
Improvements will be made to the downtown Transit Center to include the
stairway at the south end of the skywalk and a Transit Information Booth.
Vehicles will be purchased for a vanpool program and for the ZIPS service. A bus
will also be purchased for the fixed -route service. The continuing shelter program
should be funded for the acquisition of up to six additional shelters during the
year.
Em
is
• Marketing Activities
The marketing activity which is included in this plan for 1993 is the implementa-
tion and publicity of a Guarantee Ride Home Program. The marketing program
which will be prepared during 1992 will be implemented during 1993.
1994
Service Imorovements
There are no planned service improvements for 1994: the service which has been
implemented will be continued and monitored so that the Citizens Advisory and
City staff may make changes to the system to enhance productivity and increase
ridership.
Capital Improvements
The plan calls to purchase two buses for Rochester City Lines and a van which will
be operated for subscription service.
0
L,
Marketing Activities
The marketing activities will be continued according to the marketing plan
developed in 1992.
1995
Capital Improvements
During 1995. the City will purchase two buses for the fixed -route system and one
bus for ZIPS.
1996
Capital Improvements
The system will require two replacement buses to be purchased during 1996.
M
Projected Costs
Table 8-3 shows the projected cost by year for the capital equipment program.
included with the estimates of costs for each year are the projected funding
sources. The capital improvement program for the City of Rochester will require
a local share of from $80,000 to $120.000 per year, as shown in Table 8-3.
Item
Fixed Route Bus
Shelters
ZIPS Bus
Subscription Van
Vanpool Van
Transit Center
Route Signs
Total
Funding
Federal
Local
Table 8-3
Capital Equipment Plan
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
$540,000 (3) $189,000 (1) $388,800 (2) $408,240 (2) $420,000 (2)
$30,000
$50,000 (1) $55,000 (1)
$25,000 (1) $27.500 (1)
$25,000 (1)
$150,000
$480,000 $355200 $333,040 $370,592 $336,000
$120,000 $884100 $93,260 $92,648 $84,000
Of more significance is the projected operating budget. Estimates of the operating
budget have been prepared for each of the five years based on cost to implement
the service plan and the projected revenues. Included in Table 8-4 are the sources
of funding for the operating budget and a projected amount which will be required
from each source. Several assumptions have been made in the preparation of the
operating budget. The first assumption is that operating costs will experience a
5 percent background increase each year. _ In addition to this underlying increase
M
•
0
•
Table 8-4
Operating
Budget
Expense
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Pdnting
$1,300
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
Marketing
6,200
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
Audit
19,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
RCL
1=,300
1.395,300
1,465,000
1,538,000
1,615,000
ZIPS
197,700
207,000
216,000
225500
235,000
Iruuranoe
38,500
39,900
41,900
44,000
46,000
Contract Services
52,000
55,000
57,800
60,700
63,700
Administration
4,990
6,000
6,300
6,600
6,900
Vehicle Maint.
8,410
10,000
10,500
11.000
11,600
Building MalrR
2,000
2,500
2,600
2,700
2,800
Total
$1,560,400
$1,744,200
$1,830200
$1,920,200
$2,014,300
Revenue
Federal
$446,720
$400,006
$400.000
$400.000
$400.000
State
499,470
490,000
490.000
490,000
490,000
. City
124.450
331,400
385,400
453,400
535.500
County
37,806
40,000
42,000
44,000
46,000
ISD 535
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
RCL Fares
402,674
420,000
450,000
470,000
480,000
ZIPS Fares
27,360
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
Advertising
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
Other
3,120
Total
$1.560,400
$1,744,200
$1,830,200
$1,920,200
$2,014,300
in expenses, the costs reflect service changes included as part of this plan. There
are two major assumptions reflected in the revenue sources. The first is that
federal operating revenues will remain at approximately $400,000 per year. This
is a slight increase over the projected 1992 federal share of operating expenses.
The second assumption regarding revenue is that the State contribution will
remain at approximately $490,000. No projected increase has been made for State
operating assistance. The portion of the operating expenses to be paid by Olmsted
County has been assumed to increase approximately $2.000 per year. An
8-7
estimate of fare increases was made based on the changes which will be made to
the service. The revenues reflect projected increases in ridership. The increases
in ridership were projected based on the improvements to service and the market-
ing program which .will be implemented. The additional revenue which will be
required to implement this plan comes primarily from sources within the City of
Rochester. The City contribution is expected to grow from approximately
$124,400 in 1992 to $535,000 in 1996. This local share of the revenues will be
approximately 26 percent in 1996. The revenue from fares is projected to be
approximately 26 percent of the total revenue. This projected revenue is less than
the goal for a farebox recovery of 30 percent; however, it is a conservative estimate
so that the projected funding which must be provided by the City of Rochester is
not understated. This also includes the revenues and expenses for ZIPS service.
The plan for financing transit services is discussed in a separate section of this
chapter.
0
15 ATTACHMENT II.
OY 1992- 1996 OPERATING BUDGET
ROCHESTER MASS TRANSIT PROGRAM
DPS ESTIMATES 11/5/91
1992
1993
1994
1995
EXPENSES
PRINTING
1,300
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
MARKETING
6,200
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
AUDIT
19,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
RCL
1,230,300
1,395,300
1,465,000
1,538,000
1,615,000
ZIPS
197,700
207,000
216,000
225,500
235,000
INSURANCE
38,500
39,900
41,900
44,000
46,000
CONTRACT SERVICES
52,000
55,000
57,800
60,700
63,700
ADMINISTRATION
4,990
61000
6,300
6,600
6,900
VEHICLE MNTNCE
8,410
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,600
BLDG MNTNCE
2,000
2,500
2,600
2,700
2,800
TOTAL
REVENUES
$1,560,400
$1,744,200 $1,830,200 $1,920,200 92,014,3.00
DERAL
446,720
464,589
483,172
502,499
522,599
ATE
499,470
519,449
540,227
561,836
584,309
CITY
124,450
234,242
248,881
275,945
315,472
COUNTY
37,806
40,000
42,000
44,000
46,000
ISD 535
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
RCL FARES
402,674
420,000
450,000
470,000
480,000
ZIPS FARES
27,360
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
,ADVERTISING
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
OTHER
3,120
3,120
3,120
3,120
3,120
TOTAL
ST CLOUD COMPARISON
CY 1992 BUDGET
EXPENSES
FARES
FEDERAL
LOCAL
STATE
E
$1,560,400
REGULAR RT
1,736,800
465,719
315,900
229,001
726,180
$1,744,200
DIAL -A -RIDE
270,000
51,100
35,100
43,140
140,660
$1,830,200
TOTAL
2,006,800
516,819
351,000
272,141
866,840
$1,920,200 $2,014,300
ATTACHMENT III.
October 31, 1991
Traffic Dept. and City Council
Department of Public Services
1602 4th St SE
Rochester MN 55904
RE: Hearing on November 18, 1991 on Transit Development Plan Alternatives
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed some of the Transit Development Plan Alternatives and wouldlike to
make a few comments/suggestions on the proposals that were listed:
1. Expansion Areas 8 3 D. Expansion of the routes from 30 to 60 minutes --this is
too long of a travel time UNLESS there are two buses running this route, and
one bus runs the route in 'reverse'. People won't want to wait a long time
on the bus just to get home (or to get to work) --they'll drive instead.
2. Saturday Express Service (AKA Shopper Express). This sounds very good on paper,
and good to those people who are already familiar with the bus route. However,
the bus does NOT return downtown as all other buses.do. Imagine the poor out-
of-towner (or Rochester resident) who takes the bus from downtown to Apache
Mall, shops for a while, then takes the bus at Apache, expecting to go back
downtown and SURPRISE! --ends up way northwest. Could be very confusing and
irritating.
Also, if I am interested in using the Shopper Express service, but I want to
go to the Miracle Mile or Hillcrest shopping area, there's going to be quite
a bit of inconvenience. First, I have to catch a bus that goes downtown. Then
I have to catch or wait for) the bus that goes to Apache. Then I have to
either transfer immediately (hoping my bus was not late nor.the other bus
early) to the Shopper Express bus --or I have to wait at Apache for the bus.
Then I catch the Shopper Express bus --go shopping -=catch that bus back to
Apache --then take another bus downtown, and catch another bus home.
It would be MUCH better if the Shopper Express bus ran every 30 minutes, like
the regular buses, leaving from downtown just like all of the other routes.
No matter how good of an idea it looks like, if it's confusing or inconvenient,
people won't use it.
3. Route 6--Elimination of the stop at Shopko South and addition of a new route to
go from Shopko South to Apache Mall via 2nd Streit—SM. If BOTH of those ideas
are incorporated, it will probably be okay --but don't eliminate Shopko from
Route 6 unless you will DEFINITELY be adding the new route that will go to Shopko
South.
One g= idea in changing Route 6 is having the bus goon 3rd Ave SE both on the
out -bound and in -bound trip --makes it easier for people who want to go to K-Mart
to know when the bus is coming back.
4. Bus Schedules. Please have current, complete bus route schedules posted in all
bus shelters and at all bus stopping areas (shopping centers, etc.).
•
•
•
z
= G
0
gdlPICp^p�bf G
Nil
� a
a
_
a
_
s
�
_
11
�s 9-
n _ -
¢� a4
$ wat s .a� gagag M @
is a
ti
Eb�yy" ggW �me
:8 i be gd`
ON §3 M!S
§ �t
IL I
0
a
lle ;;
gig
�N� Ada'M� Z`3m
ago
I
a
R
$
&
E
g
a
a a
I
fJ
R
W0
C
F�
$
6�
a
s
a
F
s s
o
a
s
Yj
C R R
0
g Q �
a 8 a ad
dad
=
a INIh
gm
s
a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MTA _1_ /91
OATS:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING OEPT: REAM NC.
Reports and Recommendations City Administrator
ITEM OESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Charitable Gambling Ordinance S. Kvenvold
The Council has considered changes to the charitable gambling ordinance on a
couple of different occasions. On 10/21/91, the Council voted to instruct
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance restricting charitable gambling to
private clubs, the Civic Center and to private groups renting public places.
The City Attorney subsequently pointed out that the Council's action, if
formally adopted, would prohibit the general public from participating in the
gambling activities that are currently offered by some of the City's churches
and bingo parlors.
The Council again reviewed this subject at their 11/4/91 Committee of the
Whole meeting and referred the matter back to the Council without
recommendation.
I continue to believe that, with the extent of charitable gambling occurring
in the City's private clubs and churches, it does not make much sense to
prohibit such activities from the City's public licensed liquor
establishments.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
I had previously recommended that the Council abolish the City's current
charitable gambling ordinance with the intent that the State would then
approve all gambling applications with the City only requiring a premise
permit. I do see some purpose in th
of the draft ordinance and woul
charitable gambling ordinance which
public establishments.
e
d
reporting requirements (Section 107.12)
recommend that the City maintain a
does not restrain charitable gambling in
01
ACTION. moeon br. Second ro
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
October 31, 1991
TO: STEVAN E. KVENVOLD - CITY
FROM: TERRY L. ADKINS - ROCHESTER CITY ATTORNEY 1
RE: LAWFUL GAMBLING ORDINANCE
At the October 21, 1991, Common Council meeting, I was instructed by the
Council to draft an ordinance relating to lawful gambling within the
City of Rochester. The Council's motion requested the preparation of an
ordinance limiting lawful gambling to two categories: 1) private clubs
not open to the general public; and 2) organizations which lease all or
part of any public facility or facility available for leasing for the
sole and exclusive use of the organizations' members. The discussion
between Council members indicated a desire to not allow lawful gambling
in any premises open to the general public.
The enclosed ordinance draft satisfies these goals. Proposed section
107.04 states that lawful gambling may occur only at a permissible
premises. The phrase "permissible premises" is defined by proposed
section 107.02(E) to mean any building or structure housing a private .
club or a leased facility. The phrase "leased facility" is defined by
proposed section 107.02(A) to mean any public or private building or
place of business, or any portion thereof, that is leased in its
entirety by an organization for use solely by that organization and its
members.
Thus, if the enclosed draft ordinance is enacted into law, the result
would be that lawful gambling would occur within the City of Rochester
only at two types of locations: private clubs and facilities leased by
an organization solely for the use of that organization's members.
Gambling would not be a tted b draftordinance an location
ere a enera ublic S invited. Examples of current establishments
w i can conduct lawful gambling under the current ordinance but would
not be able to do so if the draft ordinance is enacted (unless a change
in operation of those establishments occurred) include street bars,
churches, bingo palaces, and any other establishment where the.general
public may enter as they please.
Because the Council did not discuss the current licensees,- I did not
mention them in the draft ordinance except in proposed section 2 of the
ordinance (last page of the ordinance). In this section, I included
language which allows the current licenses to continue in operation
until they expire on their own -terms. I included this language as I
believe the city is without authority to cancel the previously -issued
licenses without due process and compensation.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING
CHAPTER 107 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF
LAWFUL GAMBLING WITHIN THE CITY OF
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Chapter 107 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
107. LAWFUL GAMBLING
107.01. State Gambling Law Adopted. Except as they may conflict
with the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 349, relating to the definition of terms, licensure,
and restrictions of gambling are adopted and made part of this chapter
as if set out in full herein.
107.02 Definitions. The following terms as used in this chapter
shall have the following meaning:
A. "Leased facility" shall mean any public or private building or
• place of business, or any portion thereof, not owned by an
organization that is leased in its entirety by an organization for
use solely by the organization. and its members, which use may
include lawful gambling.
B. "Licensed organization" shall mean any organization which is
licensed to engage in lawful gambling pursuant to state law and
this chapter.
C. "Organization" shall mean any fraternal, religious, veterans,
or other non profit organization that has been in existence for the
most recent three years.
D. "Other non profit organization" shall mean one of the
following:
(1) An organization other than a fraternal,
religious, veterans, or other non profit
organization whose non profit status is evidenced
by a certificate of nonprofit incorporation or has
been recognized by the Internal Revenue Code as a
non profit organization exempt from payment of
income taxes; or
(2) An affiliate, subordinate, or chapter of a
statewide parent organization that meets the
criteria of paragraph (1), above.
E. "Permissible premises" shall mean any building or structure •
housing a private club or a leased facility.
F. "Private club" shall mean an incorporated organization
organized under the laws of the state for civic, fraternal, social,
or business purposes, for intellectual improvement, or for the
promotion of sports, or a congressionally chartered veterans'
organization, which:
(1) has more than 50 members;
(2) has owned or rented a building or space in a
building for more than one year that is suitable
and adequate for the accommodation of its members;
(3) is directed by a board of directors, executive
committee, or other similar body chosen by the
members at a meeting held for that purpose. No
member, officer, agent, or employee shall receive
any profit from the distribution or sale of
beverages to the members of the club, or their
guests, beyond a reasonable salary or wages fixed
and voted each year by the governing body; and
(4) does not restrict its membership on the basis
of race, color, creed, religion or national origin.
107.03. License Requirements. No person shall directly or is
indirectly engage in any form of lawful gambling without a license to do
so as provided in this chapter.
107.04. Eligibility. A license may only be issued to an
organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling at a permissible
premises.
107.05. Permissible Premises. Lawful gambling shall be operated
by a licensed organization only upon permissible premises. An
application for approval of a premises permit, required by state law,
shall be approved only if the premises constitutes a permissible
premises as defined by this chapter.
107.06. License Term and Fee. An annual license shall permit the
operation of any form of lawful gambling permissible under state law._
The fee for a license is $25.00.
107.07 Application Procedure. Application for a license shall be
made upon a form prescribed by the council. No person shall make a
false representation in an application. The council shall act upon said
application within 60 days from the date of the application, but shall
not issue a license until as least 30 days after the date of
application.
0
• 107.08. Prof its. Profits from the operation of lawful gambling
shall be used for lawful purposes only. The term "lawful purposes"
shall be those purposes defined by state law.
107.09. Conduct of Gambling. The operation of lawful gambling
shall be under the supervision of -a single gambling manager to be
designated by the licensed organization. The gambling manager shall be
responsible for gross receipts and profits from gambling devices and
raffles and further operation. The gambling manager shall be
responsible for the use of profits for a lawful purpose.
107.10. Qualifications of Gambling Manager. The gambling manager
shall be an active member of the licensed organization, and shall
qualify under state law.
107.11. Compensation. No compensation in excess of $25 a week
shall be paid in connection with the operation of any form of lawful
gambling device by a licensed organization. No person who is not an
active member of a licensed organization, or the spouse or surviving
spouse of an active member, may participate in the licensed
organization's operation of lawful gambling.
107.12. Reporting Requirements. Each organization licensed to
engage in lawful gambling shall keep records of its gross receipts,
quantities of free play, if any, expenses and profits for each single
•gathering or occasion at which gambling devices are operated or a raffle
is conducted. All deductions from gross receipts for each single
gathering or occasion shall be documented with receipts or other records
indicating the amount, a description of the purchased item or service or
other reason for the deduction, and the recipient. The distribution of
profits shall be itemized as to payee, purpose, amount and date of
payment.
107.13. separation of Funds. Gross receipts from the operation of
lawful gambling shall be segregated from other revenues of the
organization and placed in a separate account.
107.14. Monthly Reports. Each licensed organization shall report
monthly to its membership, and to the city clerk, its gross receipts,
expenses, and profits from lawful gambling, and the distribution of
profits. The licensee shall preserve such records for three years.
107.15. Suspension and Revocation. Any license may be suspended
or revoked for any violation of this chapter. A license shall not be
suspended or revoked until the procedural requirements of section 107.16
have been complied with, provided that in cases where probable cause
exists as to an ordinance violation, the -city may temporarily suspend
upon service of notice of the hearing provided for in section 107.16.
Such temporary suspension shall not extend for more than two weeks.
.107.16. Procedure. A license shall not be revoked until notice
and an opportunity for a hearing has first been given to the licensee.
The notice shall be personally served and shall state the code provision
reasonably believed to be violated. The notice shall also state that
the licensee may demand a hearing on the matter, in which case the
license will not be suspended until after the hearing is held. If the
licensee requests a hearing, one shall be held on the matter by the
council. If, as a result of the hearing, the council finds that an
ordinance violation exists, then the council may suspend or terminate
the license.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after
its publication. Licenses in effect at the time this ordinance becomes
effective shall continue in effect until they expire by their own terms.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF , 1991.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1991.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
MAYOR OF SAID CITY •
•
l
OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 1, 1991
TO: Stevan E. Rvenvold
FROM: David L. Olson
SUBJECT: Charitable Gambling - Use of Net Profits
The attached memo from Gary Neumann outlined four areas in which
the Council desired to have additional information on the potential
uses of charitable gambling proceeds. While we have not yet
received all the information we anticipate receiving on this issue,
I will summarize what has been gathered to date.
se of Gamblinc Proceeds for Law Enforcam
Judy Schorr surveyed 15 cities in the state to determine whether
they were utilizing the 3% of gross proceeds as authorized by State
law for law enforcement purposes. These monies can only be used
for the enforcement of legalized charitable gambling. The State
law also requires annual reports indicating how these dollars were
actually spent by the city. Five of the 15 cities surveyed
currently take 3% of the gross proceeds for this purpose.
Cities That Restrict where Proceeds can be Expended
Approximately four or five of the cities surveyed place some type
of restriction on where proceeds from charitable gambling can be
expended. St. Paul and Brooklyn Park require that 75% of the net
proceeds be expended within the city. Fergus Falls requires 50% of
the net proceeds be expended within the city. Mankato requires
that 50% of the proceeds be expended within the "trade area" which
they define as the city limits. The majority of the other cities
surveyed, while they did not have ordinances that required all or
a portion of the gambling proceeds be expended locally, still felt
that the majority of the gambling proceeds were being expended
within the city.
Cities That Rewire Proceeds be Directed to a specific Charity
Only 3 of the 15
be directed to
Minneapolis takes
to day care pr
• Headstart as we
annually. These
cities surveyed required 10% of the net proceeds
a specific charity as allowed under State law.
10% of the net proceeds and allocates the monies
ograms, Minneapolis health care clinics, and
11 as several new programs that are reviewed
new programs have been programs that also
November 1, 1991
Page two
requested funding from the Year of City or CDBG programs.
Bloomington directs lot of the net proceeds based on
recommendations from its Human Rights Department. Golden Valley
has recently established the Golden Valley Foundation which will
receive 10% of the net proceeds from charitable gambling within
the city. It is intended that this foundation will make
recommendations to the City Council as to various human services
programs that should receive funding. Golden Valley's ordinance is
scheduled to take effect January 1, 1992.
Where Rochester's Current aamblinc Proceeds are Beino Expended
Gary Neumann had suggested that we attempt to obtain information
from the State of Minnesota on where Rochester's current charitable
gambling proceeds are expended. Unfortunately, since the State has
several different agencies involved with the regulation of
gambling, it is difficult if not impossible to get this type of
information provided by the State. The staff persons at the State
that Judy Scherr talked with suggested coming up to their office to
review the various reports they have on file.
As a result, Judy and I surveyed half a dozen of the current
charitable gambling licenses, and a summary of the information
received is attached. For the most part, of the organizations
surveyed, it appears that the majority of their net proceeds are
being expended locally. Several organizations indicated that they
have included in their by-laws or organization policies to expend
most if not all of their proceeds locally.
The only additional information we are still waiting to receive is
information that is being provided by the League of Minnesota
Cities. This information includes an internal research memo on
this issue as well as additional ordinances from various other
cities across the State.
c: Gary Neumann
Terry L. Adkins
Judy Scherr
•
OFFICE OF
THE
CITY
ADMINISTRATOR
M E
M O
R A
N D U M
DATE: October 22, 1991
TO: Dave Olson
Judy Scherr /-,
FROM: Gary Neumann 6010-C
SUBJECT: Charitable Gambling - Use of Net Profits
At the 10/21/91 Council meeting, the Council requested that some
additional information be provided on the potential uses of
charitable gambling proceeds. The questions which we need to
address concern whether other cities regulate where the net
proceeds are utilized, whether other cities take a percentage for
law enforcement purposes, and whether other cities utilize the
requirement that a percentage of the proceeds be specified for
specific charities and how they determine which charities. Please
. contact the League of Cities, the State Gambling Board and other
cities for the requested information. Among the questions which
you may consider to ask.include:
1. Survey some other communities or obtain information on whether
other cities require a percentage to be used for law
enforcement purposes. If so, what percentage is utilized?
Also, we should attempt to ascertain whether they need to
document that they have an equivalent amount of law
enforcement expenditures to match the funds obtained thereby
or whether they have been challenged by any organization on
the validity of imposing this charge?
2. Do other communities require that the net proceeds obtained by
charitable gambling within the community be expended within
the City, the County or their trade area or do they allow the
proceeds to be disbursed anywhere that the charitable
organization chooses? If they do direct the proceeds to be
utilized in a specific area, which area is designated? If
they require that the net proceeds by utilized in the City or
the County, have they had any objections that this regulation
negatively impacts the attraction of conventions or any other
objections?
3. Do other cities require that a percentage of the proceeds be
directed to specific charities? If so, how does the Council
. pick and choose which charities?
11
October 22, 1991 •
Page two
4. Determine, to the extent possible, what are the estimated
gross and net proceeds from charitable gambling within the
City of Rochester. Determine from reports filed with the
State to which organizations are the local charitable gambling
organizations donating their net proceeds. We are
specifically interested in ascertaining whether the net
proceeds are currently being utilized within the City of
Rochester or whether they are being expended in other areas in
Olmsted County or on a Statewide basis.
c: Stevan Kvenvold
Terry Adkins
•
SYNPOSIS
Other
No Profits
3% Law
10% directed
Percentages
Taken
Enforcement
by City
Taken
By City
ST. PAUL
K
X
MINNEAPOLIS
X
X
ALBERT LEA
X
AUSTIN
X
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
X
BLOOMINGTON
X
X
BROOKLYN PARK
X
FERGUS FALLS
X
GOLDEN VALLEY
X
LAKE CITY
X
MANKATO
X
X
OWATONNA
X
DULUTH
X
ST. CLOUD
X
WINONA
X
SUMMATION OF CITIES $ USE OF GAMBLING MONIES - 1991
ST. PAUL
The City of St. Paul takes three (3) percent of net profits for law enforcement.
The State of Minnesota requires that a form be filled out annually showing how
the dollars were spent. Enforcement, as defined by the State, can be for only
legal gambling, not illegal gambling activities.
Seventy-five (75%) percent of the net profits from organizations must be used
in the City of St. Paul or in a contiguous city to benefit St. Paul residents.
They limit to five (5) the number of large organizations that can do legal
gambling in their City. The organizations determine what charities they direct
their profits to as long as 75% stays in the City. At the time of license
renewal, profits, uses, etc. are checked to determine if the organizations are
using the profits in those percentages. Example: MS Society expends their
monies at the University of Minnesota (contiguous city serving St. Paul
residents).
It is not felt that limiting the use of the monies has impacted any convention
business.
The ordinance for St. Paul is currently being revised but will be sent in
about one week (11/4/91).
Contact: Christine
Licensing Section
612/298-5056
MINNEAPOLIS
Minneapolis takes the three (3) percent for law enforcement and uses them
as directed by the State of Minnesota.
Ten (10) percent of the net profits is taken by the City and distributed as
follows into a program called the Family Assistance Fund:
25% - day care program
25% - Minneapolis health care clinics
25% - Headstart
The remaining 25 percent a director of the program recommends to the Council
how the funds should be distributed. The funds cannot be used to supplement
or augment an on -going funding program. This past year recommendations were
made from applications submitted for the Year -of -the -Cities Program; next
year recommendations will probably be taken from applications submitted for
CDBG funds.
Contact: Ruby Bob Dwyer
Police Department Finance Department
612/673-2080 612/673-3230
Donna Harris
Program Director
612/673-2885
•
0
ALBERT LEA
• Albert Lea has no ordinance as present; they had one prior to the State
assuming the responsibility of legal gambling. At the present time, they
are watching to see what happens to Rochester and would like to then draft
their own ordinance along what our thoughts are. They are finding that
organizations are coming from the Mankato area and taking the profits out
of the community back to Mankato. They have the same concerns we do.
Contact: Sandi Behrens
City Clerk
507/377-4320
AUSTIN
The City of Austin takes no percentages from net profits or gross receipts
for any purpose. At one time the City planned on directing such but the
organizations preferred to direct their profits themselves. The contact
person I talked with felt that most of the monies stayed within the
community itself.
Contact: City Hall
507/437-7671
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
• Blooming Prairie has limited gambling (that they are aware of.) The only
gambling activities are through the servicemen's club (VFW, American Legion,
etc.) and the Fire Department has legalized gambling in the liquor store.
The monies stay in the community.
Contact: City Hall
507/583-7573
BLOOMINGTON
Bloomington takes the three (3) percent for law enforcement purposes (which
also includes background checks, investigations, etc.)
In addition 10 percent of the net profits are directed to the City. The Human
Rights Department is responsible for recommending to the Council how these
profits are to be used; i.e., they are to be used for charitable functions within
the City of Bloomington.
A copy of their ordinance is being sent.
Contact: Evelyn Woulfe
City Clerk
612/881-5811
0
BROOKLYN PARK
/ Seventy-five (75) percent of the net profits taken in the community must is
stay in the trade area of Brooklyn Park. (Trade area is defined by State
law but must include the contiguous cities) They take no monies for law
enforcement purposes.
A copy of the ordinance is being sent.
Contact: Myrna Maikkula
City Clerk
612/424-8000
FERGUS FALLS
Fergus Falls directs that 50 percent of the net profits.from gambling stay
in the community. No dollars for enforcement are taken. The organizations
decide the charities that they wish to contribute to. One interesting note:
Fergus Falls only lets the establishments that serve liquor do gambling as
the Council does not want gambling where children are. Ordinance will be sent.
Contact: JoEllen
Administrator's Office
218/739-2251
GOLDEN VALLEY
The City has just recently passed an ordinance which will not take affect •
until January 1992. They will take 10 percent of the net profits and put
them into a Golden Valley Foundation to be used in the community. It is
thought that the Human services organizations will profit from the monies
such as retarded work program, food shelves, etc. The Foundation will
recommend to the Council and they will act on the recommendation. Mr. Taylor
noted that they are experiencing some "squeeze pressure" from some of the
organizations not liking the City taking the 10 percent.
They do not take a percentage for law enforcement.
Contact: Don Taylor
Finance Department
612/593-8012
LAKE CITY
No percentages taken; organizations give to charities of their own choosing.
Contact: Bruce Schumacher
City Clerk
612/345-5383
0
MANKATO
Mankato takes 3 percent for law enforcement purposes.
Fifty (50) percent of the net profits must go to within the Mankato trade
area. They define trade area as strictly Mankato, not North Mankato, etc.
Council does not dictate to what charities profits must go.
Contact: Sandra Paulson
City Clerk
507/387-8600
OWATONNA
Owatonna doesn't allow pulltabs in the bars at the present time. However,
they do not take any profits for enforcement or direct to charities of the
City's choice.
Contact: Dick Hierstein
City Administrator
507/451-4540
DULUTH
Duluth takes three (3) percent for enforcement purposes. They do not
direct where the net profits go or to what charities.
Contact: Jeff
218/723-3340
ST. CLOUD
St. Cloud is taking no enforcement monies or directing where organizations
give to charities but there is a restriction on the number of locations that
any one organization can operate gambling in.
Contact: Gregg Engdahl
City Clerk
612/255-7200
WINONA
Winona takes no percentages for enforcement or dictates where organizations
use gambling profits. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the local organizations have
gambling pretty well tightly controlled in the City; therefore, dollars stay
in the City.
Contact: Jim Pomeroy
City Clerk
507/457-8200
L J
ELKS LODGE #1091
Gerald Solheim, Gambling Manager
The Elks Lodge took in approximately $1,000,000 over the past
year with approximately 80 percent being paid out to various
charities including the following:
send local children to youth camps
sponsor the Senior Citizens dinner
contribute to all City sports
provide scholarships for local high school
The Elks pay no monies to a national affiliation. They are
extremely concerned that monies stay in and benefit the local
community.
AMERICAN LEGION IVM T. MCCOY POST 92
Lauren F. DuVal, Gambling Manager
0
Post 92 tries to keep dollars in the community and the county
area. They have no national affiliation to which gambling
monies are paid. The charities involved are:
pheasants for veterans
veterans home in Hastings
veterans hospital in Minneapolis
veterans van to hospital
Eagles cancer telethon
purchased flags to replace those stolen in City
Salvation Army
scholarship for local high schools
provided four nursing homes with aviaries (at a cost of
$7000 to $8000 each)
Boy Scouts program
ROCHESTER LODGE 2128 LOYAL ORDER OF ?MOOSE
. Dick Norbie, Manager
The Moose Lodge is nationally affiliated and a small portion of the
monies go to a Child City in Chicago. This facility provides for
homeless children.
Other charities that are contributed to:
sponsor all youth sports including the hockey travel team
sponsor high school graduation parties
donated monies for the Emergency Response vehicle
Quarry Hill park
Historical Center
camps for handicapped youth and adults from this community
Salvation Army
March of Dimes
Very few dollars are used for national organizations such as the
March of Dimes. The majority of the net profits are kept in the
community.
Gross Proceeds for the past year were $565,000.
$3,000 per month is used to pay for the Moose Lodge building payment.
Even though gambling monies are not to be used for a building fund,
this allowance was grandfathered in when the State assuming gambling.
0
A.F. of L. Labor Temple Association
Thomas Siems, Chief Executive Officer
The Labor Temple estimates that they will contribute approximately
$40,000 to various charitable organizations in 1991. Some of these
organizations include:
Youth Hockey
Youth Baseball
Scholarships at the local high schools
Graduation parties at the local high schools
Eagles Cancer Telethon
Channel 1
Women's Shelter
Mr. Siems indicated that the Labor Temple has a policy to expend
funds only within the immediate area of their membership. This
includes Olmsted, Wabasha, and Dodge counties. He estimated that
approximately 90% of the funds are expended in Olmsted County.
Fraternal Order of Eagles 02228
Herb Callier, Secretary/Gambling Manager
The Eagles Club did not have the total amount of charitable ,
contributions expended to various charities in 1990 readily
available when I talked to them. They did indicate that they would
total the amount of contributions made in 1990 and get back to me.
Hopefully I will have this information available on Monday. Some
of the organizations to which they have contributed include:
D.A.R.E. Program
Eyota Ambulance Service
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
Senior Citizen's Center
Salvation Army
First Responder Unit/Byron, Stewartville, Eyota
Mr. Callier indicated that while the Eagles had no formal written
policy, they as a general rule only expend funds within their area
of membership. This includes primarily Olmsted, Wabasha, and Dodge
counties.
OF 151zC'61LI W A411-- Section 491 : 00
&-) Section 491 - Lawful Gambling
Section 491:00. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to incorporate
Minnesota Statutes Sections 349.11 through 349.23, inclusive into the City
Code, to regulate legal forms of gambling, to prevent the commercialization
of gambling, to insure integrity of operations, and providing for the use of
net profits only for lawful purposes. It also provides for local
regulation and approval as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section
349:213.
Section 491:05. Definitions. The terms used in this Section 491 and
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 349.11 through 349.22, inclusive,
and defined in the rules adopted pursuant to the authority contained in the
said Statutes shall have the meanings set forth in said Statutes and rules.
Section 491:10. Lawful Gambling. There shall be no gambling in the City
of Brooklyn Park except bingo, raffle games, and pull -tabs duly licensed or
otherwise allowed pursuant'to the provisions of Section 491; Minnesota
Statutes, Section 349:11 through 349:22, inclusive, and rules adopted
pursuant to the authority contained in said Statutes.
Subd. 1. No Brooklyn Park permit shall be required for the conduct
of gambling exempt from licensing under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 349:214.
Subd. 2. Nothing in Section 491 of the Brooklyn Park Ordinance
1 Code shall be deemed to be an automatic approval of a license
/ applied for with the Charitable Gambling Control Board. The City
reserves the right to disapprove licenses for individual bingo
occasions, raffle games and pull -tab distributions.
Section491:15. Additional Regulations. In addition to the requirements
of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 349:11 through 349:22, inclusive, and
rules adopted pursuant to the authority contained in said Statutes, lawful
gambling shall be subject to the regulations set forth in the following
subdivisions.
Subd. 1. Except as provided in this Subdivision, it shall be
unlawful to disseminate in the City, in any manner, information
concerning any present or. future lawful gambling event of
opportunity.
(a) An organization conducting lawful gambling, duly
licensed or otherwise allowed pursuant to the
Statutes and Rules referred to in this section,
may disseminate information to its own membership
about such games.
(b) Signs advertising bingo, a raffle or a pull -tab
distribution shall be regulated pursuant to the
provisions of the applicable sections of the
• 1 Brooklyn Park Ordinance Code.
Section 491 added by Ordinance #1988-597(A)
Section 491:15
Subd. 1 (c)
(c) Advertising and news reporting contained in
newspaper, radio and television media available
to the general public of more than one
municipality and addressed to said general
public, and not addressed to the residents of
Brooklyn Park, is exempt from the provisions of
this Subdivision.
Subd. 2. No pull -tab license or renewal will be approved for:
(a) Any organization to conduct a pull -tab
distribution on any premises other than a
church, the premises of a fraternal, veterans
or other non-profit organization, or the
premises of an on -sale liquor licensee of the
City of Brooklyn Park.
(b) Any organization or local subdivision thereof,
unless all the following requirements are met:
(1) The organization of the local subdivi-
sion has been in continuous existence
holding meetings and conforming with
the requirements of this paragraph (b)
for more than one (1) year prior to the
approval of the license, and
(2) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
349.213, Seventy Five percent (75%) of
the net profits of any Brooklyn Park
pull -tab distribution will be spent in
the City of Brooklyn Park or on items
or activities that will directly
benefit citizens of Brooklyn Park. For
purposes of this subparagraph (2), the
term "net profits" shall mean all
monies received from pull -tab
purchasers minus amounts spent for
necessary and statutorily allowed
expenses related to the pull -tab
distribution.
Section 491 added by Ordinance #1988-597(A)
Section 491:15, Subd. 2 amended by Ordinance #1988-612(A)
Section 491:15, Subd. 2 (b) amended by Ordinance #1989-619(A)
Section 491:15, Subd. 2 (b) amended by Ordinance #1990-644(A)
0
U
Section 491:15
Subd. 2 (b) (3)
(3) The term "trade area" shall mean all
• that area described below:
City of Brooklyn Park, and all
contiguous cities and the City of
Minneapolis.
(c) The conduct of a pull -tab distribution by more
than one organization on premises where such
activities are authorized is prohibited.
(d) Any one organization may hold only one license
within the City.
0
Section 491 added by Ordinance #1988-597(A)
Section 491:15, Subd. 2 amended by Ordinance #1988-612(A)
Section 491:15, Subd.. 2 (b) amended by Ordinance #1989-619(A)
Section 491:15, Subd. 2 (b) amended by Ordinance #1990-644(A)
Section 491:15, Subd. 2 (b) (3) amended by Ordinance #1990-656(A)
is
Section 491:20
Section 491:20. Adoption by Reference. Minnesota Statutes Sections
349.11 through 349.22, inclusive, and rules adopted pursuant to the
authority contained in said Statutes are hereby adopted by reference and
are incorporated in Section 491 as completely as if set out in full.
Section 491:25. Severab'lity. Every section, provision or part of this
chapter is declared separable from every other section, provision or part
to the extent that if any section, provision or part of this chapter shall be
held invalid, such holding shall not invalidate any other section,
provision or part thereof.
Section 491:30. Violations. Any person who violates a provision of
Section 491 or the statutes or rules adopted by reference herein shall be
guilty of a misdemenor.
s
Section 491 added by Ordinance #1988-597(A)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
licensed premises during the permitted hours of off -sale in a quantity less than 100 milliliters of malt
liquor per variety per customer, 50 milliliters of wine per variety per customer, and 25 milliliters of
liqueur or cordial per ariety per customer.
(f) No licensee and this Article may sell at retail for beverage purposes ethyl alcoholorneutral
spirits, or substitutes the eof, possessing the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to
ethyl alcohol or neutral spirits.
(g) No licensee under th Article may sell intoxicating liquor, wine, or nintoxicating malt
liquor to any person for the purp a of resale, or to any person whom the licenseg/ as reason to believe
intends to resell the intoxicating iquor, wine, or nonintoxicating malt liquor ithout written approval
of the Commissioner of Public Safety.
(h) No licensee under this Articl shall display intoxicating. liQu ,wine, or nonintoxicating malt
liquor to the public during hours when t e sale of intoxicating liq r, wine, or nonintoxicating malt
liquor is prohibited under this Artiele.
(i) No off -sale licensee under this A icle shall deliYer any intoxicating liquor, wine, or
nonintoxicating malt liquor to a person without btaining a receipt therefor and signed by the person
receiving such beverage. The receipt shall detai the time! date, and place of delivery. The receipt
shall be kept by the off -sale licensee for a period o one )pear.
(j) No sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made/ guest rooms of hotels unless the hotel has an
on -sale license under this Article.
(k) A holder of a club license under this Article shalt ell or furnish intoxicating liquor only to
members of the club and guests of club members provided such mem rs and guests are not minors and are not
obviously intoxicated. /
(1) No licensee under this Article/shall sell, offer for s\lereep for sale intoxicating liquoror nonintoxicating malt liquor in a parVage or bottle which has bled or partly refilled.
(m) No licensee under this Apticle shall directly or indirectly thro h an agent, employee, or other
person, dilute or in any manner tamper with the contents of an original par ge or bottle so as to change
its composition or alcoholic c.06tent while the contents are in the original pa kage or bottle. Possession
on the licensed premises of alcoholic beverages in the original package or bott differing in composition
or alcoholic content frog/when it was received from the manufacturer or whol aler from whom it was
purchased is prima facid evidence that the contents of the original package or bo tle has been diluted,
changed, or tampered with in violation of this Section.
(n) No licensee under this Article shall directly or indirectly through an agent, a loyee, or other
person, mix, dilute, or in any manner tamper with the contents of intoxicating liquor or onintoxicating
malt liquor when dispensing such liquor through a single or joined bar or counter line o a dispensing
system, whether automatic or manual.
o) No Sunday Liquor licensee shall serve intoxicating liquor on Sunday except in conjunction with
the serving of food.
(Code, 1958 S 157.06; Added by Ord. No. 64-15, 2-24-64; Ord. No. 90-27, 6-25-90)
SE 13.53. RESTRICTIONS REGARDING GAMOLIN .
(a) No licensee under this Article may keep, possess, or operate, or permit the keeping, possession,
or operation on the licensed premises of dice, slot machines, roulette wheels, punchboards, black jack
tables, or pinball machines which return coins or slugs, chips, or tokens of any kind, which are.
• redeemable in merchandise or cash.
13-34
BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE
(b) No licensee under this Article shall permit gambling on the licensed premises, except that
gambling equipment may be kept or operated and raffles may be conducted on the licensed premises and/or
adjoining rooms when the use of such gambling equipment or raffles is authorized under Minnesota Statutes
Sections 349.11 - 349.60, and authorized under subpart (c) of this subsection.
(c) The following requirements shall be met before the use of. any gambling equipment or raffles
authorized under Minnesota Statutes Sections 349.11 - 349.60 is permitted on the licensed premises and/or
adjoining rooms:
(1) Authorized gambling equipment and raffles shall be kept and operated in only on -sale
establishments licensed under this Article.
(2) Only nonprofit organizations: (a) which have been licensed by the Charitable Gambling
Control Board; (b) which have operated for at least three (3) years within the City of Bloomington; and
(c) which have a membership of at least fifteen (15) members, may conduct gambling on the licensed
premises or adjoining rooms provided, however, that any nonprofit organization licensed by the Charitable
Gambling Control Board may conduct raffles on licensed premises.
(3) Prior to the approval of a gambling license for a nonprofit organization, the Charitable
Gambling Control Board shall notify the issuing authority of receipt of the application. The issuing
authority shall then be permitted a reasonable time to review the application and make any recommendations
to the Charitable Gambling Board regarding the application.
(4) In addition to any application required by the Charitable Gambling Control Board, the
nonprofit organization shall: (a) complete an investigation form provided by the issuing authority; (b)
notify the issuing authority of any change in the identity of the manager or person controlling the
gambling operations; (c) furnish to the issuing authority all records and reports filed with the
Charitable Gambling Control Board; and, (d) submit any additional information required by the issuing
authority.
(5) An on -sale establishment licensed under this Article may lease its premises or a portion
thereof to a licensed nonprofit organization for purposes of allowing the nonprofit organization to
conduct charitable gambling on the premises, provided that only one lessee is allowed per license period.
A copy of any lease shall be submitted to the issuing authority within one (1) week after execution of the
lease, and the lease shall specifically provide that the lessee shall operate only after the issuance of a
gambling license. The lease shall not provide for rental payments based on a percentage of receipts or
profits from charitable gambling.
(6) Any establishment leasing its premises or a portion thereof to a nonprofit organization
shall donate $600.00 per year or twenty-five (25) percent of its income from any such lease, whichever is
greater, to be used for the treatment of persons who are chronic gamblers or any other persons who are
adversely affected by excessive gambling activity.
(7) No gambling shall be permitted on Sundays and during hours in which the on -sale of
intoxicating liquor is prohibited under this Article.
(8) No nonprofit organization shall be permitted to conduct gambling in more than three (3)
on -sale establishments within the City of Bloomington.
(9) Any nonprofit organization licensed to conduct gambling within the City of Bloomington
shall pay to the City on a monthly basis a local gambling tax of three (3) percent of the gross receipts
from all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the organization.
(10) Any nonprofit organization licensed to conduct gambling within the City of Bloomington
shall contribute to the City, for distribution by the City for charitable purposes, an amount equal to ten
(10) percent of the organization's net profits derived from lawful gambling. for purpose of this subpart,
net profits are profits less amounts expended for allowable expenses.
(d) Subsection (c) shall not apply to private nonprofit clubs in which lawful gambling is conducted
on the premises owned by an organization licensed by Charitable Gambling Control Board.
(Code, 1958 5 157.07;'Added by Ord. No. 64-15. 2-24-64; Ord. No. 82-38, 9-27-82; Ord. No. 90-27, 6-25-90)
SEC. 11.54. INSURANCE ftQUIREMENTS./-
(a) No license under this
demonstrates proof of financial
Section 3401 The mini
submitting:
Cy be issued, maintained, or
lity with regard to liabil
`for proof of financia esc
..ed s the applicant
posed by Min Statue
bility, may be given by
1]
r �
13-35
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION " ON 2LIa�91
AGENDA SECTICN: ORIGINATING DEFT: ITEM NO.
Re orts and Recommendations City Administrator C
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Block Grant Appropriations I G. Neumann
Attached for your information is a copy of the tabulation of the results of
the individual Councilmember's 1991 CDBG appropriation forms. In the
previous years, past Councils have agreed to fund only those projects which
receive at least a majority vote of the Council. For a few years, the
Council even required 5 votes for receipt of CDBG funding. This office is
recommending that the Council agree to fund those projects which have
received four or more votes from the Council. This would result in funding
10 out of the 17 requests for 1992 funding. The following list shows all the
projects listed in order based on the number of votes which they received and
their direct appropriation based on dividing the total dollars appropriated
to the specific project divided by 7.
PROJECT
Omnia Family Services (Acq/Rehab)
Arc of Olmsted County (Public Svc)
Child Care Resource & Referral (Public Svc)
Habitat (Acq/Rehab)
HRA (Acq/Rehab)
Channel One Inc. (Acq/Rehab)
We Can House (Acq/Rehab)
Thomas Group Inc. (Acq/Rehab)
SEMCIL (Public Svc)
ABC (Acq/Rehab)
Omnia Family Services (Public Svc)
Private Industry Council (Acq/Rehab)
Rochester Area Alliance for the
Mentally Ill (Public Svc)
Zumbro valley Mental Health (Acq/Rehab)
Native American Cntr for SE MN (Acq/Rehab)
Bear Creek Foundation (Acq/Rehab)
Rochester Playcenter Inc. (Acq/Rehab)
TOTAL
$116,480
87,500
181,200
124,000
290,060
137,125
26,000
48,500
27,000
116,435
10,700
31,000
4,000
DIVIDED
$16,640
12,500
25,886
17,714
41,437
19,589
3,714
6,929
3,857
16,634
1,529
4,429
571
VOTES
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
9,000
1,286 2
15,000
2,143 1
20,000
2,857 1
2,000
286 1
The direct appropriation for Public Service Requests is below the allowable
amount.
The amount of funds appropriated directly to those with 4 or more votes would
be $164,900. This would leave $13,100 remaining to be appropriated. Based
on the assumption that the Council might follow past practice and fund only
those projects which received 4 or more votes, this office will provide two
alternatives for distributing the remaining $13,100.
UNCIL ACTION: mwm br. sswnd by. ir_
Request for Council Action
1992 Community Development Block Grant Appropriations
November 18, 1991 .
Page two
ALTERNATIVE 1. The program proposed by the HRA to potentially acquire
abandoned residences and for later rehab and use as subsidized housing would
be directly appropriated $41,437. This amount may be insufficient to secure
a single abandoned property. This alternative would suggest that the
remaining $13,100 be provided to this program of the HRA which would bring
their total to $54,537.
ALTERNATIVE 2. A second alternative would be to divide the remaining $13,100
up between those programs which received the most support. I would suggest
that additional funds of $3,100 be provided to the Omnia Family Services
Acquisition/Rehab Project which received 7 votes and that each of the 5
projects which received 6 votes receive an additional $2,000 each.
I have shown below the resulting 1992 appropriations based on Alternative 1.
These figures will be revised if the Council chooses Alternative 2.
PROJECT
APPROPRIATION
HRA Housing Rehab
HRA Program Administration
Omnia Family Services (Acq/Rehab)
Arc of Olmsted County (Public Svc)
Child Care Resource & Referral (Public Svc)
Habitat (Acq/Rehab)
HRA (Acq/Rehab)
Channel One Inc. (Acq/Rehab)
We Can House (Acq/Rehab)
Thomas Group Inc. (Acq/Rehab)
SEMCIL (Public Svc)
ABC (Acq/Rehab)
TOTAL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
$220,000
20,000
16,640
12,500
25,886
17,714
54,537
19,589
3,714
6,929
3,857
16.634
$418J,000
Approve 1992 CDBG Appropriations Based on Alternative 1.
z
VOTES
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
CJ
0
0
•
IE
W
pH
S
pryp�y.� imp
�qp pp .} .mp
O
}
O
oo .pp�pp 88 Oqp�p 88
O
O
J
N
d P N M J N^ N
J
F
a0 ip
^
Npp
O O
O p p^pp
O
K
W
O O
O O C 0
O
N a N
N N
N
A
o�
P
fi
$
$ $ $ a
$
A
O
O N N
Np��
Omm
K
pO
p
W
h
^
W
1
J
S
0 S 0
pp
0 0 $ O O O O O S O
O
W
O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O C C
O
=
M^ N N J
N tl N W W O Y1 N N N d N
m
d N N O^ O
U9
S
8 S
a
1� O O
O O MOI O S
m$m
OUC
0 0 0
0$ $ o $$ $
$
MM
N
p
SS o8 Spp
O O H S Op er, N
Op
O O
Q p
OW
Y
0 M
i
=
L
C Y w
C
C
C ■
O Y L
= 5p
} S <Y tL9 i M
y U M ■
Y M
L _yy
F
^■ 0 Q Lyy Y
u
N fqfq.,,11 Y U ■■ LUO Y
j
N U
< Z 6 S rad m t=1 O K
O
< OaL
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEN
OATE. / 18/ 91
�AGFNOA SECTION: I ORIGINATING OEPT: I ITEM NO. '
Reports and Recommendations City Administrator
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
- 218 and 226 First Street NE I G. Neumann
At the 9/17/91 meeting, the Council approved the purchase of the properties
at 217 and 225 East Center Street and 218 and 226 First Avenue NE for an
expansion of the East Center Street parking lot. There are currently five
occupied apartment units in the buildings which have been purchased. Due to
the fact that the winter season is imminent, if not fully arrived at present,
the staff is suggesting that the City enter into month to month lease
agreements to allow four of the five tenants to remain in these properties
until we have more time and better weather to complete their relocation. The
lease agreements would be under the same terms and conditions including
payment of rent that were in effect under the former ownership.
The staff is recommending approval of two of the leases at this time between
the City and Hoi Huynh and Carolyn Weber. The lease agreements note that the
City will still be obligated to provide relocation assistance and relocation
payments when the tenants are relocated. This is an obligation of the City
pursuant to its acquisition of the property.
NOTE 11/15/91:
I would also request approvals for the leases with Nancy Gosath and Yevgery
Kalso. These are also for the same rental amounts as they pay currently.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of the lease agreements with Hoi Huynh and Carolyn Weber subject to
the terms and conditions described in the lease, plus the leases for Nancy
Gosath and Yevgery Kalso.
ACMON-.- Modmi by: seaaid by. 0:
M E M O R A N D U M
Real Estate Section
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
TO: Gary Neumann
'n
FROM: Ron Halling
DATE: November 1, 1991
RE: Bawek Property
Rental Agreements
218 First Street NE - 2 units
226 First Street NE - 3 units
Attached are two of the five leases for the property
purchased from James Bawek. I will be obtaining leases from
the other tenants soon. The leases will be on a month to
month basis, and all tenants will be relocated by Spring of
1992. I am starting the relocation of the family living in
apartment #2, building 226, because they do not have
substantial heating in the unit. My question is: Do we need
to have council approval on the lease agreements?
•
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 9 / 17 / 91
ITEM
M
on July 15, 1991, Council authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of properties
for the expansion of the East Center Street parking lot. Subject to Council
approval, the City has reached an agreement on four of the five parcels needed for
the project. The properties recommended for acquisition include the existing
parking lot (currently leased by the City) and three lots with houses.
The City's appraisals of the properties indicated a value of $266,500. The owner
had originally requested $375,000. The recommended settlement price is $305,000.
This is approximately 14% over our appraisal. Staff feels that this is the best
settlement we can reach on a negotiated sale basis and that the risks associated
with a condemnation proceeding are not worth the potential savings. The project
is to be funded from tax increments.
The property owner has held the house at 225 East Center Street vacant pending the
outcome of our negotiations. Staff is recommending that it be razed immediately
following acquisition so that the first phase of the lot expansion can be
completed this fall. The two parcels which front on 1st Street N.E. are occupied
and the City may incur some relocation expenses when the buildings are razed next
oring.
Approve the purchase of 217 and 225 East Center Street and 218 and 226 1st Avenue
N.E. for a price of $305,000.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
0
rm
N
f'f
m
z
m
a
N
n
m
n
V
SECONO AVENUE N.E.
E-n
V
V rro
m
A
N
.r
A
2
a
m
m
m
•
0
LEASE
This lease made this 3 i day of 't&�V , 1991, between the
CITY OF ROCHESTER, hereinafter called the Lessor, and CAROLYN WEBER
hereinafter called the Lessee:
WITNESSETH:
(1) The Lessor hereby leases to the Lessees the premises
located at 218 First Street NE, #1 in the City of Rochester, County
of Olmsted, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows:
West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 Block 79, Original Plat to the City of Bochester,olasted county,
Minnesota; also
(2) The lease shall be on a month to month basis, the rent
being paid on or before the first day of each monthly rental
period.
(3) The amount of rent shall be $350.00 per month. The
Lessor shall pay the cost of utilities. The Lessee has a damage
deposit with the Lessor in the amount of $350.00.
(4) The Lessees shall not suffer the premises or any erection
or improvements thereon to become subject to any lien, change, or
encumbrance whatsoever, and shall indemnify the Lessor against all
such liens, charges and encumbrances; it being expressly agreed
that the Lessees shall have no authority, expressed or implied , to
create any lien, charge or encumbrance. The Lessees shall
indemnify the Lessor against all costs and expenses, including
counsel's fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in or about the
premises, or in the defense of any action or proceeding, or in
discharging the premises from any charge, lien, or encumbrance, or
in obtaining possession after default of the Lessees for the
termination of this lease.
(5) The Lessees shall keep the buildings upon the said
premises and appurtenances in good condition and repair.
(6) The Lessees shall permit the Lessor and its agents at all
reasonable times to enter upon the premises to view the condition
of the premises and the buildings.
(7) At the termination of this lease, the Lessees shall
surrender the premises with all buildings erected thereon the
additions thereto at the end of said term in such repair and
condition as shall be in accordance with the covenants herein
contained, ordinary wear and tear accepted.
(8) Lessees shall not sublet or assign this lease without the
written consent of Lessor.
(9) The Lessor acknowledges that the Lessees are entitled to
relocation payment under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and
Minnesota Statutes d 117.52 at the time that the Lessor chooses to
displace them.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the
date first above written.
LESSOR
ITS MAYOR
K.
ITS CITY CLERK
LESSEES
BY M W
CAROL N WEBER
0
• LEASE
This lease made this ��� day of &7LQ , 1991, between the
CITY OF ROCHESTER, hereinafter called the Lessor, and HOI HUYNH
hereinafter called the Lessee:
WITNESSETH:
(1) The Lessor hereby leases to the Lessees the premises
located at 218 First Street NE, #2 in the City of Rochester, County
of Olmsted, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows:
West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 Block 79, original Plat to the City of Bochester,olasted County,
Minnesota; also
(2) The lease shall be on a month to month basis, the rent
being paid on or before the first day of each monthly rental
period.
(3) The amount of rent shall be $400.00 per month. The
Lessor shall pay the cost of utilities. The Lessee has made no
damage deposit with the Lessor.
(4) The Lessees shall not suffer the premises or any erection
or improvements thereon to become subject to any lien, change, or
encumbrance whatsoever, and shall indemnify the Lessor against all
such liens, charges and encumbrances; it being expressly agreed
that the Lessees shall have no authority, expressed or implied , to
create any lien, charge or encumbrance. The Lessees shall
indemnify the Lessor against all costs and expenses, including
counsel's fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in or about the
premises, or in the defense of any action or proceeding, or in
discharging the premises from any charge, lien, or encumbrance, or
in obtaining possession after default of the Lessees for the
termination of this lease.
(5) The Lessees shall keep the buildings upon the said
premises and appurtenances in good condition and repair.
(6) The Lessees shall permit the Lessor and its agents at all
reasonable times to enter upon the premises to view the condition
of the premises and the buildings.
(7) At the termination of this lease, the Lessees shall
surrender the premises with all buildings erected thereon the
additions thereto at the end of said term in such repair and
condition as shall be in accordance with the covenants herein
contained, ordinary wear and tear accepted.
0
(8) Lessees shall not sublet or assign this lease without the
written consent of Lessor.
(9) The Lessor acknowledges that the Lessees are entitled to
relocation payment under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and
Minnesota Statutes 6 117.52 at the time that the Lessor chooses to
displace them.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the
date first above written.
LESSOR
BY
ITS MAYOR
BY
ITS CITY CLERK
LESSEES
BY
HOI HUYNH
•
• LEASE
This lease made this day of 1991, between the
CITY OF ROCHESTER, hereinafter called the Lessor, and YEVGERY KALOS
hereinafter called the Lessee:
WITNESSETH:
(1) The Lessor hereby leases to the Lessees the premises
located at 226 First Street NE, #3 in the City of Rochester, County
Of Olmsted, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Block 79 of the Original Plat of the
Town, now the City, of Rochester, for a place of beginning; running thence South to the Southeast
corner of the North Half of said Block; running thence West a distance of 27 feet; Homing thence North
a distance of 32 feet; running thence westt a distance of 26 feet; running thence North to the North
line of said Block; running thence Past a distance of 53 feet to the point of beginning and there
terminating.
(2) The lease shall be on a month to month basis, the rent
being paid on or before the first day of each monthly rental
period.
(3) The amount of rent shall be $225.00 per month. The
Lessor shall pay the cost of utilities. The Lessee has made a
damage deposit of $225.00 with the Lessor.
(4) The Lessees shall not suffer the premises or any erection
or improvements thereon to become subject to any lien, change, or
encumbrance whatsoever, and shall indemnify the Lessor against all
such liens, charges and encumbrances; it being expressly agreed
that the Lessees shall have no authority, expressed or implied , to
create any lien, charge or encumbrance. The Lessees shall
indemnify the Lessor against all costs and expenses, including
counsel's fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in or about the
premises, or in the defense of any action or proceeding, or in
discharging the premises from any charge, lien, or encumbrance, or
in obtaining possession after default of the Lessees for the
termination of this lease.
(5) The Lessees shall keep the buildings upon the said
premises and appurtenances in good condition and repair.
(6) The Lessees shall permit the Lessor and its agents at all
reasonable times to enter upon the premises to view the condition
of the premises and the buildings.
(7) At the termination of this lease, the Lessees shall
surrender the premises with all buildings erected thereon the
additions thereto at the end of said term in such repair and
. condition as shall be in accordance with the covenants herein
contained, ordinary wear and tear accepted.
•
(8) Lessees shall not sublet or assign this lease without the
written consent of Lessor.
(9) The Lessor acknowledges that the Lessees are entitled to
relocation payment under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and
Minnesota Statutes 6 117.52 at the time that the Lessor chooses to
displace them.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the
date first above written.
LESSOR
BY
ITS MAYOR
BY
ITS CITY CLERK
LESSEES
BY
YEVGERY KALOS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEE71NC1i/18/91
OATS:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: TEM NO._
oenny+a anA Racommendatiens Citv Administrator l
DESCRIPTION: I PREPARED BY:
of Commercial Building at 826 6th Avenue NW I G. Neumann
As the attached memos indicate, the City has made an offer to purchase this
property for the appraised value of $39,500. The property was formerly shown
as needed for Stage 3 of the Corps project. When the City's offer was made,
the tenant in this building exercised his option to be relocated with
relocation payments made by the City. This was done pursuant to federal
acquisition and relocation requirements.
Subsequently, the Corps revised the plans for Stage 3, and it no longer
appears that this property would be needed for the flood control project.
However, since the tenant relocated as a result of the City's offer to
purchase the building, the City would either need to complete its purchase or
it might to be subject to a legal claim for damages from the property -owner
since he may have been financially damaged by the City's actions. The
preference of the property -owner is for the City to complete the purchase,
and he has agreed to accept the City's appraised value offer of $39,500. The
staff is recommending that the City approve the purchase with the intent to
later resell the property if we do not need it for the flood control project.
By doing so, the City would not be placing a burden on the property -owner to
claim damages against the City for an action which the City initiated. In
addition, when we consider the potential costs to the City for damages and
time, we believe it is more advisable to complete the purchase.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to purchase 826 6th Avenue NW for $39,500 and to complete the lot
split including the necessary survey work.
ACTION: Motlon by Second bY= ix
M E M O R A N D U M
Real Estate Section
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
TO: Stevan Kvenvold
Gary Neumann
Roger Plumb
Terry Adkins
FROM: Ron Halling QtA
DATE: November 12, 1991
RE: Purchase of Capelle/Winkles Property
826 6th Avenue NW
John Winkles has accepted the city's offer of $39,500 for
his property. I have attached a letter sent to Mr. Winkles
on 27 September 1991 which contained the terms of the offer.
The acceptance deadline was set back to November 11, 1991 as
Mr. Winkles had a potential sale to Ryan Electric at
$45,000. The sale did not materialize.
I will have the abstracts updated. We will need the
Attorney's office to prepare a purchase agreement. There
are two abstracts for this property. They create a single
lot which in turn needs to be subdivided. The City is
acquiring a commercial building on the northern part of the
property. The south piece is developed with an apartment
building. The Planning department has indicated that a
Certificate of Survey must be produced for the lot split.
I will solicit proposals for that work. The City will also
be required to initiate a lot split. I have attached a map
indicating the legal descriptions from the abstracts and the
split.
I will need some direction as to Council involvement in this
process.
0
0
� 4 /ROCHESTER
P/;+�tCD."!(x St•S•1••O
September 27, 1991 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
1602 41h Street S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-4718
281-6008
John and Sheila Winkles (507
FA8
X N(507)7)28585 8256
420 llth Avenue SE
Rochester, MN. 55904
RE: Acquisition of Commercial Building at 826 Sixth Avenue NW
ml
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Winkles:
City staff members involved with the administration of the flood
control project discussed the acquisition of your property at a
meeting on Thursday of this week. The purchase of your property
at a value greater than that established in our appraisal was
considered. As a result of that meeting, the City is not willing
to offer more than the $39,500 that was based on the certified
appraisal.
In the summer of 1990, the City was informed by the US Army Corps
of Engineers that your property was scheduled to be acquired in fee
interest for the Cascade Creek project. They requested the City to
begin acquisition of all properties identified for project taking
in advance of final design approval. In November of 1990, you were
notified of the City's intent to have your property appraised.
Subsequent from our notice, we were informed by the Corps that the
design criteria had changed and as a result, the acquisition of
your property was no longer necessary. You were so notified of
this decision on March 13, 1991. You were given the option at that
time to request that the City discontinue the acquisition. Your
decision was to continue. The offer in the amount of $39,500 was
made on 21 May 1991.
The City also agreed by separate letter dated March 13 1991 to
reimburse rent lost by the displacement of your tenant. Our
records indicate that the tenant, Doug Walberg, moved on May 31,
1991.
The City is not acquiring your property under the threat of eminent
domain, nor does the City have an explicit project need for the
property. Therefore, we consider the acquisition to be voluntary
on your part. This means that you have the right to accept or
reject our offer and we, on the other hand, are not obligated to
pay above the fair market value of the property as established by
our appraisal. We are obligated to rental reimbursement to the
purchase date of the property or your rejection.vf our offer to
purchase.
0
John Winkles - Page Two
September 27, 1991
Mr. Capelle has provided the abstract for the subject property.
The description in the abstract appears to include the house to the
south of the commercial building. The City will update the
abstract and absorb the costs associated with the subdivision of
the lot. we will also assume a prorated portion of the taxes due
(or paid) based on the date of closing. If any assessments are
outstanding, they would also be prorated to the closing date.
Should you accept the City's offer, you will be required to produce
clear and marketable title to the property. You will be
responsible for the payment of all back taxes due and payable and
for a prorated share of current taxes and assessments, if
applicable.
The City is anxious in having this matter resolved as soon as
possible. To that extent, the City would like to have a response
to its previous offer of $39,500 by October 31, 1991. If we do not
have a response by that time, we will assume that you are no longer
interested in the sale of this property and the offer will be
withdrawn. Please feel free to contact me at 281-6198 if you have
questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely
Ron Halling
Right -of -Way Agent
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
•
cc: Jack and Iola Capelle
WY5%T"- CXnn^^WS
QZLZ� vCO
PLAT OP LOTS 43 AM) 46 Auditors plat '
1.icasuro=onts in fcpt and decimals.
i Scalo 1 inch = 50 14cet.
Survo;ed S- 1- 1V61.
7ohn J. Karr do haroby col-Lifi., '.:!:at 1 have mado a sin-vay n: t::o lots
cribad above , That the improv�r..oats are locntcl are -ho in on cnaid
.at , 'hat there aro no encrouchincilta upon said lot by i-pravca:onts
Ldjacent lots.
........... I ...... !:Oallty Survevor.
Registered "Atli(: :all-veyor NO :�.iii .^/ • - .. • .,, •.._..^"'�""'�'� .
1.
r
w
+ay '
i
1 ss
,•yt� " w
13t� y,
Q� 1
4a `
81 ^
e 'o
Y;�as
361 Lofg3
4SexCPep %'/ON
•
Gerald A. Nelson
Beverly L. Nelson
John A. Winkels
Sheila AI. Winkels
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
pq NNC'll/18/91 /
AGENDA SECTION:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Amendment to CGMC
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Citv Administrator
ITEM NO.
E-5
PREPARED
G. Neumann
The members of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities who were in
attendance at the November 7, 1991, meeting voted to contact all member
cities to determine whether an amendment of the bylaws to allow the City of
Duluth to become a member would be approved. The current bylaws prohibit
cities of the first class from becoming members of the Coalition.
While the City of Duluth has not at this time expressed any interest in
joining the Coalition, we would see no harm in amending the bylaws to allow
their membership if they would like to join. It would probably strengthen
the Coalitions legislative efforts if Duluth were to join.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to amend the bylaws to allow cities of the first class from outside
the seven county Metropolitan Area to be eligible for membership in the
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.
ACTION: Mo:bnby: Second tx
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities 0
REPRESENTING OVER HALF A MILLION PEOPLE
November 8, 1991
Stevan Kvenvold
224 1st Avenue SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Re: Amendment to CGMC Bylaws
Dear Steve: i
A motion was made, seconded, and adopted at the November 7, 1991, Coalition meeting to
amend the Coalition bylaws to allow the City of Duluth to join the Coalition. The bylaws
currently prohibit cities of the first class from becoming members of the Coalition. The
amendment would only make Duluth eligible to become a member of the Coalition. The
City of Duluth has not yet expressed an interest in joining the Coalition, but Coalition
members felt the new mayor recently elected in Duluth should be approached about joining
the Coalition.
In order to amend the bylaws, two-thirds (2/3) of those returning the enclosed ballot must
vote for the amendment. Please return your ballot no later than December 2, 1991.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
44cRo/re—ns-en*,ecraetatt—�
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
0
s
n
U
I�
AMENDMENT TO CGMC BYLAWS
City of Rochester
BALLOT
Amend the bylaws to allow cities of the first class
outside the seven -county Metropolitan area to be
eligible for membership in the Coalition of Greater
Minnesota Cities.
For Against
Please return this ballot no later than Monday, December 2, 1991 to:
Eric Sorensen
City Hall
207 Lafayette Street
Winona, MN 55987
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION "" OATS: YE 1 la 91
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ffE�A NO,
Reports and Recommendations —7City Administrator
ITEM OESCRIPTIQN: PREPARED BY:
Retention of Landscape Consultant Services -
Corps of Engineers Project G. Neumann
At the 3/7/90 meeting, the Council approved the retention of Harold
Skjelbostad of LSA Design to provide landscape consultant services for the
remaining stages of the Corps of Engineers project based on the firms
standard hourly rates with a total cost not to exceed of $16,625. Since that
time, Harold has been providing consulting services on an as needed basis.
The amount of work done since the 3/7/90 meeting is estimated to reach the
cost not to exceed in December for the review of the plans on Stage 2A of the
project. If no additional funding is authorized, we would not be able to
utilize Harold's services for the remaining reviews on Stage 2A, Stage 3
(Cascade Creek), or Stage 4 (Bear Creek). One reason why the costs are
exceeding the 1990 estimate is that the Corps substantially revised the
original plans for Stage 2A during the value Engineering process. This has
essentially required twice the review effort on that Stage of the project
than was anticipated.
The major review work is needed on Stage 2A as it is the central downtown
stage of the project.
I would recommend that the Council authorize the retention of LSA Design for
continued consulting services for the remaining stages of the Corps project
with a cost not to exceed $5,000. As the City's consultant for the project,
Harold Skjelbostad has suggested several of the features that provide a
distinctive appearance for the project including: the canoe launch and water
accesses in Stage 1A2B, the picnic shelter design concept used in 1A2B and
1B3, the unique railing style used in all stages, the use of the ribbed
pattern on the concrete walls, the design of the patio areas behind the Civic
Center, the design of the water feature in Stage 2A, and landscaping
suggestions throughout the project. I believe that Harold has made a
valuable contribution to improve the appearance of the project and that his
services would be useful in completing the designs on Stages 2A, 3, and 4.
If approved, the funding would be provided from the Flood Control Project
funds.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
0
Approval to retain the firm of LSA Design to provide consultant services on
the remaining stages of the Corps project with a cost not to exceed $5,000.
ACTION: moron cy: Second m
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 11/18/91
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Rochester Public Utilities I Reports & Recommendations E� -
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
PREPARED BY:
Mary Hines
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on November 12, 1991
and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to enter into a purchase order contract with MEC
Construction, Inc. for constructing the Northern Hills Well #34 wellhouse.
The amount of the purchase order contract to be $112,585.00.
to approve a resolution to enter into an engineering services agreement
with Ulteig Engineers, Inc. for structural design services for the Mayo
Foundation Substation. The amount of the engineering services agreement
not to exceed $62,500.00 and Ulteig Engineers, Inc. being sole source.
ACTION: Motion by:
to:
FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE
11/12/91
AGENDA ITEM # 3 PREPARED BY: Doug Rovang, Director
Water Division
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
NORTHERN HILLS WELL #34 - WELLHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Bids were taken on October 4, 1991 for construction of the wellhouse/booster station for
Northern Hills Well #34. One bid was received, that being from MEC Construction, in the
amount of $112,585.
Although the bid is more than was originally budgeted for this project, approximately
$16,000 can be identified as being related to increased building floor area required for the
booster pumping equipment, to additional footing requirements for the future construction
of a chlorine scrubber room recently mandated by the State Fire Marshall, and to a roof
overhang requested by the Park and Recreation Department because of the wellhouse
location on the Northern Hills golf course.
The project architect has reviewed the bid and recommends that it be accepted.
Management recommends the Board accept the MEC bid for the project and request the
City Council to authorize a purchase order contract with MEC Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $112,585 for construction of the wellhouse for Northern Hills Well #34.
Approximately $95,000 was budgeted for this project. The additional funds would be taken
from cash reserves.
GENERAL MANAGER DATE
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES FORM 100
0
•
0
Y 7 TNIPC AvE%LE 6OU7' 6AS7 -=CCI-Ec rvo 1n11.E�l . C� . _C __6-6a6A
OCT 15 1991
RWWW pV" :
October 14, 1991
Mr. Doug Rovang
Rochester Public Utilities
4000 N.E. East River Road
Rochester, MN 55906
RE: Wellhouse No. 34
Dear Mr. Rovang,
YAGGY
COLBY
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEEPING
ARCIrITEOl RE
SURVEYING
PLANNING
LANOSCAPE ARONITEOTu'RE
It is the recommendation of Yaggy Colby Associates to accept the bid
submitted for the construction of Wellhouse No. 34 located at Northern
Hills Golf Course in Rochester, Minnesota.
The sole bid submitted is from MEC Construction Co., a pre -qualified
Rochester based corporation.
The lump sum bid total is One Hundred Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
Eighty -Five Dollars ($112,585.00).
The bid price includes all construction, materials, and labor as
indicated in the construction documents, specifications, and Addendum
No. 1, including cold weather construction requirements and landscaping.
Respectfully,
YAGGY COLBY SS,O�CpTES
e�7
pbell, A.I.A.
Sr. Project Architect
GAC:bsd
YCA N3079
cc: MEC Construction Co.
215 NORMROAMS-MASON ClT :f •5pcC+ 515-424.6344
AN EGL'AL CP'CRTl NlI 5M PLC�E=
FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date
11 /12/91
AGENDA ITEM i Al
PREPARED BY: Greg Woodworth (�Au
Manager of Engineering
SUBJECT: MAYO SUBSTATION STRUCTURAL DESIGN
ENGINEERING SERVICES
As part of the design and construction of the Mayo Foundation Substation, $150,000 was
budgeted for outside engineering design services. We currently have purchase orders
issued for $23,500 for the plan and profile work for the duct projects as well as the
topographic survey and staking required for construction.
The structural design services required for the substation itself include concrete
foundation design, steel deadend design, structural steel design for the equipment
support structures in the yard, foundation design for the precast masonry wall, site work
and grading design as well as control building design.
Ulteig Engineers Inc. of Minneapolis has performed substation engineering services for
RPU since the early 1980's. We have repeatedly used Ulteig Engineers since they have
provided high quality, cost efficient services on a number of projects. We believe that the
proposed price for the scope of services is very reasonable and is well within the limits
of the engineering services budget that was established. This should be the last
engineering services contract required for the project.
We therefore recommend that the Board approve an engineering services contract with
Ulteig Engineers Inc. for an amount not to exceed $62,500 for structural design services
to be performed on the Mayo Foundation Substation.
GENERAL MANAGER DATE
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
0 ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 12th day of November , 1991, by and between
the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting through its
Public Utility Board, hereinafter called "City", and Ulteig Engineers, Inc., a
North Dakota corporation, hereinafter called "Engineer".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City has solicited a proposal from Engineer for Engineering
Services for the analysis, design and related services described herein, and
WHEREAS, Engineer has expressed its willingness to perform said work; and .
WHEREAS, City desires to engage the services of Engineer according to the
terms and conditions of City's request for Engineering Services and Engineer's
response thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the terms and
conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Article I. Prolect Descriotion.
The Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) intends to construct a new 161/13.8kv
substation at the northeast corner of Civic Center Drive and 4th Avenue NW
dedicated to serving the Mayo Foundation loads. The project consists of
the design, construction, and placing in service of a two transformer
161/13.8kV substation with four 16lkV breakers and the associated
transmission line terminations to insert the new substation into one
circuit of the existing crosstown line. The second circuit of the
crosstown line will be carried on the existing transmission towers and
will not enter the substation.
Article II. Scope of Engineering Services. The Engineer will provide the
necessary trained personnel to complete this project as identified in Article I.
The Scope of Engineering Services are further detailed in Exhibit A and B.
Article III. Payment. City agrees to pay Engineer for performance of the
above services, upon submission of monthly invoices, an amount equal to the
actual hours of services furnished billed in accordance with the Engineer's Rate
Schedule (Exhibit C or D, whichever is applicable). City will reimburse the
Engineer each month at cost for all out-of-pocket expenses directly chargeable
to the project, including travel, lodging, reproduction, and computer expenses.
On the basis of the services outlined in this agreement, the estimated total
amount to be paid by City including hourly charges and reimbursable expenses, is
S62.500.00. Payment by City under this agreement shall not exceed said amount
without prior written consent of the City.
U
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE. 11-15-91,
AGENDA SECTION:
Reports & Recommendations
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Clerk
Revision of Resolution Vacating Utility Easement - Vacation Petition #91-13
ITEM NO,
E ,S
REPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
On October 7, 1991 the Council approved a resolution vacating a ten -foot
wide utility easement platted north of West River Parkway and -west of
Third Avenue N.W., at the southeast corner of the Hy-Vee North Store on
Lot 1, Block 1, Parkway Plaza Second Subdivision.
The original RCA stated that the property was located west of Third
Avenue S.E.; the hearing notice was also in error as was the final
resolution approved. However, all property owners in the vicinity of
Third Avenue N.W. were properly notified of the hearing.
Therefore, the Council will need to adopt a resolution for the above -
mentioned vacation correcting Third Avenue S.E. to read Third Avenue N.W.
A new hearing will not be required per the City Attorney's Office.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve a resolution vacating a utility easement west of
Third Avenue N.W., at the southeast corner of the Hy-Vee North Store
on Lot 1, Block 1, Parkway Plaza Second Subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
�7fMu��il
335.52 --- '
1 f •
--- S0°27�4f E ; J-•
'D�T►�Tt01J�
SEE /STTACH ED
1 r •rr
PREPARED BY:
McGHIE 8 BETTS, INC
CONSULTING ENGINE.
PLANNERS
i wn SURVEYCIRS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 11-18-91
DATE:
REQUEST
FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 111 18 / 91
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
FINANCE
E w!
REPORTS AND
REamENDATIONS
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
AWARD
OF PROPOSALS FOR
FUEL AT THE PUMP
DAVID wERNECKE
Proposals for furnishing gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump were opened
at 11:00 a.m., November 7th. The only vendors were Greenway Coop and
B & F Distr. Company. Prices were based on a margin over the Computer
Petroleum Corp. price listing. The attached tabulation shows only the
margin over the CPC price, giving a comparison of the cost difference
between the two vendors.
Proposals were evaluated on the following criteria by representatives of
the Police, Fire, Finance and Administration. Each scored the proposals
independently and rated Greenway higher. The average points are indicated -
GASOLINE
DIESEL
Item
Greenway
B & F
Greenway B
& F
Responsiveness to request
5
5
5
5
Availability of Product
15
9
15
7
Location and hours
20
10
20
10
Billing and information
20
15
20
15
Physical facilities
10
9
10
9
Price margin
22
30
30
20
TOTAL POINTS
92
78
100
66
Analysis(General)
Gasoline and diesel fuel were to be awarded separately. Both proposals
were responsive to the request for proposals.
Availability of Product - B & F offered regular (leaded) gas at only one
station, South Broadway; and mixed premium diesel at only North Broadway.
Greenway offered regular at two stations and premium diesel at three
locations.
Location and hours - Greenway Stations are better located throughout the
City and would require Police and Fire vehicles to be out of their
response area less often. Very critical is the fact B & F Stations at
4th Street S.E. and Country Club M from 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.!
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:
to:
(continued)
Request for Council Action
Award of Proposals for Fuel at the Pta!p
November 18, 1991 •
(Continued - Page 2)
Billing and Information System - Both offered good billing reports and
information. The B & F System requires the cashier to run the card
through the reader and then enter the vehicle number, mileage and type
of fuel. In the Greenway System the driver actuates the pump by enter-
ing the card, then selects a fuel and enters the mileage. The driver
doesn't have to enter the station and wait for the cashier. It would
be faster and less prone to error.
Physical Facilities - overall Greenway facilities rate a slight nod.
Price Margin
Gasoline - B & F margin on the major product, unleaded gasoline, is
.007 per gallon less than Greenway. Overall the estimated savings
from B & F would be $514.90 for the year. This does not take into
account a possible dividend from Greenway. Last year we received a
cash dividend of $507.90 (plus stock dividends).
Diesel - Greenway's margin per gallon on .premium diesel is .0129 per
gallon less than B & F, an estimated $95.65 less for the year.
CONCLUSION - The difference in price is minimal, the difference in
location and hours of operation is significant. Using Greenway would
save travel time and not require emergency vehicles to be out of their
response areas for as long a time. .
COUNCIL ACTION:
Award of both the gasoline and diesel fuel to Greenway Coop is
recommended.
•
0
9
0
cc
W
H
N
W
x
c.i
M
LL
O
T
N
L]
3
ul
p7
S
N
O
MT
1.0
,
N
Ln
Ln
Ln
M
LO
ON
Ln
m
0
Ln
M
a
to
C
W
d'
O
N
p
O
O
N
L
V'
-4
N
m
U
VWV
3
a
n
Ln
N
Z
�
o
+
M
Z
ID
W
7i7MN�I`J
o
m
0
d
0
M
0
Ln
0
CN
i
Ln
x
_
cq
r
o
I
Ln
M
U
e
U
�+
N
a
rn co
W
ro
r•I
r
U
U
rG1
C
U
U
a
N
H14
r
WU
E
o
E
i
cty
u
>
m w
o m
c
.�
e
a 14 p
Nto
�+
Iv
m
>.
U.0 c
I
roE
N
QC1
ul
C
yy�
'y0 C O
U
a
'�
9
N
oa
a
5
92
44
oca
m
w
a
f
o
m
..
O O U
Q CD
a
o
a N C
'n
N
Ln
O
-
v
r
0 m Uo
row
010
mro
x r:
U > .Ui
A • u
C U
O O
CL
c m a
•H a1 ro
O N C
E043
N Y
U 0
aU m
Uro
.0 U U
N
N ro
1 44
C
A a
r.roCc
N 7 N
m 3 u
FUi+1x
7 W C
m0F
4-4
> 7
0 w
as
E
zz
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
M'c=TiNG
DATE 11/18/91
AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
s and Recommendations
SCRIPTION:
of 1992 Cooperative Agreement with City of Rochester.Public Services
November 5, 1991
ROCOG Recommendation:
ITEM NO.
G'!' 1
PREPARED BY:�
hilip Wheeler
On November 5, 1991 ROCOG will consider a motion authorizing its chairperson to
sign a Cooperative Agreement providing for reimbursement to the city for work
performed by the Public Services Department Transportation planning related
activities carried out by Public Services are eligible for Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) reimbursement at the rate of 85%. A copy of the
proposed 1992 Cooperative Agreement is attached.
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed, it should adopt a resolution directing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the 1992 Cooperative Agreement. Otherwise, it
should instruct ROCOG of any changes to the Work Program it would like to see.
Attachments:
1. Revised Cooperative Agreement
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Attorney
3. Public Services Director
4. ROCOG 1992 CWP File
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
u
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into on November 5. 1991. by the
Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (hereinafter referred to as ROCOG),
upon action by the ROCOG Policy Board, and entered into on by
the City of Rochester (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), upon action by
the Common Council of the City of Rochester.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of
1987 allows for the distribution of planning funds to certain designated urban
areas for transportation planning and the planning and evaluation of urban mass
transportation planning projects; and
WHEREAS, ROCOG, as the designated recipient for the Rochester metropolitan area,
has entered into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
receive planning funds in support of the 1992 Transportation Work Program or in
said program as amended; and
WHEREAS, ROCOG, as the designated recipient of the Rochester urbanized area, has
entered into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
receive MNDOT Planning Funds, in support of the 1992 Transportation Work
Program; and is
WHEREAS, ROCOG has been designated as the metropolitan planning organization for
the Rochester urbanized area by the Governor of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide various services to ROCOG for the purposes
of assisting ROCOG with its transportation planning functions in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF WORK AND METHOD OF STUDY
The City shall make available the staff of its Public Services
Department, Transportation Division, to work with the Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department, under the direction of ROCOG'S
Executive Director, for the purpose of assisting in performing the
transportation planning activities as described in the CY 1992
Transportation Work Program for the Rochester -Olmsted Council of
Governments, attached by reference hereto and made a part of this
agreement and hereinafter referred to as TWP.
25 -
2-
A. City Responsibilities:
1. Conduct certain technical transportation planning and/or programming
activities as specified in the TWP.
2. Provide necessary support services.
3. Provide necessary information to assist in developing the
transportation planning portion of the TWP.
4. Assist in fulfilling state and federal transportation planning
requirements.
B. ROCOG Responsibilities:
1. Coordinate and give general direction to city staff to assist in the
timely completion of the work elements.
2. Furnish the City with such information and correspondence that is in
the possession of ROCOG that is considered pertinent to the work to
be performed.
3. Provide clerical and support services as needed.
4. Develop and submit all documentation and reports as may be needed to
fulfill applicable state and federal transportation planning
requirements.
5. Arrange meetings of ROCOG as needed to give input into the planning
process and to evaluate completed work elements.
II. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The provisions of Sections II thru VII of the "Agreement for the
Distribution of Federal Highway Administration Funds" entered into by
ROCOG and the Minnesota Department of Transportation shall apply to this
agreement in all cases.
B. The provisions of Section II through VII of the "Agreement for the
Distribution of Minnesota Department of Transportation Planning Funds,"
entered into by ROCOG at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, shall
apply to this agreement in all cases.
III. PAYMENT
A. Total cost for the work to be accomplished by the City from January 1,
1992, through December 31, 1992, shall not exceed $18,100 as identified in
the 1992 TWP.
B. ROCOG shall be reimbursed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
. from the State Highway Fund in an amount not to exceed $12,100, and from
the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987
(administered through the Minnesota Department of Transportation) in an
- 26 -
3 -
amount not to exceed $3,260.00 for performance of work to be done by the
City of Rochester and paid for by ROCOG, as described in the
Transportation Work Program. Out of state travel can be reimbursed if
approved in advance by ROCOG, the Minnesota Department of Transportation,
and the Federal Highway Administration.
C. The City shall submit its request for reimbursement in the form of
invoices or requisitions to ROCOG, with copies as needed for the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. The invoices or requisitions shall contain
whatever details may be necessary for a proper audit in accordance with
the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128 and shall
be signed by the supervisor of the Transportation Division of the City
certifying that all of the items contained therein are true and correct.
Final payment shall be made subject to approval by duly authorized
representatives of ROCOG, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and
the Federal Highway Administration.
IV. TERMINATION
The work on these activities shall be completed and final requisition
submitted within 30 days after the end of the calendar year.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Passed and adopted by the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments on this
5th day of November, 1991. 10
By ,
/�Q Franklin M chaels, ChAirman
ATTEST: �o
Philip--K. Wheeler, Ekecutive Director
ROCOG
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester this
day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
Carole Grimm
City Clerk
By:
Nancy Selby
President of the City Council
Approved this day of , 1991.
By
Chuck Hazama
Mayor of the City of Rochester
27 -
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING11/18/91
DATE:
>GENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I Public Services
ITEM NO.
;F,- IZ
DESCRIPTION: partial Acquisition of the Oakwood Cemetery PREPARED 1 0wB�Y:,
For Flood Control, Stage 1-B3 RJH
The City received a Right -of -Entry for construction from the
Rochester Cemetery Association in order to meet schedule
requirements for the Stage 113-3 of the flood control project. The
ROE allowed the construction to proceed on the property prior to
the determination and payment of just compensation for the land
rights taken. The project required acquisition in permanent
channel easement and temporary work easement along the portion of
the property which borders the Zumbro River. A part of the north
roadway was not useable during construction. No grave sites were
acquired. The property taken is used primarily for green space or
interior roadway. This property is scheduled for eminent domain,
subject to the lack of a negotiated settlement. -
The Corps' project required that 7,853 square feet be acquired in
permanent channel easement. An additional 3,832 square feet is
acquired for temporary work easement. The City's appraisal found
just compensation for land rights -to be $2,150. The appraisal
found severance damage in the amount of $9,248. The later figure
• is based on actual cost to repair sections of the Cemetery roadway
outside of work limits and for vandalism experienced during the
construction operations. The Corps of Engineers had previously
certified this appraisal firm for the compensation of the land
rights taken. They have not acted to certify the re -appraisal
based on the severance damage sustained during construction.
Staff has been in negotiation with the Cemetery Board and has
reached a conclusion at $13,000 for the rights taken. Staff is
recommending Council approval of this transaction.
Approval to purchase that part of the Rochester Cemetery
Association property shown as Parcels 90 and 162, for construction
of Stage 1-B3, US Army Corps of Engineers flood control project, at
the purchase price of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000).
j3OD�
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
s
N E N O R A N D U N
Real Estate Section
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
TO: Gary Neumann
FROM: Ron Halling-
DATE: November 1, 1991
RE: Negotiated
Settlement
with
Rochester Cemetery
Association
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
- Parcels
90 and
162
I have reached an agreement with Art Swan for the property
acquisition necessary from the Oakwood Cemetery for Stage
1B-3 of the flood control project. The settlement amount is
$13,000. It is allocated to $2,150 for land rights and
$10,850 for damage to the remainder. The City's appraised
value was in the amount of $2,150 for land rights and $9,248
for severance damages, or $11,398.
I have extensively discussed this.matter with you before.
The previous memoradums and other pertainent information are
included for your review.
I recommend that we take this agreement to Council for
approval.
•
CHILD, MAIt'1'1N, FLLMINU S, ASSUCIA'1'LS, INC.
• 5363 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 • TELEPHONE (612) 546.1339
SAAII-SON n c, m P. AIAI. Sm'A
JAAII 5 AI MAIII IN. MAI. SHIN
JANICE AI FLEKIINIl, SEA
CLIFFORO R. JOHNSON. MAI. OF COUNCIL
Real e!f&le Appraiteu
November 30, 1990
Mr. Ronald Halling
Project Coordinator
City of Rochester
1602 - 4th Street S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Supplemental Letter to The
Market Value Appraisal of
The Oakwood Cemetery
Identified as Parcels 990 and #162 of
The Zumbro River Flood Control Project
Dear Mr. Halling:
At your request, I reinspected this cemetery on November 5,
1990 and met with representatives of the Oakwood Cemetery
Association. These representatives voiced two concerns:
1. During construction, a driveway on cemetery
property was used by heavily -loaded trucks
employed in the project, resulting in the
breakup of the two-inch bituminous surface of
the driveway.
2. During the 1990 Halloween period, vandals
gained access through a fence that was tem-
porarily relocated by the condemnor (for the
construction project), tipping over sixty to
seventy gravestones.
It was the assumption of the appraisal of this property,
dated April 30, 1990, that the condemnor would repair or
replace the property owner's site improvements that might be
damaged as a result of the construction by the condemnor;
i.e., bituminous driveway, fence, landscaping, grave markers,
etc. (page 52 of the appraisal).
Since no damage was estimated to the property improvements as
a result of the condemnation, and it is the stated task of
Mr. Ronald Halling
-2-
the condemnor to leave the property
cial state after the acquisition as
sibility of the condemnor to pay to
property improvements resulting from
resultant construction.
November 30, 1990
owner in as good a finan-
before, it is the respon-•
correct any damage to the
the condemnation and
Since on the dates of my inspections for the April appraisal
the driveway (along the south boundary of the cemetery)
appeared to be in good condition, and it was broken up on
November 19 and heavy construction project trucks used this
driveway, it is logical to conclude this damage was done by
the trucks.
The City of Rochester Engineering Department requested a bid
from Rochester Sand and Gravel to patch the driveway, repair-
ing it to the good condition it had prior to the condemna-
tion. This bid was $8.375.00 to patch with two-inch bitumi-
nous surface and, in agreement with provisions of the April
30 appraisal, it is the responsibility of the condemnor to
pay the total cost of this repair.
Since the condemnor temporarily relocated the cemetery secur-
ity fence, it was the condemnor's responsibility to provide
the same security with the temporarily relocated fence as was
had with the fence prior to the condemnation. This was not
the case, since there was damage to the temporary fence which
allowed vandals to enter the cemetery on or about Halloween.
and they tipped over a reported sixty to seventy gravestones.
While there was no reported stone breakage, it was necessary
for the Cemetery Association to employ Anderson's Rochester
Granite and Monument Company to help erect and rejoin the
vandalized memorial stones. Also, the Cemetery Association
had to use four of its men for a period of eight hours each,
working.on the restoration, and their backhoe for eight
hours.
The cost of this work is as follows:
Anderson's Rochester Granite
and Monument Company @ S349.00
Four men at 8 hours each @ $283.84
Cemetery's normal fee for a
backhoe: 8 hours x S30.00/hour @ S240.00
Total cash to correct vandals' damage @ S872.84
Rounded to $873.00
It is the responsibility of the condemnor to pay the total
cost of this repair which would otherwise be.payable as sev-
erance damage.
I
Mr. Ronald Halling
-3-
November 30, 1990
In summary, the condemnor owes the cemetery the following
additional payment to leave the Cemetery Association in as
good financial condition after the condemnation as before:
Driveway repair @ $8,375.00
Gravestone vandalism repair, @ $ 873.00
Total payable @ $9,248.00 '
Amendment to The April 30, 1990 Appraisal and its Value
Estimated for December, 1989
The city has requested that the permanent access easement,
described on pages 40 and 48 of the report, be overlaid with
an added temporary construction easement, because the ceme-
tery is being denied use of this land for the 3.00 years from
the date of acquisition through August 31, 1992. As describ-
ed in the valuation of the other temporary construction ease-
- ' ment in this report (pages 48 and 53), the measurement of the
damage, resulting from this additional temporary construction
easement, is the present worth of 14 percent per annum rent
times the value of the property affected and belonging to the
cemetery discounted to a present worth. The land belonging
to the cemetery, against which this should be applied, is
one-third of its undivided market value, because one-third
was taken by a previous utility easement and one-third will
already have been taken by the permanent access easement in
this report.
Prior to calculating this damage, it should be pointed out
that the 157 square feet of Parcel #90 to be encumbered with
the permanent access easement was considered to be totally
taken by the permanent access easement (page 50), because it
was to be separated from the rest of the cemetery outside the
relocated permanent fence. Therefore, only the 6,765 square
feet of Parcel 0162 should be encumbered with the additional
temporary construction easement, and only the 6,765 square
feet have additional damage because of this easement.
Added damage resulting from the additional temporary easement
has been estimated hereafter:
Total land in additional temporary easement @ 6,765 SF
Times $20,000 per acre @ x $0.459137
Equals total value of temporarily encumbered land @ S3,106.00
Less one-third to utility easement @ (1,035.33)
Less one-third to permanent access easement
of this report @ (1,035.33
Equals land value.share belonging to cemetery @ $1,035.34
Estimated annual rent @ 14% @ S 144.95
Damage Due to This Temporary Easement:
Present worth of S144.95 per annum in
advance for 3.00 years at 9% @ $ 399.93
Rounded to S 400.00
Mr. Ronald Halling
November 30, 1990
Based on this analysis, the property damages and values have
been estimated as follows:
VALUATION ANALYSIS: AFTER THE ACQUISITION AND DAMAGES
The value "after the acquisition" is an amalgam of the value
of interests remaining to the property owner.
1. Land Value
Land value "after the acquisition" is S711,050.00 or
$19,921.83 per acre of the 35.692 acres of remainder land
(1,555,659 square feet "before the acquisition" minus the 931
square feet purchased by the city).
The remainder land value has been calculated based on the
market value estimated in the "before acquisition" analysis
and the estimation of the values of the rights lost due to
the acquisition, as discussed in the section entitled Damages
Resulting From The Acquisition.
This value is composed of the following values:
1,543,974 SF (35.445 AC.) x $20,000/Ac.
3,832 SF (0.088 Ac.) x S17,449/Ac.
6,765 SF (0.155 Ac.) x S 4,000/Ac.
157 SF (0.004 Ac.) x -0-
Total 1,554,728 SF (35.692 Ac.)
x $19,921.83(+)/Acre
S 708,895.00
$ 1,.00
620
S 620.00
a -Q-
S 711,050.00
2. Value of Improvements is based on
a
$2,000,000 market value before the
acquisition, without making any statement
as to whether it is correct (see
discussion in the Plan For The Appraisal
Section)
_
$1,286,800.00
3. Value After The Acquisition
Land Value
@
S 711,050.00
Site Improvements Value
@
$1,286,800.00
Total Value Estimated After
the Acquisition
@
S1,997,850.00
4. Damages
Value Before The Acquisition
@
S2,000,000.00
Less Value After the Acquisition
@
(1,997,850.00)
Damages
@
$ 2,150.00
Mr. Ronald Halling -5- November 30, 1990
Of course the previously estimated $9,248.00 owed the ceme-
tery is in addition to the $2,150.00 damages estimated.
My value estimate is made after a personal inspection of the
property. I have no present or contemplated interest in the
subject property, nor is my fee contingent on reporting a
predetermined value or upon the amount -of value reported.
This appraisal has been made in conformity with the standards
of professional conduct and practice of the American Insti-
tute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of
Realtors and of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers.
Reasonable care has been taken in verifying the factual data
presented in this report. Professional ethics prohibit me
from revealing the conclusions of this report to other per-
sons without your permission. The value conclusion is my
estimate based on accepted real estate appraisal practice.
If you have any questions or comments after reading this
report, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
CHILD, MARTIN, FLEMINC 4 ASSOCIATES, INC.
James M. M rtin, MAI, SRPA
r Appraisekidense #4000192
JMM:jk
ARTHUR R. SWAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE RR OAOWAYHALL
SO
102 SOUTH BROADWAY
ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 55904
•
TELEPHONE 282.7444
AREA CODE 50?
October 3, 1991
Mr. Ron Halling, Right -of -Way Agent
Department of Public Services
1602 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4718
Dear Mr. Halling:
You will recall that the Rochester Cemetery Association (Oakwood Cemetery)
agreed to cooperate with the City in regard to construction of a roadway utilizing
railroad right of way property. It was understood that the cemetery roads would
not be utilized, but in fact, the cemetery roads were used extensively. Originally,
the understanding was that a temporary road would be constructed by those in
charge of the flood control project so cemetery roads were not to be involved.
Actually, the road was not constructed and everyone was using our roads. •
I am enclosing a copy of the letter that you wrote to the Corps after we
had had a meeting with you. Although you wrote this letter, the contractor
continued extensive use of the cemetery roads. Also, Rochester Public Utilities
and the Corps of Engineers had heavy equipment on our roads.
We have obtained a proposal for restoration of the roads from Rochester
Sand and Gravel, which is enclosed.
According to our staff, these were the roads that were used by the
contractor, Rochester Public Utilities, and the Corps of Engineers.
According to our information, some deterioration had been occurring on
these roads prior to the contractor's use. However, it was minimal, and the
use by the heavy equipment accentuated the deterioration. The road deterioration
has caused inconvenience to the users of the cemetery. We recognize that we
have some obligation in this matter because of the prior deterioration, which
according to our staff was minimal.
The total project to fix the roads is $17,607.00.
You have also given us other figures for the permanent easement and fee
that was taken. According to correspondence I have seen, there was a revision
on those figures, plus an amount to be given for vandalism.
We would like confirmation of those figures. We consider that issue a
separate issue, and would like to resolve this issue, so that the whole project
could be determined. Especially, it is imperative to resolve the road issue
as the work should be performed,this fall. Rochester Sand and Gravel personnel
have indicated that to delay repair will cause extensive winter deterioration.
ARTHUR R. SWAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 201, BROADWAY HALL
. 102 SOUTH BROADWAY
ROCMESTER, MINNESOTNNESOTA 55904
TELEPHONE 282-7444
AREA CODE 507
We are perfectly willing to have the City repair the roads with their own
crew and equipment, according to the specifications. However, in an effort to
resolve the road situation, we would feel that a fair settlement by the City
would be the sum of $13,000.00, with the balance to be paid by the Cemetery
Association. Would you please confer with the City Council and let me know as
soon as possible the attitude of the City.
Very truly yours,
j�� '�L'
Arthur R. Swan
Member, Board of Trustees
ARS/egj
Enclosure(s): Copy of your letter dated June 13, 1990
Copy of Proposal for Restoration
0
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL_ ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/18/91
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO..
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC SERVICES
-13
EM DESCRIPTIONAPPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
PREPARED BY:
OF T.H.63 FROM T.H.14 TO MEADOW RUN DRIVE
R. PLUMB&
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has prepared
preliminary layouts for the improvement of T.H.63 from
T.H.14 to Meadow Run Drive. The project includes the
following items:
- Realignment of the frontage road between 14th
Street and the Denny's Restaurant.
- Installation of traffic signals at 14th and 20th
Streets.
- Interconnection of the signals at 9th, 12th, 14th,
16th, 20th, and 28th Streets.
- Closing the centerline medians at Denny's/Cross-
roads Center and 3rd Avenue.
Installing turn lanes for north -bound traffic at
3rd Avenue and 14th Streets.
' G6
Closing the west access at 3rd Avenue (under the
pedestrian overpass) and opening an access at
ha
Meadow Run Drive.
Landscaping the area between T.H.14 and the _:�0"
Olmsted County Fairgrounds.
Preliminary estimates of the costs are: Mn/DOT, $141,000;
City of Rochester, $79,000; and Olmsted County, $26,000.
Mn/DOT held a Public Informational Meeting regarding this
project on November 7, 1991. The current schedule is to let
the contract in March of 1992, with construc ion completed
by August of 1992. .ty
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED*
Adopt the prepared resolutioh ap roving the preliminary
layout for the improvement of T.H.63 identified as Layout
#1, S.P 5509-53(63-59) from 23re Street South to T.H.14.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
�`J�j � tee_ coz�f GC
-�6 — .
e a nR CHESTER
w.-.ulealc.� n O
vi ✓vu
November 13, 1991
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
1602 4th Street S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-4718
(507) 281-6008
FAX #(507) 281-6216
TO: Stevan Kvenvold
FROM: Roger Plumb��
RE: Proposed South Broadway (T.H.63) Improvements
Mn/DOT has prepared preliminary layouts for improvements to
T.H.63 (South Broadway) from T.H.14 (12th Street South) to
Meadow Run Drive. The project includes among other items,
the installation of traffic signals at 14th Street South and
20th Street South, plus closing the centerline medians at
Denny's/Crossroads Center and 3rd Avenue SE. Mn/DOT has
requested, in the attached letter, City and County approval
by mid September. A Public Informational Meeting was held
November 7, 1991. Construction is scheduled for the Summer
of 1992. This Department is in favor of the proposed
improvements since they will markedly improve the safety of
this section of South Broadway.
Prior to City Council review of the preliminary layout for
these improvements we suggest that the proposed changes be
reviewed at a Committee of the Whole meeting.on November 18,
1991. Preliminary cost sharing for this project is
estimated as follows:
Mn/DOT $141,000
City 79,000
County 26,000
Total Estimate $246,000
Attached is a recommended RCA for layout approval of these
proposed improvements for the November 18, 1991 City Council
meeting.
Attachment
LA
•
An E4unl 0pportunity1,Vmati* Rdion apkyn
0
J1rlEso)�
q0 20
L ~
r
OF rvko O
August 30, 1991
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Don MacGillivray
Rochester City Engineer
Department of Public Services
1602 4th Street S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-4718
Dear Mr. MacGillivray:
District 6
North Highway 52, Box 6177
Rochester, Minnesota 55903
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Phone 285-7353
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has begun Preliminary Design for
a project on Trunk Highway (T.H.) 63. The project is located in the South Broadway area
of Rochester, between T.H. 14 and Meadow Run Drive. A Preliminary Geometric Layout
has been prepared and submitted for your approval.
The project includes:
realignment of the frontage road between 14th Street and the Denny's
• restaurant.
• installation of traffic signals at 14th and 20th Streets.
• interconnection of the signals at 9th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 20th and 28th Streets.
• closing the centerline medians at Denny's/Crossroads Center and 3rd Avenue.
• installing turn lanes for north -bound traffic at 3rd Avenue and 14th Streets.
• closing the west access at 3rd Avenue (under the pedestrian overpass) and
opening an access at Meadow Run Drive.
• landscaping the area between T.H. 14 and the Olmsted County Fairgrounds.
Exact costs for the project will not be determined until detail plans are prepared. However,
preliminary estimates of the cost breakdown for the $246,000 project are: $141,000 (57%) -
State of MN; $26,000 (11%) - Olmsted County and $79,000 (32%) - City of Rochester.
The current schedule calls for this project to be let in March of 1992 and construction to be
completed by August 1992. We plan to hold a Public Information Meeting in October to
present this project, but would first like to receive City and County approval.
I am hoping to have initial City and County approval by mid -September so we can begin
preparation for the Public Informational Meeting. If you have any questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely;
Dale A. Grove, P.E.
Project Manager
An Equal Opporfunify Employer
Project Summary • T.H. 63
S.P. 5509-53
• Project Memorandum has been completed and submitted for
C.O. approval.
• A landscape plan has been prepared by Mn/DOT and
approved by both the City of Rochester and Olmsted County.
The cost for plantings is estimated near $17,000. The cost for
the plantings will be split evenly among the three participants.
Mn/DOT also prepared a plan to replace the low, limestone
fence along the fairgrounds. The cost for the fence is about
$35,000 and would have to be carried entirely by the County.
• A Preliminary Geometric Layout has been approved by
Mn/DOT and distributed. The City and County Engineers
have been given copies of this layout and are in the process
of obtaining necessary approvals.
• As soon as the Project Memorandum is approved and the
City & County have agreed to the layout, a Public Information
Hearing will be held (sometime this Summer).
Representatives from the City, County and State will be on
hand to answer any questions the public may have.
• City officials have told us that the median closing at
Denny's/Ground Round has been planned for years and that
the area businesses have been informed of the impending
construction. This project brings their comments to fruition.
• The project cost is $285,000
• The letting date for the project is June 23, 1992.
• The City and County Engineers have been involved Concept,
Informational and Layout Approval Meetings with the State.
• There will be some minor sidewalk realignment between
Denny's and 14th Street. Part of the sidewalk in this area will
be placed between TH 63 and the frontage road. We are also
considering extending the sidewalk to 16th Street on the east
side of TH 63.
• We will to obtain the needed Right -of -Way from the County (in
front of the fairgrounds) for the project. The plan is for the
County to give us the R/W, Mn/DOT to complete the project
then give the R/W back to the County.
A summary of the work to be completed in the area is:
1) Close the median opening on TH 63 in the
Denny's/Ground Round area.
2) Realign the frontage road on the east side of TH 63 in
front of the fairgrounds (to obtain adequate separation
from TH 63).
3) Install signals at 14th and 20th Streets, then interconnect
and coordinate signals at 12th (TH 14), 14th, 16th, 20th
and 28th Streets.
4) Install curb and gutter on 14th Street west of TH 63.
5) Close the median opening on TH 63 at 3rd Avenue.
6) Install at right turn lane at 3rd Avenue for the
northbound TH 63 traffic.
7) Relocate the southbound TH 63 exit (near the pedestrian
overpass) to Meadow Run Drive SW.
I
I
l
( � • r7 "���;7ri%�y�'�}iL7Y�t t�1-i�r1 � S��t �S'a'T. �2�2,y.t' n �w} f�ti;J t f'
+ S•x •'��"J ,r ��!'•�e ri��Jfl't tt?'`
AI
0.� fF�'j Sf��i r� `�`�� ,� ��-1:.�� ,, '• ;c�" .� /`ram �]{5,��'.
1' ,f �Illl�'F �!.,( ;�L � 1�• jr �" / ! 1 F.V �)n� 1.
. l 4 iiYY
, ,." _ . ..:r�•:1f''��:iY�l[.re:�.: •I1iYi1[I •'iA�."��..C.:.,!t: ., .�._,:���.�i lY.:
K'� �'�� f'-tl'=:rr'uT•i
�m
1-1 L
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/18/91
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO
Reports & Recommendationp
Public Service
M DESCRIPTION: Curb & Gutter; Sidewalk, Driveway Approaches
PREPAR BY:
and Watermain in 1st Ave. N.E. 7 1st Street N.E.
Q
Adjacent to Civic Square
A.J. Toddie
This is a feasibility report requested by the Council for the
following local improvement project:
Project No. 9118 - J No. 9211
"Construction of Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk and Driveway
Approaches on 1st Street N.E. and 1st Avenue N.E.
Adjacent to Civic Square plus Watermain in 1st Avenue
N.E. from 2nd Street N.E. to 1st Street N.E. and on 1st
Street N.E. from lst Avenue to 2nd Avenue N.E."
Council Action Requested
If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution (Form 2A could be
adopted ordering this feasibility report followed by a resolution
Form 3A) receiving the feasibility report and ordering a hearing
to be held on December 16, 1991.
Attached: Feasibility Report
Budget and Assessment Schedule
Memo from Water Dept., 11-8-91
Map
(61
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Proj 9118
J No. 9211
Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk, Drive. Approaches
Adj. to Civic Square plus Watermain
in Ist Ave B Ist Street N.E.
m Est.
Cost
M
O
O
(a
I W
2
LN�D�T
3I
NE
W
w
(Vacated )
z
z
Q=
I
*. CIVIC
SO
J RE
^�
V 1
U.
r I CT CT t\IP7 F41
52,020
1
Report on Feasibility of Proposed
Local Improvement Project
Project No. 9118
J No. 9211
Honorable Mayor and Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A letter requesting concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk and
driveway approaches on 1st Avenue N.E. and 1st Street N.E.
adjacent to Civic Square was referred to the Public Service
Department on October 7, 1991 for preparation of the Engineers
Feasibility Report.
Engineers Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its
construction. However, the Water Department recommends,that the
existing 6 inch diameter watermain in 1st Avenue N.E. and the 4
inch diameter watermain in 1st Street N.E. be replaced with new 8
inch diameter watermain. We concur with this request and
recommend that construction of this watermain be included in the
project. The new watermain will assure adequate water for fire
protection and will replace the existing watermain in 1st Street
N.E. which was constructed in 1931 and the watermain in 1st
Avenue which was construction in 1915,
Since the scope of the proposed project has changed from
that petitioned, it will be necessary that this project be
initiated by Council Action and a resolution ordering the project
to be made will require at least a 6/7th vote of the Council.
The project would involve construction of curb and gutter,
sidewalk and driveway approaches on the east side of 1st Avenue
N.E. from 100 feet north of 2nd Street N.E. to 1st Street N.E.
from 100 feet north of 2nd Street N.E. to 1st Street N.E. and on
the north side of 1st Street N.E. from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue
N.W. New 8 inch diameter ductile iron watermain would be
installed in 1st Avenue N.E. from 2nd Street N.E. to 1st Street
N.E. and in 1st Street N.E. from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue N.E.
The estimated costs of this project made without completed
plans, are as follows:
Curb & Gutter $ 6,660
Sidewalk 6,640
Driveway Pavement 2,250
Watermain 25,660
Engineering 4,950
Interest. 2,670
. Contingencies. 3,190
Total $52,020
ti
We recommend that assessments be levied against the abutting
property served in accordance with the City's current assessment
policy.
I. Concrete Curb & Gutter
The assessment rate for curb and gutter is determined by
dividing the total cost of curb and gutter by the assessable
frontage.
Estimated Assessment Rate Total Costs C & G=$11.26/Ft.
Assessable Frontage
II. Sidewalk
The cost of the sidewalk is assessed against the abutting
property at bid cost plus expenses. The estimated cost is
$11.22 for each lineal foot constructed.
III. Driveway Paving
New concrete driveway approaches would be assessed at bid
cost plus expense. The total cost is estimated to be
$3.0.00
per square yards..
IV. Watermain
The assessment policy states that when any subsurface
improvement is ordered, the assessments to be levied will be
prorated from 0 percent at 1/2 life expectancy to 50 percent
of new total construction cost at full life expectancy. The
life expectancy of watermain is 40 years. Since the existing
watermain is in excess of 40 years old, the assessment of
the watermain replacement in 1st Avenue N.E. and 1st Street
N.E. will be based on the assessment of one half of the
replacement cost. The estimated assessable amount of $16,680
is distributed against the abutting property served, in
accordance with the City's assessment policy.
Est. Assessment Rate = 1/2 Total Watermain Cost = $18.93/Ft
Assessable Frontage
The estimated total special assessments for this project is
$35,340. The Water Department's share of the project is $16,680.
Albert J. To die
Assistant City Engineer
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Proj. No. 9118 Date (Orig.) 11-14-91
J No. 9211
Description & Location Curb & Gutter Sidewalk and Driveway Approaches
on 1st Street N.E. & 1st Avenue N.E. Adjacent to Civic Square,
Plus Watermain on 1st Street N.E. and 1st Avenue N.E.
Costs
Construction -
Date:
Curb & Gutter
Sidewalk
Driveway Approaches
Watermain
Right -Of -Way & Easements-
Engineering-
Interest-
Contingency -
Total Construction &
Expense
DISTRIBUTION
To be Presently ASSESSED
Deferred Assessments
State Funds
Federal Funds
Project Budget
6,660
2.250
25,660
01
4,950
2,670
3,190
52,020
35,340
City Funds water DePt. 16,680
Total
$52,020
Fina
Contract Cost
Make Initial Disbursements from P.I.R. Fund
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES •
- Water Division -
MEMO
DATE: November 8, 1991
TO: Al Toddie, Public Services Department
FROM: Doug Rovang�'`t
SUBJECT: Proposed Civic Square Curb & Gutter Replacement Project
As discussed during our phone conversation earlier today, we recommend the installation
of 8" water main to replace existing 6" watermain in 1 Ave. NE from 1 St. to 2 St. NE and
existing 4 water main in 1 St. NE from 1 Ave. to 2 Ave. NE. This option will allow the
retirement of the existing 6" watermain in 2 St. NE from 1 Ave. to 2 Ave. NE. Our
understanding is that this project will proceed as a normal City assessment project in
conjunction with the curb and gutter replacement related to the Civic Square Townhouse
development.
A change order to Project 6003-85, J2214 will need to be issued to delete approximate 193'
of watermain scheduled for replacement in 2 St. NE from 1 Ave. to 2 Ave. NE.
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold Wobschall. As noted during our
conversation, I will be on vacation during the next two weeks.
c: Bob Pawelski
Harold Wobschall
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/18/91
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Reports and Recommendations
Public Service/Traffic
(EM DESCRIPTION:
PREP
Award of Bids/Operation of
ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
A.J. Kn
Bids were opened on November 12, 1991 for the operation of ZIPS
Dial-A-Ride.for the period 1992 through 1993. The contract also
provides an option for an additional two years at a negotiated
rate. Following is a summary of bids received.
Per Vehicle Estimated Amount
Hour Over CY92-93
Rochester School Bus $20.32 $395,345.92
(Existing ZIPS Operator)
'* Rochester Transportation
Systems $20.30 $394,956.80
(Yellow Taxi, CareVan)
* Low bid.
DISCUSSION
Efforts were made to contact a number of prospective bidders. In
addition to the local advertisement letters were sent to 30
vendors of which 9 were sent specifications and bid documents.
After the bid opening two firms were contacted about reasons for
not bidding. One firm indicated that the 10% bid bond was an
impediment. The other firm (a national one) indicated that
without existing garages and other operations to assume some of
the overhead they could not compete with locals.
There is some concern over the small difference between the two
bids. (At 2 cents per vehicle hour this computes to a difference
of $389.12 over the two year life of the contract). The cost to
the City in administrating the transition between operations will
probably exceed any savings. From our observation both bidders
are experienced and capable. We do note some differences in
procedures such as automated versus hand washing of vehicles
and computerized maintenance records. The existing operator also
has experience with the still fairly new ZIPS buses. The bids
were discussed with legal counsel and the U.S. D.O.T. both of
which had the same response that a sealed bid should be awarded
to the low bidder unless there is a question as to their ability
to carry out the contract.
MOIL
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Page - 2 -
Award of Bids/Operation of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
RECOMMENDATIONS
This item will be presented to the Citizens Advisory on Transit
at their 11/18/91 meeting. Staff is recommending to proceed with
award of the contract to RTS, Inc. as low bidder. The budgeted
rate for 1992 is $20.32 per vehicle hour. The rate is comparable
to other cities.
Attached is a summary of ZIPS rates and operators since the
programs beginning.
REQUEST COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution awarding the 1992-93 contract for
operation of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride to Rochester Transportation
Systems, Inc. and authorizing the execution of such contracts by
the Mayor.
W7ST09170
ZIrS
TREnDy:
ACUnLY RATES
MER
VEHICLE
HGUR)
��CHL�TE�,
MI!�NE3OTA
YEAR
TYPE
C.ONTRACT
OPERATOR
RATE
1978
NEGOTIATED
RCL
ACTUAL
1979
GID
RSB
12.95
�980
NEGOTIATED
RSP,
16.1�
1981
BID
RTS
12.95
1952
NEGOTIATED
RT-.:;
16.86
1983
NEGOTIATED
RTS
14.95
NEW
BUSES
DELIVERED
IN
JANUARY,
1993
1984
EXTENDEO
RTS
14^95
'
1985
EXTENDED
KS
14^95
1986
NEGOTIATED
RTS
16.45
1987
BID
RED
16.95
1988
EXTENDED
RSB
16.95
989
EXTENPED
8
RS6.95
1
NEW
BUSES
:EL�VERED
��
IN
OCTOBER,
1989
`~1990
E3TENO71)
R38
16.95
1991
NEG07TATED
RSB
20.32
IMPLEMENTED
MININUM WAGE
SCALE
FOR
DRIVERS
1992-03
BID
?
RCL=RUCHE9TER CITY LINES
RSB=ROCHESTER SCHOOL D03
RTS=PCCHE3TER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT10N
a�°�11/ls/91
Y�
4
4
AGENDA SECTION:
COGMTM DEPr:
fiat NO.
REPORTS
Water Reclamation Plant��-r(�
�pAND
yyRECOMMENDATIONS
RED DG.JI�. RFTM\:
KEPAFED BY:
Solids Handling Improvements at WRP-Contract Modification No. 4
M. Skodje
Attached is Change Order No. 4 from Bor-Son Constructions, Inc. for the
Solids Handling Improvements.at the Water Reclamation Plant. The change
order is for an additional $23,349.00. The following is a summary of the
contract modifications: -
1. Contract Modification No. 1 - Add $ 94,627.00
Contract Modification No. 2 - Add 40,955.00
Contract Modification No. 3 - Add 5,905.00
Contract Modification No. 4 - Add 23,349.00
Total Contract Modifications - Add 164,836.00
Original Contract Amount 14,320,000.00
Revised Contract Amount $14,484,836.00
2. A time extension of 9 days was part of Contract Modification
No. 1. The revised contract completion date is December 8, 1992.
Contract Modification No. 4 includes 17 separate items. Some items
increase, some decrease and others have no change to.the contract amount.
This fourth contract amendment brings the total increased amount to only
1.15 percent of the original contract. The project fund included a
5 percent contingency amount and the project is on schedule for completion
by Fall of 1992.
Reasons for the changes include building code requirements and omissions
in the original contract documents.
Approval of Change Order No. 4 is recommended.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Contract Modification No. 4 which increases the contract amount
by $23,349.00.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mown by: S9=4 by: 10:
CONTRACT MODIFICATION 114
ROCHESTER-SOLIDS HANDLING IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO: GL026124.R2
PAGE 1 of 5
DK�IL: U:tocer 29. 1991
CONTRACT MODIFICHTIUM NGI.: 4
WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE NO.(s) As noted
OWNER: City of Rochester. MN
PROJECT NAME: Solids Handling Improvements
PROJECT NO.: GL026124.R2
CONTRACTOR: Hor-Son Construction, in(.-.
THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO 111E C(JNIRACr mu. IITRLBY URDERED:
ITEM TIME EXT_N AMOUNT •
A.
HPU Starters
None
$7,1346.00
U.
Thickener DH & CVS Circuits
None
Now,
C.
Circuit Revisions
Nune
None
D.
MCC-6, Water Line
None
961.00
E.
Stair Enclosure Revision
None
11S:00
F.
MCC-20 Feeders
None
Ci,fTU5.00
G.
Thru-Wall (lashing
None
H.
Tank 'Testing
None
(1,,000.00)
1.
Door 30-1018
None
3,230.00
J.
Electrical Items
None
2,062.00
K.
Door 30-IOIB
None
5,)8.00
L.
Digester No.4 DS/DRAIN Valve
Nunes
1,001.00
M.
Thickener OA Duct
None
.1,100.00
N.
PJF for SS6 Duct, footing
None
116.00
O.
LAP-G Cable tray
Nonc
None
P.
Polypropylene, 2" CSS/SA Line
None,
Nonc.
O.
Pump Anchor Dolts
Nc-gir
- Nune•,-__
Totals
None
$23,3M19_OC)
0
0
CONTRACT MODIFICATION #4
ROCHES TER -SOLIDS HANDLING IMPROVEMENT!;
PROJECT NO. GLO26124.R2
PAGE 2 of 5
CONTRACT AMOUNT I
CONTRACT TIME. (Calculate Days)
ORIGINAL AMOUNT
$14,320.000.00
OkP31NAL I!URATIUN
87:3 nays
PREVIOUS CONTRACT
$ 141.,487.00
PREVIOUS CONTRACT
+9 Days
MODIFI-
MODIFI-
CATIONS (ADD/DEDUC'1')
CATIONS (ADD/DEDUCT)
THIS CONTRACT
$ 23,349.00
THIS C0N'TI2.4t:'T M(_QjlFI-
None Days
MODIFI-
CATION(AliD/DEDUCT)
CATION(ADD/DEDUCT)
REVISED CONTRACT
$14,464,836.00
REVISED CoNTRAC"T TIME
882 Days
AMOUNT
REVISLI, !:37NTT�Ai'T c:t:+P;Fi.E'fIt7f1 TIME IC:
December 11, .1992
fhe above changes to the Contract are accepted and a..<`•.or:zeu.
OWNER
CON1l4W:IUR
BY: Mayor
BY:
BY: City Clerk
Bor-Sian C'on=.tructi.-n, inc.
DATE:
DA I E.:
COPIES: CH2M Hill/GLO
CH2M Hill/GLO
0
CONTRACT MODIFICATION q4
RUCHESTER-SOLIDS HANDLING I MPROW IlL'N 1 S
PROJECT NO: GU726124.R2
PAGE 3 of 5
DESCRIP 1*10N OF MUDIFICA I IONS
A. Add starters for the Hydraulic. Power Units and add circuits for
overhead doors in the Thickening Building as clrrsc.r abvd by Request.
for Quotation No. 33, revised May 9, 1991.
Increase Contract Price $7,1346.00
No Change in Contract Time
B. Provide starters and circuit breakers for the Dehumidifier and Central
Vacuum System, and other related work, as dvsc.rabed by Hequest for
Quotation No. 34, dated May 9, 1991.
No change in Contract Price
No change in Contract Time
C. Revise electrical circuits as described in RequrrsA for Chatrtat ion No.
36, dated June 5, 1991, amended June IFI, 1991, Jt.oly 3, 1991, ,rnd
August 13, 1991. is
No change in Contract Prico
No change in Contract Tire
D. Relocate a water line to allow expanding MCC-6 ati described in Request
for Quotation No. 38, dated May 24, 1991.
Increase Contract Price $967.00
No change in Contract Time
E. Revise plans for the CML1 Wall Stair Enclosure of the existing Digester
Control Building as described in Request. for Cluot at ion No. 39, d.al ed
June 14, 1991..
Increase Contract Pr ice $113.00
No change in Contract Time
F. Increase the feeder capacity f.o MCC-20 as de••sc ralnrd yr Prinr Approval
No. CMIR 40, dated June 17, 1991.
Increase Contract Price $S,OO i.00
No change in Contract r ime
G. Furnish and install through wall flashing for r•xtrr.ror walls of the
Thickening Building as described by Request fur t7cwt,atrnn No. 41, dated.
June 1B, 1991.
Increase Control Price $2,751.00
No change in Contract Time
E
CONTRACT MODIFICATION N4
ROCHESTER-SOLIDS HANDIJNG IMF770t4c Mf N ffi
PROJECT NO. GLO26I24.R2
PAGE 4 of 5
H. Delete acoustical testing of Fil)erglaas liernfori.vil I'l.rca rc ranks as
described by the June 17, 1991 letter from bar-Scrn Crin'A.rllction, Inc.
Decrease Contract Price $6,000.00
No change in Contract Time
I. Revise the head detail for Door 30-10114 in the Thnckenu+y building per
Request for Quotation No. 43, as amended by the August 7, 1991 letter
from CH2M Hill.
Increase Contract Price $3,230.00
No change in Contract Time
J. Revise electrical items, Panel Schedule L-19, and Hot'Water Cleaning
System controls, as described in Request for Ouul at irrn No. 44, dated
June 28, 1991.
• Increase Contract Price $2,1362.00
No change in Contract Time
K. Change the height of Door 30-104B as agreed upon by Pnnr Approval
No.CMIR 47, dated July 26, 1991.
Increase Contract Price $558.00
No change in Contract Time
L. Provide a valve in the existing Digester 4 DsmunlN Line as described in
Request for Quotation No. 51.
Increase Contract Price $1,001.00
No change in Contract Time
M. Change the elevation of the Odorous Air Duct in the Thickening Bnildinq
as outlined by Item 3 of Field Order No. 74, per thr..hily 23, 1991 letter
from CH2M Hill.
Increase Contract Price $4,100.00
No change in Contract Time
N_ Install pre -molded joint filler around the OA rh.icL at the Sludcle
Storage Basin foundation per Field Order No. 25, dated April A, 1991.
• Increase Contract Price $116.00
No change in Contract Time
O. Revise cable trays in the Thickening Building Control Room as de•scrihed
by Field Order No. 32, dated May 1, 1991.
No change in Contract Price
No change in Contract T imp
CONTRACT MODIFICATION #4
ROCHESTER-SOLIDS HANDLING IMPR012MPNl.S
PROJECT NO: GLO26124.R7
PAGE 5 of 5
P. Use polypropylene pipe at the termination of the, 'l." (.;SS/'.;A line in the
Primary Clarifier Ef fluent Channel, per F= field Dr der No. 6F,, dat tad
August 9, 1991.
No change in Contract Price
No change in Contract Time
O. Use stainless steel all -thread rod for sr: ttuv3 Lurtain pump!, on
concrete pads, per Field Order No. 37, dated August. 14, 1991.
No change in Contract Price
No change in Contract Time
s
46
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11L18Lg1
AGENDA SECTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDIM]CFS
=M DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDEQNCES
F. 1. FIRST READING OF OR
/2-( Fr 8"
r3=3f
ORIGINATING DEPT:
, as appropriate.
ITEM N0,
F
PREPARED BY:
TL.A
F. 2. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
t) ordinance Amending Subdivisions 4 and 5 of Section 50.02 of
the Rochester Code of Ordinances Relating to Building Permit
Fees.
b) ordinance Amending Chapter 103 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances, Relating to the Sale and Dispensing of Cigarettes
Within the City of Rochester.
(d) Ordinance Establishing a Planned Unit Development PUD-R-102 in
a part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 23, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County,
Minnesota.
(e) ordinance Establishing a Planned Unit Development PUD-R-16 in
parts of Block 22, Northern Addition, Rochester, Minnesota.
F. 3. MISCELLANEOUS.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
McGhie Betts, Inc.
Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors
Planners
1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919
November 15, 1991
City Council
c/o Steve Kvenvold
Room 212, City Hall
Rochester, MN 55902
RE: Salem Sound Third P.U.D
On behalf our client, Mr. Lowell Penz, we are requesting that the Council
waive the remainder of the 25 day period between the first and second readings
for the planned unit development for Salem Sound Third. Having the second
reading at the November 18, 1991, meeting would allow Mr. Penz to finish the
underground construction before the ground freezes.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
McGHIE & BETTS, INC.
Michael J. Nigbur
Planner
MJN/dw
CJ
K. M. McGhie, P.E.. R.L.S. t 904-1975 William E. Tointon, C.E.T. President James E. Swanson, R.L.S. Vice President David L. Morrill. P E. Vice President
Douglas N. Betts, P.E.. P.L.S. Vice President Allan J. King, P.E. Nancy Amiot Klema. P.E. Larry J. Shannon, R.L.S.
Andrew R. Kehren, P.E. Mark E. Sevenson. A L.S. Michael E. Gowin, P.E., A L.S. Jeffrey S. Broberg, Geologist
An Equal Opportunity Employer
REQUEST FO,R, COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE'.
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
rA,e)LE'E) ( �- M City Clerk
EM DESCRIPTION:
On -Sale Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - Adjouri's
John Michael Adjorui, owner of Dixie Barbeque, Incorporated, is
requesting approval of his application for an On -Sale Non -
Intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 beer) for his new
restaurant..The restaurant, to be known as Adjouri's, will be
located in the old Northwest Foods site, 3918 18th Avenue N.W.
Anticipated opening of the facility is November 14.
Approval of the license is pending departmental approvals.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or deny the application for an On -Sale
Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Dixie Barbeque,
Incorporated DBA Adjouri's at 3918 18th Avenue N.W. pending
departmental approvals.
L ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:
to:
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
TO: Gary Neumann, Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Terry A. Spaeth, Planner
DATE: November 12, 1991
RE: Adjouri's 6 Village Wok Liquor License Update
po.G.r/u•eq
pun ,n•�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC
507/285-8345
I am writing to update you on the status of the liquor license requests
being made by Adjouri's and the Village Wok Restaurants.
Our office has signed off on the non -intoxicating malt beverage license
for Adjouri's Restaurant. At this time, we have not issued a zoning
certificate for the change of occupancy from the grocery store to the
restaurant. I spoke recently with John Adjouri and he stated that he
would be submitting plans for review by the Building 6 Safety Department
and our office. He had provided a draft copy for me to review, and based
upon that plan, our office would be able to issue the zoning certificate
since it would appear that the applicable zoning requirements would be met.
The Village Wok is moving into the Cedarwood Mall. That property is
zoned as a PUD. When the original PUD was approved by the Council in 1977,
there was a list of uses that would be permitted within the commercial
portion of the PUD. The list makes no mention of establishments serving
liquor. I have noted on the pending wine and non -intoxicating malt
beverage license applications that these would not be_permitted under the
provisions of the existing PUD. If the applicant is interested in serving
liquor in this establishment, the proper way in which to address this
would be through an amendment to the PUD. As you may recall, when All Star
Billiards moved into the Cedarwood Mall this issue was brought up, and
as I recall there was considerable opposition to the possibility of
serving liquor on the property.
If you have any further questions on these items please feel free to
contact me.
cc: Ron Livingston
0
0
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
ROCHESTER -- O L N S T E D
DEPART MENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
TO: Gary Neumann sue_
FROM: Ron Livingston, Planning supervisor r /7-
DATE: Nov. 15,1991
RE: Restaurants in B-1 Districts
You have requested clarification concerning how the Land Development Manual
will effect establishments that serve food and also serve intoxicating
beverages. I have enclosed a copy of the LDM provisions which address this
subject.
As you can see, the B-1 Use Table permits restaurants as a Type I or permitted
use. A standard restaurant is described in para. 62.143, subparagraph 14.
This description provides for a restaurant to be allowed to serve food and
beverages. The LDM does not distinguish between what beverage type may be
served, the beverage could be intoxicating or non -intoxicating liquors.
The LDM differs from the present Zoning Code in that restaurants in a B-lb
District are not permitted to serve "alcoholic beverages". By an opinion of
several years ago, this prohibition does not extend to 3.2 beer and wine.
The result is that many restaurants in the present B-lb District do have 3.2
and wine licenses.
The LDM would then permit the serving of what I will refer to as "hard
liquor". The question that arises is; would a restaurant in a B-1 District be
permitted to serve hard liquor as part of its menu? The LDM would answer this
question positively.
An area which the Council may want to explore is; what are the Council's
limitations or what discretion does the Council have in issuing liquor
licences? Does the Council's discretion go beyond that of whether or not the
serving of liquor is permitted within the zoning district wherein the facility
is located?
If you have further questions or I can be of further assistance pleas give me
a call.
E
NO1+ 13_9y F R 1
14243
EE
y
i
if
i
a.xyA 8 R 7
#
R
3
.•-• e � aI
R
Y
r
p
0 8
mm mm m m maps
P, 93i4
ti
W
N
u �
n�
9
a
u �
N
a
7
�
y
G
T
O +
A
Z
A
-a
o
a=
>
= r
y
C�
� J
A
�
P
a
5 i
2 A v o I 6
777iii a
�^ > u NI N N -i'° w N �a�ia° r. • L' R Y � '�• S y. a � +e �' �'0 oil
$„°• i
� m ' K � �' S$ � S �• 4 q �, g e g a � T
t n r a o
Tm Tm �� QQ��Ru "• 6a �2
� Y
e< <_ _I < _� • 5 5 _ s r » i 8 y _ : W a
C w a ?IT � a
x! $ 8 IC � � �qff > q • � � �
n L� � S a w G Sr • > •'� � '� � J 7 $ oy � o a '; � > 4 g a •+ d S � 3
J
repair and maintenance of automobiles and light trucks. Self
service, automated or full service car washes as a principal use
of property are included in this.
13) Fast Food Restaurant: An establishment whose principal
business is the sale of food and/or beverages in a ready to
consume state for consumption 1) within the restaurant
building, 2) within 'a motor vehicle parked on the premises, or
3) off the premises as a carry out order, and whose principal
method of operation involves serving food and/or beverages in
edible containers or in paper, plastic or other disposable
containers.
14) Standard Restaurant: An establishment whose principal
business is the sale of food and/or beverage to customers in a
ready to consume state, and whose principal method of operation
includes one or both of the following characteristics: 1)
customers, normally provided with an individual menu, are served
their food and beverage by restaurant employees at the same table
or counter at which the food and/or beverage are consumed, 2) a
cafeteria type operation where food and beverage generally are
consumed within the restaurant building.
15) Transportation Services; Establishments furnishing services
related to the arrangement of persons and goods movements, such as
freight forwarding, parking- services, or the rental/leasing of
automobiles or two axle. trucks.
62.144 Merchandising Uses: The following -Is a list and' description of the
merchandising use categories:
1) Retail Trade: Establishments engaged in selling goods or
merchandise to the general public for personal or household
consumption and rendering services incidental. to the sale of such
goods. These establishments are characterized by the following:
1) they buy and receive as well as sell merchandise; 2) they may
process some products, but such processing: is, incidental' or
subordinate to the selling activities; and 3) they predominantly
sell to customers for their own personal or household use.
2) Convenience Retail: Establishments engaged in the retailing of
goods normally purchasedand utilized by persons during the course
of a typical. week, located. primarily for the convenience of
residents in the area, and including.tha sale of automotive fuels.
3) Sales and Storage Lots: Establishments engaged in the display for
sale or lease of automobiles, trucks, farm machinery, recreational
vehicles and manufactured homes, including auto dealerships or the
commercial storage of privately owned trailers, boats, campers or
similar vehicle.
4) Wholesaling: . Establishments engaged primarily in selling
merchandise to retailers, or to industrial, commercial,
institutional. or professional business customers, or to other
wholesalers, or on a mail order basis to. individuals or firms, or
- 98 - May 9, 1991
/-Dryl ZIIA)tA)" WAR
311-4 %
R
OA
R
via
=-a
As Aws
ARK
a
PAME
R-1
r
r7
L -j
lu
0
E
Cate 2zcu: zd /c! -3G
Receipt '.'wbet 2YyL;
Amount Paid -diA/Al N
CITY OF ROCiiESTER, MINNESOTA
Application For Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License
✓ On -Sale Covering the Period of: y )&y- /4 1 19 _jL_
Off -Sale through March 31, 19 -%
Name of Applicant/
Corporation
Address of Applicant/
Corporation �9/R / f4k,, N0
Social Security Business Identification
Number j/%% *V %//�� Number //^ /�SxSAG
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
all members of the partnership.
1. Name under which applicant will be doing business (name of restaurant, hotel,
club, etc.) nn
Name 1T 1 YQ S
Business
Address
Ek
Telephone !701 0&01
Z. Type of Applicant (check one):
Individual Partnership
Corporation Other
ADJOURI'S RESTAURANT
3918 18th Avenue N.W.
located in B-lb district
3.2 beer and wine permitted
no alcohol (stronger than wine or 3.2 beer permitted) -
therefore, no on -sale intoxicating liquor license can
be issued
contact Terry Spaeth at Planning - might be possible to
apply for variance to permit such alcohol sales.
anticipated opening November 14, 1991
on -sale beer license before Council on November 4, 1991
0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I,_rR_qr /
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
'1-�Ta(ecTgMS ublic Servcies
ITEM� N0.
V-2
;.EMDESCRIPTION:
Award Bids for Demolition of Houses at
1017 and 1027 West Center St. (J-2068)
Y:
D MacGiray
Bids were received at 11:00 A.M. on October 22, 1991 by the City
Clerk for the following project:
"Removal of Building "A" located at 1017 West Center Street
and Removal of Building "B" located at 1027 West Center
Street, Rochester, MN."
The following bids were received:
Building "A" Building "B"
.. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 8,748.00 (low) $16,108.00 (low)
Elcor Construction $13,881.00 $24,575.00
Doyle Conner $13,980.00 $32,845.00
It is anticipated that Mr. Ryan, the owner of the properties, may '
request that he be permitted to rehab Building "A" and demolish
"B"
Council Action Requested
1. Award bids to Rochester Sand & Gravel.
or
2. Defer consideration of award to Nov. 18, 1991.
or
3. Reject bids in favor of an agreement with Mr. Ryan.
� 1017 Cd . G -�✓
o—
L7c./
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FnR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING If-1_cI
DATE —
SECTION:
11-FM 5
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Planning Department
1
EM DESCRIPTION: Vacation 111J.-15 by T7estern Walls to vacate a five foot
utility easement along the west side of Lot 8, Block 3, Cimarron Fourteenth
ITEM NO.
(:;,-3
PREPARED BY:
Jane Kansier
October 3, 1991
Petitioner:
Western Walls, Inc.
Julie A. Leisen, Secretary
602 llth Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Requested Action:
Vacation of a portion of the 5' wide utility
lot line
easement located along the western
of Lot 8, Block 3, Cimarron Fourteenth.
Reason for Petition:
According to the petition, this area is
necessary to build a detached garage.
Referral Comments:
There is an electrical line located in a
Peoples
portion of this easement. However,
Cooperative has no objection to this
vacation. No other objections have been
received from any of the referral agencies
contacted.
p]annin¢ Department Recommendation:
The staff recommends the Council schedule this vacation petition for
public hearing at the first available date on November 4, 1991.
The petitioner is requesting this vacation in order to build a detached
garage on this property. This lot was platted in 1991, and presently,
there is no building on this site. It is possible that a house and
garage could be constructed on this property without vacating the
easement. The.utility companies, however, have no objection to this
request so the easement can be vacated.
If this easement is to be vacated, the petitioner should
d�bpeerequired to
provide a legal description of the area to be vacated.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed it should instruct t,e City
Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date on this
/y/ matter in accord with the provisions of the City C�;sF.•
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by: to:
TO: Gary Neumann, Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Jane A. Kane ier, Planner /
DATE: November 14, 1991 U —
RE: Vacation Petition #91-15 by Western Walls, Inc.
ppCNLSTCR.�„N
ROCHESTEA-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELLISEPTIC 5071285-8345
As you know, the Council tabled action on the above petition until
November 18, 1991. I spoke with Julie Leisen of Western Walls, Inc., and
she indicated that there is no longer any need to vacate this easement.
They have sold the lot and taken a permit out for a house which will not
encroach into the easement.
In light of this information, it is not necessary to take any action on 10
this petition. Julie indicated that she would send a letter officially
withdrawing the request.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
0
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER