The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/07/1995_Regular2D kle 95-1? q4' � . CITY OF ROCHESTER Cf.J b • COUNCIL AGENDA Y MEETING NO. 33 AUGUST 7, 1995 REGULAR 7:00 P.M. A) CALL TO ORDER B) HEARINGS PAGE (1-2) 1) Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 9-1995 (3-4) 2) Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 8-1995 (5-8) 3) Vacation'.Petition by Dale Ragan to: Vacate the Utility Easements Dedicated on Lot 1, Block 3, Fifth Street Sub. (9-14) 4) Street Resurfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter on 41st Street NW from 35th Avenue NW to Summit Square (15-22) Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Riverside Lane NE, Erin Lane 2 NE, and 27th-Street NE all in the Riverview Subdivision 'Sewer 0 6) Sanitary &.Watermain in 23rd Ave SW from 4th St SW to Gates Dr, in 5th St SW from 500 Ft East to 650 Ft West of 23rd Ave SW & in Gates Dr SW from 23rd Ave SW to 200 Ft West (31-40) 7) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by the Payne Co./15.72 Acres of Vacant Land in Sections 19 and 30, Haverhill Township (41-52) 8) Zone Change Request by the Payne Company from the R-1 District •to (53-72) 9) the R-2 District and the B-1 District General Development Plan for the Mike Younge Property (73-80) 10) Vacation Petition by Frank Kottschade/Portion of the Right -of - Way for 37th Street NW at the Entrance to the Target Store (81-98) 11) Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) to be Known as FoxCroft East First Subdivision .(99-112) 12) Conditional Use Permit by the Rochester Park and Recreation Dept. to Develop a Playground within the Silver Creek Floodway (113-122) 13) Text Amendment to Define "Above" and "Below" Grade Swimming Pools (123-124) C) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (125-128) 2) Request for Funding/Multi-Cultural Back to School Picnic (129-132) 3) Change No. 4 - City Hall (133-136) 4) ,Order Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (137-138) 5) Sound Amplification Permit - Multi -Cultural Back to School Picnic (139-140) 6) Sound Amplification Permit - Mayo Medical Center (141-142) 7) Sound Amplification Permit - AFL-CIO Southeast Center Labor Council (143-146) 8) Appeals Board Appointment for RCO 112.09 - Door -to -Door Salespersons (147-148) 9) Approval of Accounts Payable (149-152) 10) Authorizing Revocable License Agreement for Postage Vending • (153-156) 11) Request to Approve Signatures for CPV Program Council Agenda August 4, 1995 page two (157-158) 12) Authorization of Signatory for Group Insurance Plan Amendments (159-160) 13) Appointment - Police Officer - Police Department (161-164) 14) Appointment/Police Officer/Police Department (165-170) 15) Vacation Petition by Lowell Penz to Vacate a Portion of the Right -of -Way for 36th Street SW and the Adjacent Utilities (171-174) 16) Vacation Petition by Clean Ideas, Inc., to Vacate a Portion of the 10' Easement Lying Southerly of the North Line of Lots 6 & 7 Hartman Square (175-176) 17) Request to Set Hearing for 'Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Anthony and JoAnn Bianco at 2520 Institute Road SW (177-178) 18) Request to Set Hearing for Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Timothy Buechler at 2009 Eastwood Road SE (179-180) 19) Request for Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the South Side of T.H. 14 East, 3850 Hwy 14 East (181-182) 20) Advertise for Bids/Bituminous Walkway on South Side of 41st Street NW, West Frontage Road T.H. 52 to 31st Avenue NW (183-184) 21) Feasibility Report/Extension of Watermain in 23rd Avenue SW from South Pointe 2nd Sub., Easterly Across T.H. 63 to Serve Machinery Hill Sub. (185-186) 0 Proposal by McGhi�,&y$ a,/ 141 ,tart' Sewer and Watermain to J Gates Drive SW j Y YMCA w (187-188) 23) Advertise for Bids/llth Avenue NE Bridge Deck Replacement (189-190) 24) Consideration of Special Assessment Abatement Requests •(191-192) 25) Advertise for Bids for Electronic Parking Meters (193-194) 26) Parking Request for Drivers License Testi (195-196) D) LETTERS AND PETITIONS E) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (197-208) 1) City Administrator - Request for Revocable Permit/Ted Erickson Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 (209-210) 2) City Administrator - Amendment to Yaggy Colby 3rd Street Streetscape Design Contract (211-212) 3) City Administrator Bandel Hills Development Assistance Agreement (213-230) 4) Public Utilities - Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (231-232) 5) Charter Commission - Request for Public Hearing on Amendment by Ordinance of Charter Board Sections (233-234) 6) City Clerk - Renewal of On -Sale Liquor Licenses (235-240) 7) Park & Recreatation - Revised .Parkland Dedication for Waterford Development (241-242) 8) Public Works - Bids/Grading and Surfacing on Silver Creek Rd from Quarry Hill Park to East Circle Drive (243-244) 9) Public Works - Supplemental Agreement Plus Assessment Agreements for 4th Street SE Reconstruction (245-246) 10) Public Works - Bids/Concrete Replacement on 2nd Street SE . from 1st Avenue SE to Civic Center Drive Council Agenda August 7, 1995 page three (247-248) 11) (249-250) 12) (251-252) 13) (253-254) 14) (255-256) 15) (257-260) 16) (261-262) 17) (263-264) 18) Public Works - Bids/Construct 1st Street NW from 19th Avenue NW to the West Ending in a Cul-De-Sac Public Works - Bids/Construct Sanitary Sewer in 2nd Street SW from 14th Avenue SW to 16th Avenue SW Public Works - Bids/Overlay Bridge Deck on 14th Street NW over Cascade Creek Public Works - Bids/Watermain through Future Gerlach Subdivision Public Works - Assessment Agreement for 3850 Highway 14 East Public Works - Parking Restriction/4th Avenue SW/1800 & 1900 Blocks Public Works - Bids/Walkway Project No. 5-1995 Public Works - Bids/Handicap Ramp Project No. 6-1995 (265-266) F) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES G) TABLED ITEMS (267-292) 1) Proposed Personnel Policy on Political Activity by City Employees H) OTHER BUSINESS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. HEARINGS Public Works 8 -' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 9-1995 J-9355 PREPARED BY - Mike Cox This is a hearing to consider the following improvement project : Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 9-1995 J-9355 Replacement of Sidewalks in the Country Club Manor Area If the Council wishes to proceed , a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made., Since the project was initiated by Council Action a 6/7th vote is required for adoption. If the project is made, adopt the resolution ordering bids to be received after 11:00 AM, August 16, 1995. Council to consider bids on August 21, 1995. Attached: Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second 3r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 080795 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. HEARINGS. Public Works E> ITEM DESCRIPTION: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 8-1995 J-9354 I'KtrAKcu orb Mike Cox f This is a hearing to consider the following improvement project: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 8-1995 J-9354 Replacement of Sidewalks in the Elton Hills Area This is a Council initiated project. If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was initiated by Council Action a 6/7th vote is required for adoption. If the project is made adopt the resolution ordering bids to be received after 11:00 AM, August 16, 1995. Council to consider bids on August 21, 1995. 0 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING S DATE: Auttust 7.1995 613 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ON: Vacation Petition #95-11 by Dale Ragan to Vacate the Utility Easements PREPARED BY Dedicated on Lot 1, Block 3, Fifth Street Subdivision Jane Kansier. July 26, 1995 Planninrr Department Review: Petitioner: Dale Ragan 4204 Countrywood Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: This property is located on the north side of Civic Center Drive NW and south of the railroad tracks, between 4th Avenue NW and 5th Avenue NW. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 3, Fifth Street Subdivision. Requested Action: Vacate all of the public utilities platted within this lot. Reason for Request: The existing public utilities do not cover the existing utility lines on this property. RPU proposes to vacate the existing easements and dedicate a new easement for these lines. Referral Agency Comments: Comments from the Rochester Public Works Department, the RPU Power Division, the RPU Water Division and MN DOT are attached. No other comments or objections have been received. Planning Department Recommendation: There does not appear to be a public need for the existing easements. A new easement description has been prepared to cover the inplace utilities. The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request subject to the condition that the new utility easements are recorded along with the resolution vacating the existing easements. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attom y to prepare a resoluti on vacating the 'lily Attachments:14 1. Location Map r 2. Copy of Petition . COUNCIL ACTION: Mono, by: $eCOnd b1' EASE.AENT VACA -JON E, r DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT SEE ATTACHED: SCALE 1- = 40' i-th A\-ENUE N.'N. S 01'44'07' E 86.83 L rO to OCIV r w � � 1 C rt� 4 f rro 3 i a 0 _ I 115.01 nV N 01*16*31" w kr. can. tar t 5th AVENUE N.111i. P, Fw: DAIS RAOAN - RocRESTM W3NNZ=A 53001 L J L.! 4a• I Ll kLL-.kMMCA CRY �r�lll June 28, 1995 ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works IE 0.,l6 L'�' ` DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 4th Street S.E. Rocnester, MN 55904-4718 (507) 2816008 FAX #(507) 2816216 RE: VACATION PETITION #95-11 BY DALE RAGAN TO VACATE ALL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 3, 5TH STREET SUBDIVISION • The Department of Public Works comments are as follows: Assessments (Future Development) Watetmain Connection Charge $21.00 per foot Water Service Availability Fee $1,100.00 per acre Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge $25.00 per foot Sewer Service Availability Fee $1,100,00 per acre 2. Grant 5'± walkway easement along north side of 5th Street N.W. Require sidewalk. construction with development. Five foot sidewalk with a minimum of five foot boulevard. ..0 8 City of Rochester, Minnesota DATE: June 16. 1995 TO: Mayor and Common Council . City Hall City of Rochester,Minnesota 55901: PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR UTILITY EASEMENT We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal descrip- tion and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) OWNERS NAME (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) Dale Ragan LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of Lot One (1), Block Three (3) FIFTH STREET SUBDIVISIO11 (see attached Exhibit 1) We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate • the following described public property: All of the public utility easements as dedicated on Lot 1, Block 3, FIFTH STREET SUBDIVISION as shown on the attached Exhibit 1. The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: 1. The existing public utility easements do not cover the entire right of way needed for the in place electric facilities. RPU proposes to vacate all existing easements and execute a new easesent as' described on Exhibit 2. 3. Sheet 1 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Hearings Public Works Z -4 TEM DESCRIPTION: Hearings: Project No. 6241-94 J-9282 41st St. PREPARED BY: Resurfacing 15 Ave NW to Summit Square gGillivray y, This is a hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. 6241 J No. 9282 "Street Resurfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter on 41st Street NW from 15th Avenue NW to Summit Square" . The estimated costs are: Grading and Paving $55,000 Curb and Gutter $30,000 Engineering $ 3,600 Interest $ 1,800 Contingencies 9 1.500 TOTAL $91,900 This project was included in the 1994 Capital Improvemet Budget (page 245) and will be funded with Municipal State Aid Funds and Special Assessments. Council Action Requested If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution should be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project _was initiated by Council Action a 6/7th vote is required for adoption. Attached: Feasibility Report Budget and Assessment Schedule Map OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Report On Feasibility Of Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 6241-94 J No. 9282 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing "Street resurfacing, concrete curb and gutter on 41st Street N.W. from 15th Avenue N.W. to Summit Square."", was referred to the Public Works Department on July 5, 1995 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. Engineers Rep We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The existing street is in need of a resurfacing to extend it's useful life and bituminous curbing is in place. This project will complete the concrete curbing of 41st Street NW from TH52 to West River Road. The project is included in the 1994 Capital Budget page 256. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter Engineering Interest Contingency $55,000 30,000 3,600 1,800 1.500 Total $91,900 We recommend that assessments be levied only for the curb and gutter portion of the project. The resurfacing is cons idered'maintenance and is not normally assessed. • • Assessment Basis Curb and Gutter • The total cost of the curb and gutter is divided by the assessable frontage to determine the assessment rate. 00014,130' = $9.00 per assessable foot. The total estimated Special Assessment for this project is $37,000. This includes $3,600 for Park Department frontage. The remaining $54,900 would be funded with Municipal State Aid Funds. Donald J. MacGillivray Assistant City Engineer 0 I� . BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . Project No.: 6241-94 Date (Orig.) 7/5/95 J No_: 9282 Description & Location: "Street resurfacing, concrete curb and gutter an 41st Street N.W.. from 15th Avenue N.W. to Summit Square" Cost Date Construction Grading & Paving Curb & Gutter Right -Of -Way Easements Engineering 12%- Interest 6% Contingency 5w Total Construction & Expense Distribution To be Presently Assessed City Share (Park Dept.) Municipal State Aid TOTAL Final Project Budget Contract Cost $55,000 30,000 3,600 1,500 $91,900 $33,400 54,900 $91,900 Make Initial Disbursement from P.I.R. Fund C� MEETING / DATE: 8/7/95 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Hearings Public Works 13-�' TEM DESCRIPTION: Project No. 9504-95 J No. 9352 - Sanitary Sewer PREPARED BY: & WM Riverview Sub. c�illivray This is a hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. 9504-95 J No. 9352 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Riverside Drive N.E., Erin Court N.E. and 27th Street N.E., all in the Riverview Subdivision" The estimated costs: Sanitary Sewer $143,950 Watermain $152,350 Service Connections $ 35,200 Engineering $ 39,800 Interest $ 26,500 Contingencies S 33.200 TOTAL $431,000 The costs of this project will be financed by Special Assessments and previously paid special assessments. NOTE: The project was petitioned by nine owners who represent approximately 17% of the assessable frontage. We propose to execute assessments with these property owners and any others who may want to connect to the sewer and water system. The agreements would be executed prior to award of a construction contract. Action Requested Council If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution should be adopted ordering the project to made. Since the project was initiated by Council Action a 6/7th vote is required for adoption. Attached: Feasibility Report Budget and Assessment Schedule Map OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Ed, Feasibility of Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 9504-95 J No. 9352 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Riverside Lane N.E., Erin Lane N.E. and 27th Street N.E. all in the Riverview Subdivision", was referred to the Department of Public Works on June 19i 1995 for the preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. Engineers Report This project is precipitated by the request of several property owners in the area that are experiencing failing private sewer systems or wells and inquired into the possibility of extending City services into the subdivision. A survey was taken of all the property owners in the subdivision and a meeting was held with a large number of the residents on April 20, 1995 to explain the process for initiating an improvement project. Petitions requesting the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain were received from nine property owners representing approximately 17% of the assessable frontage. The prior survey indicated that approximately 1/3 of the residents were opposed to any project while the remainder either favored the project or were not opposed if they did not have to immediately begin paying for the services. Four of the lots at the north end of the subdivision are presently connected to the sanitary sewer trunk main and have previously paid connection charges for the sanitary sewer service. We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer Watermain Service Connections Engineering Interest Contingency Total $143,950 152,350 35,200 39,800 26,500 33,200 $431,000 • • �7 Assessment Basis for Sanitary Sewer. The estimated cost for the sanitary sewer is $187,130. The assessment rate is determined by dividing the assessable amount by the assessable frontage of 6,080 linear feet. The rate is estimated to be $30.80 per assessable foot. Assessment Basis for Watermain The estimated cost for the watermain is $198,060. The assessment rate is determined by dividing the assessable amount by the assessable frontage of 6,080 linear feet. The rate is estimated to be $32,60 per assessable foot. Service Connections Sewer services and.water where necessary would be stubbed to the boulevard and assessed against the properties served.. • The estimated cost of service connections is $800 for sewer and water and $500 for water only. The total estimated cost of this project is $431,000. Approximately $75,000 would be immediately assessed, $342,600 would be deferred until connections are made and $13,400 would be the City share for properties previously connected to the sanitary sewer. Donald J. MacGillivray Assistant City Engineer I* nor, BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Project No.: 9504-95 Date'(Orig.) 7/5/95 J No.: '9352 Description & Location: "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Riverside Lane N.E., Erin Lane N.E. and 27th Street N.E. all in the Riverview Subdivision" Cost Date Construction Sanitary Sewer Watermain Service Connections Right -Of -Way Easements Engineering 12g Interest 8%- Contingency lo% Total Construction & Expense Distribution To be Presently Assessed City Share (Previously Paid Assessments) Postponed Assessment TOTAL Final Projecy Budget Contract Cost $143,950 152,350 35,200 39.800 26.500 33.200 $431,000 $75,000 13,400 •• - $431,000 • Make Initial Disbursement from P.I.R. Fund 0 SANI TAR Y SEWER AND WA TERMAIN IN RIVERSIDE LANE N.E. , ERIN LANE N.E. AND 2 7 TH S TREE T N.E.. ALL IN THE RIVER VIEW SUBDIVISION ESTIMATED COST $431, 000 N . PROD. NO. 9504-95 J-9352 0 150 300 LEGEND SME; 1" = 300' PROPOSED WATERMAIN - - - - - - - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - • - • - • - • - I I 1 I I I i I I I 1 CHEVAL LANE 31ST ST NE I [ NORTH LHEj RIVERVI W STAR NORTH STAR 2 IVE'f,VIE J X 2 FIRST EUBCH RESUB AUG 02 '95 11:11AM .IAYO DIVIP.ONMETITPL SAFETY ROCHESTEx ,.=_� DAVID H. SENJEM My "".^Lail m"wr sirwata 2a22 17th Avenue N^ Rm 15071 212.76AS • FRIENDS AND CONSTITLT: m: zochnter, x,N 5Sa01 3YL (SVI 294.0090 AS YOU MAYBE AWARE, THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 7IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED SEWER/WATER EXTENSION TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 'THE MEETING STARTS AT 7PM IN CITY HALL AND I WOULD URGE ALL OF You TO ATTEND AND OFFER YOUR OPINION, FOR OR AGAINST. I ALSO WANT TO INVITS EACH OF YOU TO LET ME KNOW OF YOUR FEELINGS ON THIS MATTER A CALL OR A NOTE WOULD BE FIAT:. SOME OF YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS. THE CTTY'S POLICY ON SEWER/WATER INSTALLATIONS IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS HAS CHANGED. WHAT I WANT TO TRY TO DO rN THIS LETTER IS TO EXPLALN IT SO THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. PLEASE UNDERSTAND I M NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU A SEWER/WATER SYSTEM BUT TO CONVEY WHAT GETS TO BE A RATHER COMPLICATED MESSAGE. THE SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF THE PROPOSAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IF SEWER/WATER IS APPROVED FOR YOUR STREET YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO HOOK UP, 2. IF SEWER/WATER IS APPROVED FOR YOUR STREET THERE WILL BE NO ASSESSMENTS PLACED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU OR THE :TEXT OWNER VOLUNTARILY REQUESTS TO CONNECT. (THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE OLD POLICY WHERE CHARGES WERE MADE AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER REGARDLESS OF THE NEED OR INTEREST IN THESE SERVICES. UNDER THIS PROGRAM THE TAXPAYERS OF ROCHESTER PAY TO HAVE THE SERVICES INSTALLED AND ARE NOT REPAID UNTIL THE . HOMEOWNER DECIDES TO CONNECT TO THEM.) 3. IF SEWER/WATER IS APPROVED PEOPLE WISHING TO IMMEDIATELY CONNECT MAY DO SO AND BE CHARGEDNO INTEREST ON THEIR ASSESSMENT. IF ONE CHOSES NOT TO CONNECT IVTEREST WILL RUN FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. IF FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE WERE TO CONNECT IN THE YEAR 2000, THAT PERSON WOULD BE CHARGED 5 YEARS WORTH OF INTEREST. IF SOMEONB WERE TO CONNECT IN TIE YEAR 2020 THAT PERSON WOULD PAY INPDiEST ON THE ASSESSMENT ONLY THROUGH THE YEAR I00S. 4, THERE IS A MA)GM EW OF M PER FRONT FOOT CHARGED ON WATER/SEWER ASSESSMENTS, IF THE COST COMES IN AT MORE THAN THIS NUMBER THE BALANCE IS PAID BY THE CITIZENS OF ROCHESTER. 5. CITY TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THE COST OF REBUILDING YOUR STREET AFTER INSTALLATION. THERE WILL BE NO CURE AND CUTTER I THINK Ti rs MOST OF WHATS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AS I SEE IT. THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL FOR YOU IS THAT SEWER/WATER WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU OR A FUTURE OWNER OF YOUR PROPERTY TO CONNECT TO IF THERE WAS EI HER A NEED OR DESIRE. ALONG ATM THIS, THE OTHER ADVANTAGE FOR YOU IS THAT YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE UNTIL YOU WANTTO USE IT. IF YOU NEVER USE IT THERE IS NO CHARGE TO YOU. IN EFFECT, THE TAXPAYERS OF TIE CITY WOULD BE OFFVJNG YOU AN LNSLRL a POLICY SHOULD YOU EVER HAVE NEEDS FOR CITY SERVICES. AGAIN, CHARGES WOULD BE MADE AT THE Tac YOU OR A FUTURE OWNER OF YOUR PROPERTY WANTED TIE SERVICE. poiG 02 "35 11: ilAM !1gY0 ENVI0MMEiTPL SAFET'f • THE DISADVANTAGE S OF THIS PROPOSAL (ASIDE FROM TEARING UP THE STREET) SEEM FEW ALTHOUGH I REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU IF YOU HAVE SOME. ONE IS TIIvSNi G. IF YOU DIDN'T WANT SERVICES NOW BUT THOUGHT YOU MIGHT IN S YEARS IT WOULD SAVE YOU SOME INTEREST IF THE FROISCT WERE DELAYED. I WOULD SAY TEL+T AT THIS TIME Try CITY IS WILLING AND ABLE TO PUT THE SERVICES IN AND CARRY THE DEBT UNTIL THE SERVICES ARE WANTED AND AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE. THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE WITR DECLINING STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGETS. AGAIN. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR YOUR N' MaIDORHOOD AND I RTo EALLY TI N TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU. I WOULD ADD THAT THE COUNCIL VOTED LAST MEETING TO PROVIDE SEWERIWATER SERVICES TO ] 1ST STREET NE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 67 AND EAST RIVER ROAD. TILE SAME FROPCSAL WAS OFFERED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT SEHMED TO GET, AT LEAST, GENERAL ACCEPTANCE BASED ON THE FACT THAT NO ONE TESTAGAINST IT. I WOULD. ADD THAT THIS PROJECT WAS PROMPTED BY A IFIED HOMEOWNER WISHING TO SELL A HOME WTTH A BAD SEPTIC. MY UNDERTANDIING IS THAT LENDING 24TMMONS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PUTTING LOANS AGAINST THAT KIND OF A PROPERTY WTfHOUT EITM A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM OR THE ABILITY TO CONNECT TO CITY SERVICES- ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS THAT IT MAY' OT ALWAYS ISLATURE BE POSSIBLE TO REPLACE A FARED SEFTIO SYSTE'rJ THE MINNESOT YGTHE PROCESS AND TIM \MOMOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ARE CLTXJX L IN OF DEVELOPING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON WME AND WHEN THESE UNITS CAN BE INSTALLED. THANKS SO MUCH FOR INTEREST IN THIS MATTER I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT IS BOTH AN HONOR A PLEASURE TO REPRESENT YOU ON THE ROCHESTER CITY COUNCIL AND THAT YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO CALL OR WRITE NM WITH ANY PROBL 4 OR CONCERN YOU MAY HAVE. BEST WISHES, DAVID H. SENIJEM COUNCILMENOER 6TH WARD • MEETING a3 DATE: 8/7/9�1 SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: Hearings Public Works DESCRIPTION: Project 9106-95 J-9353 Sanitary Sewer in 23rd Ave. SW ITEM NO. 8 (AV BY: vray This is a hearing to consider the following local improvement project: "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in 23rd Avenue SW from 4th Street SW to Gates Drive, in Sth Street SW from 500 Feet East to 650 Feet West of 23rd Avenue SW" The estimated costs are: Sanitary Sewer $115,000 Watermain $107,500 Service Connections $ 19,200 Engineering $ 29,000 Interest $ 19,300 Contingencies S 24.200 TOTAL $314,200 The costs of this project will be financed by Special Assessments. NOTE: The project was petitioned by six owners who represent approximately 10% of the assessable frontage. We propose to execute assessment agreements with these property owners and any others who may want to connect to the sewer and water system. The agreements would be executed prior to award of a construction contract. If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution should be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was initiated by Council Action a 6/7th vote is required for adoption. Attached: Feasibility Report Budget and Assessment Schedule Map 60-v Pe) d r4� COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second Feasibility of Proposed Local Improvement Project Project.No. 9106-95 • J No. 9353 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in 23rd Avenue S.W. from 4th Street S.W. to Gates Drive, in 5th Street S.W. from 500 feet east to 650 feet west of 23rd Avenue S.W. and in Gates Drive S.W. from 23rd Avenue S.W. to 200 feet west.", was referred to the Department of Public Works on June 19, 1995 for the preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. Engineers Report This project is precipitated by the request of several property owners in the area that are experiencing failing private sewer systems or wells and inquired into the possibility of extending City services into the subdivision. A survey was taken of all the property owners in the project area to determine the interest in a project. Petitions requesting the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain were received from five • property owners representing approximately 10% of the assessable frontage. One owner that fronts the proposed project noted objection to the project. Ten (10) owners wanted a meeting to further discuss the project or were not opposed if they did not have to immediately begin paying for the services. Public Works will schedule a meeting prior to the Council hearing. One owner reports that they are receiving their water via an above ground hose from a neighbor and another reports very frequent pumping of their septic system. Another called in to report the foul odor in the area one evening, apparently due to raw sewage. We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer $115,000 Watermain 107,500 Service Connections 19,200 Engineering 29,000 Interest 19,300 Contingency 24 2 Total $314,200 • a5 • Assessment Basis for Sanitary Sewer. The estimated cost for the sanitary sewer is $149,500. The assessment rate is determined by dividing the assessable amount by the assessable frontage of 4,525 linear feet. The rate is estimated to be $33.00 per assessable foot. Assessment Basis for Watermain The estimated cost for the watermain is $139,750. The assessment rate is determined by dividing the assessable amount by the assessable frontage of 4,525 linear feet. The rate is estimated to be $30.90 per assessable foot. Service Connections • Sewer services and water where necessary would be stubbed to the boulevard and assessed against the properties served.. The estimated cost of service connections is $800 for sewer and water. The total estimated Special Assessment for this project is $314,200. Approximately $33,600 would be immediately assessed and the remaining $280,600 would be deferred until connections are made. Donald J. MacGillivray Assistant City Engineer 0 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT • Project No.: _9106-95 Date (Orig.) 7/5/95 J No.: 9353 Description & Location: "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in 23rd Avenue S.W. from 4th Street S.W. to Gates Drive, in 5th Street S.W. from 500 feet east to 650 feet west of 23rd Avenue S.W. and in Gates Drive S.W. from 23rd Avenue S.W. to 200 feet west. Cost Date Construction Sanitary Sewer Watermain Service Connections Right -Of -Way Easements Engineering 12% Interest 8g Contingency 10% Total Construction & Expense Distribution To be Presently Assessed Postponed Assessment TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from Final Project Budget Contract Cost _$115,000 107,500 19.200 29.000 19,300 24,200 $314,200 $33,600 280,600 $314,200 Fund • • SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IN 23RD AVENUE S. W. OR� FROM 4TH STREET S. W. TO CATES DRIVE, IN 5TH STREET S.W. FROM 500 FEET EAST TO 650 FEET WEST OF 23RD AVENUE S.W. lD IN CA TES DRIVE S.W. FROM 23RD AVENUE S.W. TO 200 FEET WEST. 0 27 mzo 0 0 150 300 SCALE: 1" = 300' mw 4TH o„m azao° a�0 19 20� E.L OEA] M„ o� 42626 25 32 e4„ GATES A)E1 ESTIMATED COST $314,200 PROJ. NO. 9106-95 J-9353 LEGEND PROPOSED 8" WATERMA.IN — — — — — — — PROPOSED 8' SANITARY SEWER — • — • — • — • — mug E �•°• m•°• O,L. 2 ® „ II a y ST S.W. mm moo° ai„E uw °um I I „� onr„ r Lm O�Y ¢ I • S.W. a„"0o R°if0i K W m fit! °VlwEl Q � ICE ; . I 2 2l N I 24 J/I 9R 37 35 34 DLo�� S AUG 02 195 11:11AM VAY0 ENV IROMMDiTAL SAFETY I r' c s.., " q I ^ RO CHESTE�t`;;�_ FRIENDS AND CONSTITUENTS: CAV1D H. SENJEM C:!v C3v.^.ell meexe Six'. Wea 2423 12lh Avenae N.W. Tee. =71 232-7449 AW011er, MN SMI 3v3. (W) 23e-3390 AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 7 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO TAKE TESTINIONY ON THE PROPOSED SEWER/WATER EXTENSION TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MEETING STARTS AT 7PM IN COY HALL AND I WOULD URGE ALL OF YOU TO ATTEND AND OFFER YOUR OPINION, FOR OR AGAINST. I ALSO WANT TO INVITE EACH OF YOU TO LET ME KNOW OF YOUR FEEL24CS ON THIS MATTER A CALL OR A NOTE WOULD BE FINE. SOME OF YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS. THE CN'S POLICY ON SEWERIWATER INSTALLATIONS IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS HAS CHANGED. WHAT I WANT TO TRY TO DO IN THIS LETTER IS TO EX PLA ; IT SO THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. PLEASE UNDERSTAND I'M NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU A SEWER/WATER SYSTEM BUT TO CONVEY WHAT GETS TO BE A RATHER COMPLICATED MESSAGE. THE SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF THE PROPOSAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IF SEWER/WATER IS APPROVED FOR YOUR STREET YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO HOOK UP. 2. IF SEWMVwATER IS APPROVED FOR YOUR STREET THERE WILL BE NO ASSESSMENTS PLACED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU OR THE NEXT OWNER VOLUNTARILY REQUESTS TO CONNECT. ITHIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE OLD POLICY WHERE CHARGES WERE WADS AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER REGARDLESS OF THE NEED OR INTEREST IN THESE SERVICES. UNDER THIS PROGRAM THE TAXPAYERS OF ROCHESTER PAY TO HAVE THE SERVICES INSTALLED AND ARE NOT REPAID UNTIL THE HOMEOWNER DECIDES TO CONNECT TO THI: &) 3. IF SEWER/WATER IS APPROVED PEOPLE WISHING TO IMMEDIATELY CONNECT MAY DO SO AND BE CHARGED NO INTEREST ON THEIR ASSESSMENT. IF ONE CHOSES NOT TO CONNECT INTEREST WILL RUN FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. IF FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE WERE TO CONNECT IN THE YEAR 2000, THAT PERSON WOULD BE CHARGED 5 YEARS WORTH OF INTEREST. IF SOMEONE WERE TO CONNECT IN THE YEAR 2020 THAT PERSON WOULD PAY INTEREST ON THE ASSESSMENT ONLY THROUGH THE YEAR 2005. 4. THERE IS A MA=dIM OF M PER FRONT FOOT CHARGED ON WATER/SEWER ASSESSMENTS. IF THE COST COMES IN AT MORE THAN THIS NUMBER THE BALANCE IS PAID BY THE CTITZBNS OF ROCHESTOL S. CITY TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THE COST OF REBUILDING YOUR STREET AFTER INSTALLATION. THERE WILL BE NO CURB AND GUTTER I THINK THAT'S MOST OF WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AS I SEE IT. THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL FOR YOU IS THAT SEWEWWATER WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU OR A FUTURE OWNER OF YOUR PROPERTY TO CONNECT TO IF THERE WAS EITHER A NEED OR DESIRZ ALONG WITH THIS, THE OTHER ADVANTAGE FOR YOU IS THAT YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FORTHE SERVICE UNTIL YOU WANT TO USE IT. IF YOU NEVER USE IT THERE IS NO CHARGE TO YOU. INEFFECT, THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CTTY WOVLD BE OFFERING YOU AN INSURANCE POLICY SHOULD YOU EVER HAVE NEEDS FOR CITY SERVICES. AGAIN, CHARGES WOULD BE MADE AT THE TIIvM YOU.OR A FUTURE OWNER OF YOURPROPERTY WANTED THE SERVICE. 0 AUG 92 ' 95 11: 11RM MRY'9 EMVIRC"MEI`ITAL SFiF P • 3 / ag . THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS PROPOSAL (ASIDE FROM TEARING UP THE STREET) 5EEM FEW ALTrJOUGH I REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU IF YOU HAVE SOME. ONE IS T IIvQNG. [F YOU DIDN'T WA+`IT SEAVIC�S NOW BUT THOUGHT YOU MIGHT IN 3 YEARS IT WOULD SAVE YOU 50ME INTEREST ff THE PROJECT WERE DE=AYED. I WOULD 5AY THAT AT THIS TIIvfE TF�? CTTY IS W¢,LING AND ABLE TO PUT THE SERVICES iN ANTJ CARRY TfIE DEBT UNTB. THE SERVICES ARB WANTED AND AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE. THAT MAY tOT ALWAYS HE ii� CASfi W1Tfi DECLINL�IG STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGETS' AGAIN. THIS IS A 5IGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR YOUR NEIGiIDORHOOD A"T) I REALLY WAS TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU. I WOULD ADD THAT THE COUNCJL VOTED LAST MEET ING TO PROVIDE SENE�lWATER SERVICES TG 31ST STREET NE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 63 AND EAST RIVER ROAD. THE SAME PROPOSAL WAS OFFERED THIS NEIGHBOR"OoD AND I SEEh0) TO GET, AT LEAST. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE BASED ON TIM FACT THAT NO ONE TESTIFIED AGAINST IT. I WOULD ADD THAT THIS PROJECT WAS PROMPTED BY A HOMEOWNER WISHING TO SELL A HOME WITH A BADSEIN F�JG LOANS TAMU T IS THAT LEND240 INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT IId"1'ERES A NEW _ CONNECTTOTp � 1� CES. ANOTHETY WITHOUT RCT OF THI I5 SEPTIC T IT MAY NOT ALl OR THE WAYS A LEGISLATURE BE POSSIBLE TO REPLACE A FAILED SEPTIC SYSTEM' THEARE CUR ENT Y IN THE PROCESS AGENCY OF DEVELOPINp NEW RESTRICTIONS ON OWWE AND WHEN rRM UNITS CAN BE INSTALLED. _ BOTH ANHONOR AND A SURE TO REPRESENT YOU ON THE ROCHESTER CITY IS COUNCIL CONCERN YOU MAY AND THAT YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO CALL OR WRTTE ME WrM ANY PROBLEM • BEST WISHES, DAVID It SENJEM 6TH WARD COUNCII.HffivIDER. 0 REQUEST FOR -COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 1 / DATE: August 7, 1995 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 15 - 7f Annexation by ordinance Petition #95-13 by the Payne Company to Annex PREPA 15.72 Acres of Vacant Land Located in Sections 19 and 30, Haverhill lane July 26, 1995 City Planning and Zonina Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on July 12, 1995. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request. Motion by Schultze to recommend approval of Annexation by Ordinance Petition #9543, seconded by Weisner. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Deaartment Recommendation: See attached staff report dated July 5, 1995. Property Taxes: State statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township. For the five years following annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30%, and 100/6 of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. For this property, the Township share of the taxes in 1995 is SU.07. Council Action Needed: 1. On July 5, 1995, the Council set a public hearing date of August 7, 1995, for this annexation. As required y State annexation laws, the City Clerk sent a written notice of this hearing, by registered mail, to the property owner, the Township officers and the adjacent property owners. 2. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. 3. The applicant has also requested that the Council suspend the rules and give this annexation ordinance a second reading on August 7, 1995. If the Council chooses to do so, it may take action by motion. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated July 5, 1995 2. Letter from Applicant dated July 20, 1995 3. Property Tax Information �u�af� f�i ,secen� �eAd�n 5 ,'Roe 42 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: - y_� z �� 1 �` .�� `� • ram- •®� � �� '� a 64. 0aMCYCJCL. I . .17 41 � � r l ,' Y♦ % f t i t i � c r �'� r � ice,` .J- .. '`// � _ r _ �;' �,• ---��/Y 1� C �!� � � 1tS / /! ` 7 �+�' J : � /�r. J'T' -" j � �?:R �T'ia, �l � r' • .. I _ :, ``t,'t , 7��*iaYfeaar�".%�pILI '�s�r_-'''_^ I;� +� �' ice; 1- !��'P . ``��1��R.[Ib ^ �y� Icy i'-J � \ �� ``C ... � ; •'. '� -• '.s t� I, i It_ W. 7 �. VEL PM Ell Ji I- '�ri`-ii jL�(`� / f� •�- ,, � ., . � .Q ,. '� -.. ��j :_a...iu `r+ /^"''Jill t .u�.a .•KERN IGMTS E. / >sF'rldT�_uetr�._YCt:T�'i�,• '�: �_i'/A� � / (f _ .•I.� I `i� I.. �i i i :J: v • l/f�t 34 July 20, 1995 Ms. Jane Kansier Rochester -Olmsted Consolidated Planning 2122 S.E. Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55906 RE: Northern Heights East Annexation Dear Ms. Kansier: Payne Company is hereby requesting that the second reading of the proposed annexation be waived by the Rochester Common Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, RP:bd #4573 JUL 2 r� U n U • AOCHESTER•ti,�`t Ra TED•al'GI�Z •' ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW 507l285.8232 PLANNING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 i FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner'-Xv DATE: July 5, 1995 RE: Petition to Annex by Ordinance #95-13, 15.72 acres of vacant land located adjacent to the Northam Heights East Development in Sections 19 and 30, Haverhill Township Plannina Department Review: Applicant/Owner. Payne Company Attention: Roger Payne 1700 Northwood Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: This property is located directly west of East Circle Drive NE, north of Viola Road NE, and west and north of Viola heights Drive NE. The land is directly east of the existing Northern Heights East townhouse development, and north of the Latter Day Saints Church. Existing Land Use: This land is presently vacant cropland. Size: The annexation area includes 15.72 acres of land. Existing Zoning: This land is presently zoned A-4 (AgricuRural Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. Upon annexation, this property will automatically be zoned R-1; however, the owner has filed a petition to zone the northwest 1.89 acres to the R-2 (Low Density ResidentiaQ district, and the remaining 13.83 acres to the 8-1 (Restricted Commerciaq district. Land Use Plan: In 1988, the Council amended the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map to designate the property directly adjacent to East Circle Drive and Viola Road NE for 'Commerciar uses. The remaining area is designated for • 'Low Density Residential' uses. �� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER / Page 2 3 (� Annexation rl'95-13 July S. 1995 Adjacency to the Municipal This property is adjacent to the City limits along its westerly Limits: boundary. • Utilities: Sewer and water service are available to this site from the existing lines located in Viola Heights Drive NE, to the west. This property is currently located outside of the RPU Service Area Boundary; however, RPU has no objections to this request. General Development Plan: The Council approved a general development plan for the Northern Heights East area in 1990. This land consists of the northwest comer of that development. Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public hearing on this item on August 7, 1995. The City Clerk will send the certified notice 30 days prior to that date. In the meantime, we have received a referral from the Haverhill Townboard stating that they have no objections to this annexation. Referral Comments: Comments from the Rochester Public Works Department, the RPU Water Division and the RPU Electric Division are attached. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 letters) . 2. Location Map 3. Proposed Zone Change Map 4. Northern Heights East General Development Plan Staff Recommendation: This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by City Services. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3). 0 37 i Ul-�MEWCA CRY 0111111 0 June 28, 1995 ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 559044744 FROM: Department of Public Works DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-4718 (507) 281-6008 FAX #(507) 281-6216 RE: ANNEXATION PETITION #95-13 BY PAYNE COMPANY OF 15.72 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF EAST CIRCLE DRIVE, NORTH OF VIOLA ROAD NE AND WEST AND NORTH OF VIOLA HEIGHTS DRIVE NE The Department of Public Works comments are as follows: 1. Assessments Water Service Availability Fee $1.100.00 per acre 18680 Channel Improvements Rocky Creek . $394.6768 per acre, plus interest @7.5 % for 10 year maximum. 2. Access to Circle Drive should be restricted. Access to Viola Road should be restricted within 350 feet of its intersection with Circle Drive. &T'rd OHM"Z-A", 4000 E. River Rd.. N.E. Rochester. MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 June 28, 1995 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Annexation Petition 95-13 by Payne Company of 15.72 acres of vacant land located directly west of East Circle Drive, north of Viola Road NE, and west and north of Viola Heights Drive NE> Dear Ms. Decklever. Our review of referenced annexation is complete and our comments follows: • 1. The property is subject to the current water availability fee. 2. Water service is available by extending a water main along Viola Heights Drive NE and in 26 Street NE. Please contact us at 507-280.1505 if there are questions. Very truly yours, Harold E. Wobschall Senior Engineering Technician Water Division is 3Ij 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 June 28, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #95-13 by Payne Company of 15.72 acres of vacant land located directly west of East Circle Drive, north of Viola Road NE, and • west and north of Viola Heights Drive NE RPU's Power Division has no objection to the above as it is outside our 1995 service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Sincerely, W �� Roger Kanestadt kw c: R. Pawelski W. Lorber A. Amundson T. Adkins, City Attorney J. Chase, Attorney i JS 2 91996 �� ." r nwaBThltrT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 53 , DATE: August 7, 1995% PUBLIC HEARINGS General Development July 27, 1995 for PLANNING City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: M Jane On July 12, 1995, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this general development plan for the property located along Gates Drive SW, west of 23rd Avenue SW, north of FoxCroft and the Cook -Thompson property, and east of the Rochester Golf and Country Club. The general development plan includes 34.08 acres of land to be developed as an "estate" type subdivision with 17 large, 2 acre lots. Access to this development will be from Fox Chase Road SW, to the south. The plan also delineates the right-of-way for the future extension of 23rd Avenue SW between the Cook -Thompson property and Gates Drive. of at their meeting. The Planning Commission found that this general development .plan conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual. The Commission recommends approval of this plan with the following conditions: 1. The Assessment(General Development Agreement prepared by the City must be signed and approved by the developer. 2. Parkland dedication for this area must be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu of land. , &rlla eA 3. A drainagelgrading report must be prepared at the time of the first plat of this property. Calut�fioit. Z . 4. As the property develops, the developer is responsible for any necessary relocation of existing utility lines. Motion by McGowan to recommend approval of General Development Plan #117, subject to the above conditions; second by Weisner. The motion carried 6-0. Zoning Administrator's Action and Report. On July 13, 1995, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase III, General Development Plan for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, July 28, 1995, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, July 28, 1995, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. Council Action Needed. 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve, approve with ditions, or deny the gene The Council must make findings b" s follow I :�� i ` V COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Page 2 RCA July 27, 1995 61.215 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan: the Council shall find that In approving a general development plan, 1) The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. 2) The proposed street pattern is appropriate to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. 3) The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current Capital improvement Program and the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan. 4) Utilities are now available to serve the area, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the eventual extension of utilities to serve the area. 5) The drainage, erosion, and construction problems in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters is needed to solve unusual problems that have been identified. 6) The lot, block, and street layout is consistent with the subdivision design principles contained in article 64.100. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney t� prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated July 6, 1995 2. Minutes of July 12, 1995, CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1.. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File S. Applicant: This Rem will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 7, 1995, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 6. Yaggy Colby Associates CONDITION #2 SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS: THE APPLICANT AGREES THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS RESULTING FROM THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP) WILL HAVE AN IMPACT UPON THE CITrS NEEDS FOR PARKLAND AND THAT THE GDP'S ROUGH PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE IMPACT iS IN THE RANGE OF $28, 000 TO $30,000 WHICH WOULD BE PAID TO THE CITYIN THE FORM OF CASH IN LIEU OF DEDICATION. 0 • Cl • G Y3?IY Z,38 771H MT 7d dN3NJ073A34 We-7 '30 } e +siii I 3omnOA 3XIW ! i --T— vm TO: City Planning and ZoningCommission FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner DATE: July 6, 1995 ^�t Auk- _ e-�y,fj`�t`'s� 7 0*1 kub 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 WELLSEPTIC 5071285-8345 RE: General Development Plan #117 for the Mike Younge Property Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner. Michael Younge 1765 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 . Designers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 3rd Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 Size and Location: The area includes 34.08 acres of land, located along Gates Drive SW, west of 23rd Avenue SW, north of the FoxCroft and Cook -Thompson properties, and east of the Rochester Golf and Country Club. Existing land Use: There are three existing dwelling units located on this property. The first is located at the west end of Gates Drive and is the developers residence. The second dwelling, located on the south side of Gates Drive, is owned by the developer but is in the process of being sold. The third dwelling is located on the north side of Gates Drive and is owned by the developer. This house will eventually be removed. There is also a fourth dwelling unit, also located on the north side of Gates Drive (the Vagt property). This property is not currently located within the boundaries of the general development plan. Proposed Use: The proposed development consists of 17 lots for single family dwellings, with a total density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing an 'estate' type subdivision with large, two acre lots. The dwelling units on each of the lots will be sited to ,�„� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNnY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER /� Page 2 �Q General Development Plan July 6, 1995 Annexation: Zoning: take advantage of the existing terrain and vegetation, and to provide privacy and seclusion. This property was annexed in April, 1995, as a part of the annexation of the entire Hillcrest area. This property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential). Streets: The developer is proposing to access this development from Fox Chase Road SW to the south of this property. Fox Chase Road will be extended approximately 1,500'to the northeast, where it ends in a cul-de-sac. The existing portion of Gates Drive, west of 23rd Avenue SW, will be vacated and removed at the time the new road is platted. As platted in FoxCroft North Second Subdivision, Fox Chase Road is a 56' wide right-of-way with a 32' wide road surface. In this new development, Fox Chase Road is shown with a 66' wide right-of-way and a 28' wide road surface. This general development plan also delineates the right-of-way for the extension of 23rd Avenue SW from its current end south to the proposed alignment in the Cook -Thompson General Development Plan. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision. Drainage: The elevations of this property range from the low point of 1,100' on the east end to the high point of 1,180' at the center of the property. The eastern half of the property generally drains to the east and the western half generally drains to the west. A drainage plan has not been prepared for this property at this time, although with the size of the proposed lots, there should not be any extensive improvements required. A drainage plan will be necessary before the area is platted. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. There are no such soils on this site. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer service to this property is available from the existing sewer line located in Fox Chase Drive SW. There is an existing water rain located on the property, from Fox Chase Road to the north property boundary. This in place fine may need to be relocated as the property develops. 9 0 Page 3 J General Development Plan July 6, 1995 • Electric power to this property is provided by RPU. The existing lines may also need to be relocated as the property develops. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plan. The Park and Recreation Department has noted that a cash dedication is required to meet the parkland dedication requirements. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department, Park and Recreation Department, RPU Water Division and RPU Power Division: see attached Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Proposed General Development Plan Staff Review and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan as follows: $1.215 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan: In approving a general development plan, the Council shall find that: 1) The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconcilrV any differences have been • addressed. 2) The proposed street pattern is appropriate to serve the properties under consideration and wdi provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. 3) The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected inn the City of Rochestees curent Capital Improvement Program and the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan. 4) Utilities are now available to serve the area, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the eventual extension of utildies to serve the area. 5) The drainage, erosion, and consbvction problems in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or the at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters is needed to solve unusual problems that have been identified. 6) The Int, block, and sheet layout is consistent with the subdivision design principles contained in artiste 64.100. The Planning staff recommends that this general development plan be approved with the following conditions: 1. The Assessment/General Development Agreement prepared by the City must be signed and approved by the developer. 40 Page 4 General Development Plan July 6, 1995 2. Parkland dedication for this area must be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu of • land. 3. A drainage/grading report must be prepared at the time of the first plat of this property. 4. As the property develops, the developer is responsible for any necessary relocation of existing utility lines. Reviewed by Date 0 is Page 7 � t City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 ' . Mr. Bellinger stated that he understands the flood he' d asked if there is any design so that a child co be trapped <en,,case of a flood. Mr. Spaeth explained th ould only be a couple of inches of water and should not poseMs. Hale a to recoditional Use Permit #95-12, Mr. Bell' seconded the rried 6-0. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN General Development Plan #95-117 by Michael Younge of approximately 34 acres of land 41 located alona Gates Drive SW west of 23rd Avenue SW north of the FoxCroft and Cook- Thompson Properties and east of the Rochester Golf and Country Club The proposal is to develop 17 lots for single family dwellings with access from Fox Chase Road SW. Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated July 6, 1995. She stated that the proposal is to create 17 large lots for development. Their idea is to create an 'estate* type of density. The property was annexed in April. The access to this property is to be from Fox Chase Road. She stated that the two roads should probably match in pavement width. It is noted that sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street. Ms. Kansier noted that due to the large lots, there would not be a lot of requirements for drainage. She noted that there is a water line that already runs through this property and as • the property develops, there will be a necessity to relocate the water line. There is no parkland shown, but a cash dedication would be required. The staff would recommend that the General Development Plan be approved with conditions. Ms. Kansier addressed those conditions. She noted that this plan is contingent upon the vacation of Gates Drive. Ms. McGowan moved to recommend approval of the General Development Plan for the Mike Younge property with the following conditions: 1. The Assessment/General Development Agreement prepared by the City must be signed and approved by the developer. 2. Parkland dedication for this area must be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu of land. 3. A drainagelgrading report must be prepared at the time of the first plat of this property. 4. As the property develops, the developer is responsible for any necessary relocation of existing utility lines. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. • ROCHESTER June 30, 1995 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester. MN 559044718 (507) 281 6008 FAX *(507) 281-6216 FROM: Department of Public Works RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #95-117 BY MICHAEL YOUNGE OF APPROXIMATELY 34 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ALONG GATES DRIVE SW The Department of Public Works comments are as follows: • 1. Assessments An Assessment/General Development Agreement has been prepared by the City of Rochester, Department of Public Works. Michael Younge is reviewing the agreement and we anticipate signatures within the near future. (Copy of agreement attached.) 2. Urban street action of 28 feet (F-F) required. Sidewalks required on both sides of proposed street. Terms of General Development Agreement apply. • A- Egwl opP'twa! Z-Ave, • ASSESSMENT / GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement, made this _ day of , 1995, by and between Michael Younge (hereinafter "Owner"), and the City of Rochester, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner owns certain real property located in Olmsted County, Minnesota described as: CTV Plat Parcel 05 5111 002000 05 5111 002100 05 1690 006400 05 1690 006500 05 1690 006700 05 1690 006800 05 1690 006900 05 Sill 001500 WHEREAS, Owner has prepared a Preliminary General Development Plan (Exhibit "A") that reflects his general intent in developing the real property described by this agreement, and WHEREAS, Owner has constructed a residential dwelling unit on a portion of the real property described above, and WHEREAS, Owner has requested permission from the City to connect his residential dwelling unit to the adjacent public water and sewer system maintained by the City, and WHEREAS, the City is willing to permit Owner to connect existing and future residential dwelling units to the existing water and sanitary systems under the terms and conditions set forth herein. Is NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises set • forth, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Owner shall have the right to connect his residential dwelling unit and the balance of the above described property to the adjacent public watermain and sewer systems. All costs of connection of the property to the public watermain and sewer systems shall be borne by the Owner. 2. Owner shall, at his own cost, construct to City specifications a public watermain and sewer system to serve the balance of the above described property if and when it is developed. 3. Owner acknowledges that the property, consisting of approximately 27.0 acres, of which 24.65 acres are considered • developable, is subject to City's right to assess for previous improvements related to the water tower and sanitary sewer service. These assessments will be determined using the following base assessment rates: J8569 Baihly high Level Water Tower original rate $1225.05 per acre, plus interest from 03/03/86. J8631 Green Meadows Pumping Station original rate $ 257.97 per acre, plus interest from 08/18/80. J8918 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer Along Salem Road original rate $1226.96 per acre, plus interest from 08/01/88. Interest to accrue, on the three assessment projects, at 7.5% for a maximum of 10 years or until the assessments are levied, whichever comes first. • • 4. Owner requests and the City agrees to assess the total developable acreage equally to the 17 lots within the General Development Plan. Each of 17 lots to be assessed for 1.45 acres. 5. Owner agrees to pay, within 30 days of approval by the City Council of each final plat, the actual assessable amount for each and every lot included in a plat. 6. Owner agrees to grant a utility easement or relocate the existing City watezmain within the proposed right of way. 7. Owner agrees to have the existing private sewer system, within the above described property, certified by a professional -engineer that it was constructed, inspected and tested to meet City standards. The City agrees to accept the private sanitary sewer when certified as a public sewer main and thereafter assume • responsibility for maintenance of said sewer. B. Owner agrees, when requested by the City, to dedicate easements and/or right of way for future public utility construction and the extension of 23rd Avenue S.W. south of Gates Drive S.W. to currently undeveloped property south of the Owner's real property generally consistent with the General Development Plan on file for the Cook/Thompson property. 9. In the event the Owner fails to make payment according to the terms of agreement the City reserves the right to assess the amount against the property and the owner agrees to waive his rights to a special assessment hearing as provided in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and further waives all rights to file an appeal of the special assessment costs and benefits in a court of 40 law. r1 0 10. The obligations of the parties hereunder shall bind their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall be deemed a covenant running with the property. 11. The Owner, as provided for in State Statutes and local charter, may petition the City to vacate all or a portion of Gates Drive S.W., consistent with exhibit "A", and the City will not unreasonably deny such a request, provided that real property not owned by Owner is provided access to a public street by a recorded easement, or until such time as Fox Chase Road S.W. is platted to coincide with the existing western end of Gates Drive S.W. 12. Special assessments for Lot 13 of the General Development Plan are to be levied and paid per conditions of a separate . agreement between the City and Darwin and Glenda Johnson, 2410 Gates Drive S.W. prior to the sale of said parcel to the Johnsons by Michael Younge. 0 G� 0 Agreed to between the parties the date above first written. City of Rochester, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation MICHAEL YOUNGE ITS MAYOR ATTEST_ STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) ITS CITY CLERK On the _ day of , 1995, Michael Younge, a married . person, personally appeared before me and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing as his own free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) The foregoing instrument .was acknowledged before me this _ day of ,. 1995, by Chuck Hazama and Carole Grimm, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. This document drafted by: Department of Public Works 1602-4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN. 55904 r1 Notary Public 403 EAST CENTER STREET ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904-4612 (507)281-6160 FAX # (507) 281-6165 June 28, 1995 To: Rose Decklever Consolidated Planning From: Denny Stotz Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Hillcrest Area GDP (Mike Younge) r -I L.J Parkland dedication for the development should be in the form of cash in lieu of land. . It is estimated that the entire development will have a $28,000 - $30,000 parkland dedication requirement. 0 41 f 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 June 28, 1995 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan 95-117 by Michael Younge of approximately 34 acres of land located along Gates Drive SW, west of 23 Avenue SW, north of the FoxCroft and Cook -Thompson Properties, and east of the Rochester Golf and Country Club. The proposal is to develop 17 lots for single family dwellings with access from Fox Chase Road SW. Dear Ms. Decklever. • Our review of the referenced project is complete and our comments follow and are shown on the enclosure: 1. The property is subject to the assessments for the Baihly High Level Water Storage Facility. 2. Existing private wells should be abandoned when public water supply becomes available. 3. The in -place fire hydrants need to be relocated to property lines. Additional fire hydrants as shown on the enclosure. 4. In -place water mains will need relocation if the property develops as shown. The developer is responsible for all costs incurred with any relocation. 0 ■u Page 2 June 28, 1995 5. Additional easements will be needed. The relocation of water main/s requires the dedication of additional easements and. the vacation of existing easements. 6. The enclosure shows anticipated water main alignments, sizing, easements and fire hydrant locations. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, • Harold E. Wobschall Senior Engineering Technician Water Division Enclosure c: Don MacGillivray, Public Works Department 0 '071 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 June 29, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: General Development Plan #95-117 by Michael Younge of approximately 34 acres of land located along Gates Drive SW, west of 23rd Avenue SW, north . of theFoxCroft and Cook -Thompson properties, and east of the Rochester Golf and Country Club. The proposal is to develop 17 lots for single family dwellings with access from Fox Chase Road SW. RPU's Power Division has no objection to this General Development Plan so long as utility easements are granted for the facilities that serve existing customers in the area. Sincerely, Roger Kanestadt kw. &W30NO L! FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM • DATE: July 5, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division FROM: 1�le Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: General Developement Plan 195-117, Gates Dr. SW, west of 23 Ave SW, north of FoxCroft With regard to the above noted General Developement plan the fire department has the following requirements: 1. Adequate water'supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. 2. Fire department access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire a • department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. 3. All buildings are required to display the building address number on the building front which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. C: Harold Wobschall, RPU, Water Division I� JL - 7 W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 1995 L AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING Q rQ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #90-15 by Frank Kottschade to Vacate a. Portion of the PREPARED BY: Right -of -Way for 37th Street NW at the Entrance to the Target Store lane Kansier, PI r August 1, 1995 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On September 26, 1990, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition to vacate a portion of the 37th Street NW right-of-way located at the south entrance to the Target store. The vacation of this right-of-way will allow the petitioner to place a sign closer to the 37th Street right-of-way. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request. Motion by Parker to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #90-15; second by Schwartz. The motion carried 7-0. This vacation request was tabled by the Council an October 1, 1990, because there was a question about whether this right-of-way would be needed for the 37th Street construction project. That project has since been completed, and the County Engineer has determined that there is no public need for this portion of the right-of-way. The Planning Staff is unaware of any transferred need for public transportation facilities in the shopping center area created by the applicant's commercial development which have not been satisfied. The Council removed this petition from the table on July 5, 1995, and set a hearing date of August 7, 1995. Planning Deuartment Recommendation: See attached staff report dated September 21, 1990. Council Action Needed.- 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution the SWO vacating right-of-way as petitioned. rave / j7-G , euru,/,y�v.r �t�rl -mac r+eyer1.a7�in1 Attachments: a n/ Pub � C 1. Staff Report dated September 21, 1990. Q} r� va f,� u �/ 7`i P S 2. Memo from Gary Neumann, dated June 29, 1995 3. Memo from Mike Sheehan, dated June 22, 1995 M C�4SP+►f�K� �1I 'file fra5�i G Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is a 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 7, 1995, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: 1y 12 County of c� Rochester -Olmsted DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Rochester, Minnesota 55904-4744 To: City Planning S Zoning Commission From: Jane A. Kansier, Planner Date: September 21, 1990 0.pf Ut5R p' Ml, c�. ..... ♦Sf .. G41lE U•eUGUSt.S' DIVISIONS Administration 507;285-8232 Planning 507/285-8232 HRA 507'285.8224 Re: Petition to Vacate 090-15 by Frank Kottschade to Vacate a Portion of the 37th Street NW and 21st Avenue NW Right -of -Way Planning and Housing Department Review Applicant: Requested Action: Referral Agency Comments Staff Review: Frank Kottschade 2613 5th Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Vacate a portion of the 37th Street NW and 21st Avenue NW right-of-way adjacent to the Target entrance. No comments or objections have been received from any of the referral agencies contacted. The Olmsted County Highway Department is in the process of redesigning.37th Street NW (CSAH 122) at TH 52. A part of this design includes a right turn lane to the northbound frontage road. In order to complete this construction, the County needs to acquire some additional right-of-way from the adjacent land, owned by North American Realty. North American Realty has agreed to a land swap. They will dedicate the necessary right-of-way; in turn, the County has agreed that there is no need for the 57' of right-of-way on the north side of 37th Street which is a part of the driveway into the Target Store. Therefore, they are requesting that this right-of-way be vacated. The portion of right-of-way to be vacated is presently improved as a drive. The applicant will not close this entrance. The vacation, however, will allow him to place a sign closer to the corner. E • An Fnnal nnnnrtnnitv1ANlrmativA Actinn Fmninvor Page 2 Vacation Request 090-15 September 21, 1990 Staff Recommendation: Since there is no public need for this portion of the right-of-way, the Planning staff recommends approval of this request. Attachments: 1. Right -of -Way Map 2. Copy of Petition 0 • 3AV Jut h-ir 3r] • 0 DATE: June 29, 1995 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gary Neumann I/' MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Tabled Item • Vacation of Portion of R.O.W. for 37th at Target At the 10/1/90 meeting, an application was received from Frank Kottschade for the Council to call a public hearing for the vacation of a portion of 37th Street adjacent to the entrance to the Target Store. At that time, information was received from the City Public Works Department which indicated that there was a need to obtain some additional assurance from Olmsted County and MNDOT that the right of way would not be needed for 37th Street. The information at that time indicated that there was some land on 37th Street which had previously been vacated upon the recommendation of the State and the County for the same applicant which those agencies later needed to re- acquire. In addition, the final plans for the 37th Street improvements had not been reviewed and approved. As a result there was some uncertainty whether the State and County were sure that the land that was being requested to be vacated in this instance would not be needed by the public in the future. Based on that information, this office recommended that the hearing not be scheduled and that some written assurance be provided by the County and the State. The Council subsequently tabled this matter. It is my understanding that the Public Works Department did contact the County and the State to request some additional information on the requested vacation. In addition this office contacted the County Public Works Department to request further assurance relating to the excess nature of the right of way being requested to be vacated. No information was subsequently provided and this item continued to be tabled. No further contact from the applicant, the County, or the State was received until a letter from the applicant dated June 15, 1995, was received in which he requested that this matter be brought off the table for action. Tabled Item - Vacation of Portion of R.O.W. for 37th at Target June 29, 1995 page two This office has contacted the County Engineer, and he has provided a memo which states that "with the completion of 37th Street NW we recommend the vacation of this right of way as discussed in 1990." In addition the City Public Works Department has no objections to the vacation. They do request the reservation of any easements for utilities, public and private, including an easement for traffic control devices and equipment which is inplace in the land to be vacated. The staff is recommending that the Council take this matter off the table and call the public hearing on this application. I would point out that there have been a few other items which have languished on the table for considerable periods of time. For the most part, these have related to vacations of streets or easements where the applicant has not been able to address the concerns of the Council or to provide needed information. It may be preferable procedurally to bring those matters back sooner for a denial than to hold them for so long. However, this would require that the applicant in those instances start over and incur additional costs and fees in the event that such information may be able to provided at a later date. 0 U 499 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 507/285-8231 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Neumann, Ass't City Administrator FROM: Mike Sheehan, County Engineer DATE: June 22, 1995 SUBJECT: vacation of Right of Way Along 37th St. NW and 21st Ave. NW , With the completion of CSAH 22 (37th St. NW) we recommend the vacation of this right of way as discussed in 1990. If there are any questions please give us a call. MS/bw • _ AN 8XIAL OPP0fflti41Y/AMF&MMEACn NBVLOM AOnw+ilAratlOn BWdInO MSYsnuiOs &W4609 uW MNM*V Ems" M o w" MS~wxe Pules a AWIluMm SONG W&VO 81 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 1995 PLANNING PUBLIC HEARINGS $ -1 DESCRIPTION Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) PREPARI #95-4 to be known as FoxCroft East First Subdivision Jane K ala, City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on July 12, 1995, to consider this land subdivision permit for the property located north of Fox Valley Drive SW and east of FoxCroft Circle SW, directly east of FoxCroft Fifth Subdivision. The proposed subdivision consists of 10.76 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for an R-1 type development. The main purpose of the plat at this time is to dedicate the right-of-way for the two new roads in the plat. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal under the provisions of Land Development Manual Paragraphs 61.225 and 61.226. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual. The Commission recommends approval of this preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The name of Spruce Road SW be changed to a name not already used within the County street system. 2. Parkland dedication requirements must be met by a cash dedication in lieu of land. This dedication will be in the form of a reduction of the developer's existing parkland dedication credits. �s -& 3. A grading plan for this plat must be submitted and approved prior to any construction on the site. 4. A street name sign charge of $100 per intersection is required and must be included in the owner contract S. Easements for any construction or utilities located outside of the plat boundaries must be provided with the final plat Motion by Weisner to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #95-0, subject to the above conditions; second by Schultze. The motion carried 6-0. Zoning Administrator's Action and Reoort: On July 13, 1995, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council, summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase 11, Land Subdivision Permit for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, July 28, 1995, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, July 28, , editiolr /otthe Rochester Post -Bulletin. CounciI Action Needed: 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fad as a basis for the decision. • COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by- second by: On Page 2 0#F CA July 27, 1995 The Council must approve this Land Subdivision Permit unless one or more of the following findings of Paragraph • 61.226 is made: 1) The proposed land subdivision does not conform with all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have not been granted to permit the nonconformance. 2) That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are not adequate to serve the development or provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. 3) That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater drainage control does not meet the established standards of the City of Rochester. 4) That the vehicular and pedestrian system fails to take into account the Thoroughfare Plan, or has design elements which could result in unsafe conditions, or is in conflict with the street layout policies listed in Paragraph 64.120. 5) That the lot and block layout creates significant problems for vehicular, service or emergency access, for providing utility service connections, or are of such size and shape as to result in lots with inadequate buildable areas. 6) That the proposed land subdivision has not taken into account the current Capital Improvements Program and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. 7) That the applicant has not provided assurances to show that a proposed subdivision which includes lands within floodplain areas regulated under Section 62.860 of this ordinance will be developed in such a manner so as to be consistent with the intent of those regulations. 8) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential toning district, fails to address the need for spillover parking . consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 63.426. 9) that fight -of -way and easements of adequate size and dimension are not provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 10) The proposed subdivision fails to provide the appropriate land determined by the Council necessary to satisfy the requirements of the parkland dedication requirements. A motion to approve this land subdivision permit should include a statement that the proposal was tested against the applicable criteria and standards of the Rochester Land Development Manual and it is found that, with selected conditions, the permit must be approved according to Paragraph 61.226. Amotion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the ten findings for denial in Paragraph 61.226 can be made. 3. If the Council wishes to proceed with the land subdivision permit as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attomey to prepare an order, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law, for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated July 7, 1995 2. Minutes of July 12, 1995, CPZC Meeting CONDITION #2 SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS: THE APPLICANT AGREES THAT THE SUBDIVISION WILL HAVE AN IMPACT UPON THE CITY'S NEEDS FOR • PARKLAND AND THAT THE SUBDIVISION'S ROUGH PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE IMPACT IS 1N THE AMOUNT OF $9,100 WHICH WILL BE REDUCED FROM THE CREDITS TO WHICH THE DEVELOPER IS ENTITLED DUE TO PREVIOUS PARKLAND DEDICATIONS. I loot SAS{ I5T uAiuwu e s Sbf MEN W'BL1 'yS Z I { �tV 9 a a rg; In1 O SiCLi� rC-raV1Py T isr f•QOCNES�T.ERtFl/C,t iF -_f'. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 50T285-8232 PLANNING HOUSING/HRA 507'285-8224 BUILDING CODE 50T285-8213 wELUSEPTIC 507!285-8345 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner/gip/ DATE: July 7, 1995 RE: Land Subdivision Permit #95-4 (Preliminary Plat) to be Known as FoxCroft East First Subdivision Planning Department Review. Applicant/Owner. FoxCroft Corporation 805 FoxCroft Circle SW Rochester. MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie and Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department, Park and Recreation Department: see attached Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (2 Letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat S. FoxCroft Special District and General Development Plan 6. Cook -Thompson General Development Plan Development Review. Location of Property: This property is located north of Fox Valley Drive SW and east of FoxCroft Circle SW, directly east of FoxCroft Fifth Subdivision. Zoning: The property is zoned SD-2 (FoxCroft Special �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNnY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTfON EMPLOYER • 0 Page 2 fCV FoxCroft East First Subdivision fff July 7, 1995 0 0 0 District) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. This special district plan allowed for residential uses with a variety of densities. The uses in the district established to date have been generally consistent with the R-1 standards for development. Proposed Development: This development consists of 10.76 acres of vacant land to be subdivided into 1 lot for an R-1 type of development. The main purpose of the plat at this time is to dedicate the right-of-way for the new public roads. The large lot (9.46 acres) in this preliminary plat will most likely be resubdivided at a later date. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for two new streets. The first street, Spruce Road SW, extends off of FoxCroft Circle SW 390'to the east. This street is designed with a 32' wide roadway on a 56' wide right- of-way. The road slopes to the west and has an 8.2% grade at its steepest point. The second new street, Hidden Ridge Lane SW, is a 580' long cul-de-sac located on the south side of Spruce Road SW. This cul-de-sac is designed as a local street with a 50' wide right-of-way, a 28' wide surface, and a 51' radius on the cul-de-sac bulb. Sidewalks: Both of the proposed streets meet the street design standards listed in the Land Development Manual and the Thoroughfare Plan. It should be noted that there is already a 'Spruce Lane' in the County street system. The name of Spruce Road should be changed to a more unique name. In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision. Drainage: This property generally drains north and west. The elevations of this site range from the low point of 1,110' at the northwest comer of the site to 1,190' at the southeast comer of the site. Wetlands: The streets are designed so that Hidden Ridge Lane drains north to Spruce Road, which then drains west to FoxCroft Circle. There are catch basins located at the intersection of Spruce Road and Hidden Ridge Lane which direct runoff to the storm sewer located in Spruce Road and in FoxCroft Circle. A grading/drainage plan for this site has not been prepared at this time. Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of S Page 3 FoxCroft East First Subdivision July 7, 1995 Public Utilities: wetlands or hydri_ c soils. There are no such soils on this site. Public sewer and water service to this site is available from the existing lines located in FoxCroft Circle. These lines will be extended within the road right-of-way to serve this plat. Electric service to this property will be provided by RPU. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors at a rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit, in addition to the required off-street parking. This additional parking may be provided either off-street or on -street. This development, as proposed, requires 2 spillover parking spaces. If the development is replatted at a later date, the appropriate spillover parking spaces must be provided. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Park and Recreation Department has noted that a cash dedication is required to meet the parkland dedication requirements. The developer has existing dedication credits which will be used to meet these requirements. General Development Plan: In 1986, the Council approved a general development plan for this area as a part of the FoxCroft Special District plan. This plan designated this specific area for residential uses with a density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The road alignments in this plat are generally consistent with the approved general development plan. However, the current version of the general development plan does not show Spruce Road as it is shown on this plat. The developer should address where Spruce Road eventually goes, and how it connects to the Cook - Thompson general development plan. Staff Review and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the criteria which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. In addition, Paragraph 61.226 lists the findings which must be made for the denial of a land subdivision permit. These sections are attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Paragraphs 81.225 and 61228. The staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria are met: • 0 0 Page 4 89 FoxCroft East First Subdivision V July 7, 1995 . 1. The developer must revise the general development plan to show Spruce Road and how this road connects to the Cook -Thompson general development plan. 2. The name of Spruce Road SW be changed to a name not already used within the County street system. J. Parkland dedication requirements must be met by a cash dedication in lieu of land. This dedication will be in the form of a reduction of the developer's existing parkland dedication credits. I. A grading plan for this plat must be submitted and approved prior to any construction on the site. S. A street name sign charge of $ 100 per intersection Is required and must be Included in the owner contract. 6. Easements for any construction or utilities located outside of the plat boundaries must be provided with the final plat Reviewed by • 0 Date 10 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS • 61.225 Matters Under Consideration: The review of land subdivision is necessary to ensure that the following matters are reviewed and considered before the creation of new lots, parcels or tracts occurs: 1) That the proposed land subdivision will not adversely affect adjacent properties; 2) That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands; 3) That the basic public utilities can be provided to the lots or tracts within the land subdivision and the design of the utilities will not impede or impair the ability of the City to provide utilities to the area now or in the future; 4) That the proposed streets provide a safe means of passage and assurances are provided that they will be improved to standards; 5) That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable except for lots designated as unbuildable; 6) That the proposed land subdivision is in keeping with the policies of the . Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and the purposes of this ordinance. 7) That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is not determined to be unsuitable for its intended use by reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related feature harmful to health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision. 61.226 Findings For Land Subdivision: The zoning administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) The proposed land subdivision does not conform with all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have not been granted to permit the nonconformance. 49 9l 2) That the proposed water system and -sanitary sewer system are not • adequate to serve the development or provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. 3) That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater drainage control does not meet the established standards of the City of Rochester. 4) That the vehicular and pedestrian system fails to take into account the Thoroughfare Plan, or has design elements which could result in unsafe conditions, or is in conflict with the street layout policies listed in Paragraph 64.120 5) That the lot and block layout creates significant problems for vehicular, service or emergency access, for providing utility service connections, or are of such size and shape as to result in lots with inadequate buildable areas. 6) That the proposed land subdivision has not taken into account the current Capital Improvements Program and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. 7) That the applicant has not provided assurances to show that a proposed subdivision which includes lands within floodplain areas regulated under Section 62.800 of this ordinance will be developed in such a manner so as to be consistent with the intent of those regulations. • 8) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, fails to address the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 63.426. 1] 9) That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are not provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 10) The proposed subdivision fails to provide the appropriate land determined by the Council necessary to satisfy the requirements of the parkland dedication requirements. 61.227 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.225. -2- 19 acre ; z ✓wN 1"w:S Pail ty v eN zsl M �cJr Krc 2175.11r Lp n �.arl X l.>°1L Z' 1-15 122ta 9ie •r acr {� i3 7.02_ 7! '�"rer. Ct�S of Qa o. M �• � ,. ,� a T �, �h+N.0 1 q.D �•.Jdd ibT' �G C.r^h.. �;.Le� .._�..%'• WA(� !1 ti vrti= ILL a aS ms5e$Sr>,leQ4S lo.dr°� 'ej - Lwj _ �� le,..�a�+x�:•i-� erie;�l�..l �rc.e.�� 3a43.50 tissessed ,ad �.+� ,� i►+Cl tid +li 1. t� _ CJw ti7 r Cenl } h; l� .�... � �/Y li �Ct ��Ohl. SW. G in T^ M a C -"-1 T 1 R A .-1 -" n r q3 403 EAST CENTER STREET ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904-4612 (507)281-6160 FAX # (507)281-6165 July 5, 1995 To: Rose Decklever Consolidated Planning From: Denny Stotz Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Preliminary Plat #95-4 FoxCroft East First Acerage........................................................................................ 10.76 acres • Number of Dwelling Units............................................................ 1.0 DwellingUnit Density................................................................... DensityFactor.............................................................................. .06 DedicationRequirement.............................................................. .65 acres Fair Market Value of Land............................................................ $14,000/acre The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirement for the plat be satisfied by: Cash in lieu of land in the form of reduction of dedication credits. Applicant has parkland dedication credits in the amount of $19,168 from a 1990 dedication of land. This plat to reduce existing credits by $9,100 (.65 acres X $14000/acre). Applicant: Foxcroft Corporation . 1811 Greenview PI SW a.\aaaloa\iN]aa1\a00YT.0a1 it vt is _ ;_1 qq FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 5, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division FROM: (--e Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat 195-4, FoxCroft East First Subdivision North of Fox Valley Dr. SW & east of FoxCroft Circle SW With regard to the above noted Final Plat plan the fire department has the following requirements: 1. Adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. Z. Fire department access streets and roadways shall be -as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and • during building construction. 3. All buildings are required to display the building address number on the building front which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. c: Harold Wobschall, RPU Water Division J 97 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-2513 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 July 7, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat #95-4 to be known as FoxCroft East First Subdivision . consisting of 10.76 acres to be subdivided into one lot and two roads located north of Fox Valley Drive SW and east of FoxCroft Circle SW, directly east of FoxCroft 5th Subdivision. RPU's Power Division has no objection to this subject matter. Sincerely, Roger Kanestadt ks • 0 50%AWICW LOOK.- -rW CMPSG Al [ R GEN. DEV. PL&N ` - - a.Es cm n BAH 17 SS F. �I ' _ _��'=!'%•` � C/\ � ie 3 a,:=1LY� � �i r'IGi1 �iF - •c'J.� I I — r� .0 �. \ /� •Ox val Cam` p C '!i'�'+ V. �3 FOX FT 4 3'°..-. .r_ �' it-- ` • ! u �`-�•\ri-. FDxCRDFT /; � :•• , �'— \yam; r / ' �� ' +>••`' n �� j 2N01 i. ,' :tea • a ,. �" �� r r"f � � �-� > pp . /�. i yam•, . �^''• � � V� i :•,�:.! � `�• •-. ', ,. ;,•I a �_. ,__ - 'f— \� r_ai ! Y 122 06 VIT i I,d IV- , P I • e 3 •••• ' Sat e • O LOAM 1 7I .. W^@.. SAD' L J e;� SOUK ,' t Qi 2N D 0• �� J I\ s ? ■ SALEN SOUND � ■ �� (1'1fT'Y a � �S7 Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 U9 �.J 0 Ms. Linda BTU 2401 Viola Road NE, asked what is R-3. Mr. Spaeth stated t7ftis medium density Mr. DeWitz dosed the publi ring. The Commission reviewed the anne follows: stated that they are proposing R-2. Ms. Schultze moved to ap,jogVe A ation #95-13, seconded by Ms. Haley. The motion Xouttraffic The Commissiochange as follows. Ms. Schultze asd access openings and if should be conditions regarding that.414 Mr. SpaeUMted that a zone change cannot be conditioned. Ms. Wiesner moved to approve Zone Change 996-3, as requested. Seconded by Ms. McGowan. The motion carried 6-0. Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated July 7, 1995. She stated that this plat is north of Fox Valley Drive SW. Ms. Kansier showed to the Commission graphics of the area. She stated that this area is a Special District. Thus far, it has been developed according to R-1 standards. The developer is really platting the property to get the road right-of-ways in. Once the roads are in, they will need to come back to plat the property. The plat dedicates right-of- way for two new streets. Both of the proposed roads meet Land Development Manual and Thoroughfare Standards. Ms. Kansier noted that there is a Spruce Lane already in the County and the name of Spruce Road should be changed to avoid confusion. She noted that it may be difficult to develop the property because of the grade and at this time a drainage plan has not been submitted. There are no wetlands on this site and services would be extended from Fox Croft Circle. Ms. Kansier noted that this is a part of a General Development Plan and it shows this area to be developed as residential. She stated that the one concem is where Spruce Road is going to be and how would it hook up to the Cook/Thompson property. Ms. Kansier showed a new plan that had been submitted late today. She stated that the submitted plan satisfied staffs concerns. Ms. Kansier addressed the conditions of staff. Mr. Bellinger stated that typically we see subdivided petitions. Page 4 lQr City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 Ms. Kansier stated that the nature of the plat depends on what they do. She stated that the Commission may not see this again because it may proceed to the final plat stage, but would . have public review at the Council. Mr. John Klopp, of FoxCroft, stated that he agrees with all the conditions of the staff and would like to keep this project going. Ms. Jana Melana, 2929 FoxCroft Circle, asked about what types of buildings could go there? Ms. Kansier stated townhomes. Mr. DeWitz closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to approve Preliminary Plat 995-4 with the following conditions: 1. The name of Spruce road SW be changed to a name not already used within the County street system. 2. Parkland dedication requirements must be met by a cash dedication in lieu of land. This dedication will be in the form of a reduction of the developer's existing parkland dedication credits. 3. A grading plan for this plat must be submitted and approved prior to any construction on the site. 4. A street name sign charge of $100 per intersection is required and must be included in the owner contract. 5. Easements for any construction or utilities located outside of the plat boundaries must be provided with the final plat Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Spaeth presented the s ort dat 1995. Mr. Spaeth stated that the ordinance is not dear on above and below He stated that the Land Development Manuel changed and adopted what oth alitias had adopted. He explained that the rtce never had on of above and below grade pools. Staff is asking to have nitions added so that would not be a gray area in the Land Development Mr. DeWdORked if there is a definition of a swimming poo 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 91 DATE: August 7. 1995 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 8 TEM DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit #95-12 by the Rochester Park and Recreation PREPARED BY: Department to Develop a Playground within the Silver Creek Floodway lane [{ansie Planner Juty 27, 1995 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this request for a conditional use permit at their meeting on July 12, 1995. This conditional use permit is to allow the development of the "Adventure Playland" on the part of Silver Lake Park located at the southwest comer of 7th Street NE and 11th Avenue NE. A portion of the playground is located within the Silver Creek Floodway. Any fill or use within the Floodway requires approval of a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.146, Standards for Conditional Uses, and Paragraph 62.824, Standards for Conditional Use Permits within the Flood Districts. The Commission made the following findings: 1. That the proposed use does not pose a danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. That there is minimal danger of materials being swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others based upon the proposed use. 3. The proposed use poses no burden on water supply and sanitation systems ability to prevent disease or contamination. 4. The proposed use may be susceptible to flood damage. The effect of damage on the owner may be costs associated with cleanup and replacement. That cost is not presently known. S. The park services provided by the proposed use are important to the community. 6. The proposed uses as an open space park use is considered appropriate for flood plain areas, and the proposed use is compatible with existing development and consistent with the City's flood plain management program. 7. The access area for the play area is located outside of the Floodway and provides safe ingress and egress to the site in times of flooding. Motion by Haley to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #95-12, based on the above findings; second by Bellinger. The motion carried 6-0. Zoning Administrators Action and Report: On July 13, 1995, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The Planning staff recommendation is included in the staff report dated July 6, 1995. no. tOUNC;ILACTION: Motion by- second by: to: Page 2 CA July 27, 1995 The City Clerk scheduled this Text Amendment for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Friday, July 28, 1995, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. Council Action Needed The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve or deny the proposed text amendment. The Council's decision on the text amendment must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraphs 61.146 and 62.824 (see attached). 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the conditional use permit, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution that can be adopted Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated July 5, 1995 2. Minutes of July 12, 1995, CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This Rem will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 7, 1995, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. aAmrdlrnuncikup= is 0 10/ C Y MA J ` a A C A IY1///(nf�i—N 1JjK Gam. • C 0 5 3 µVC HESTE R• fpA 1 v r �jRi TED..aEGI:SZ z.. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 ADMINISTRATION/ PLANNING HOUSINGiHRA To: City Planning & Zoning Commission BUILDING CODE - WELLSEPTIC From Terry A. Spaeth, Planner—, — Date: July 6, 1995 RE: Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit Request # 95-12 by the City of Rochester to develop a playground within the floodway of Silver Creek. Planning Department Analysis: Applicant: City of Rochester Park & Recreation Dept. 403 East Center St. Rochester, MN. 55901, 5071285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285.8345 Requested Action: The applicant is seeking a Type III, Phase III conditional use permit to develop a playground within a portion of the floodway along Silver Creek. Location of Property: The property is located at Silver Lake Park at the SW comer of the 7th Street NE and 1 Ith Avenue NE intersection. Zoning R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District Referral Continents: 1. RPU Water Division (see attached) 2. MN. DNR-Waters Division (see attached) The City Park and Rec. Dept. is proposing to construct an Adventure Playland area upon a portion of the Silva Lake Park property near the corner of 7th Street and 1 lth Avenue NE. A portion of this property lies within the floodway of Silva Creek and requires conditional use approvaL 0 • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER /0 3 • The proposed site plan indicates an area of approximately 614 square feet of the Playland located within the floodway, and that would consist only of the support structures for the Playland. The 100 year flood elevation in this location is 985' M.S.L., and the mean velocity of floodwater flow is approximately 5.8 feet per second. Barr Engineering studies the effects of the proposed playland prior to the revised flood plain maps becoming effective earlier this year. The result of their study indicates that there would be a flood elevation increase of less than .05 feet upstream of the proposed project. Based upon the revised flood plain information, the elevation increase will actually be less than that. Standards for Approval: 61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. • 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 0 lb q 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the • revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 62.824 Conditional Use Permits - Standards for Approval: When deciding on Conditional Use Permits in any of the flood districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of Paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: 1) The danger to fife and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. 3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary condition. 4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage • and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 6) The need for a waterfront location for the facility. 7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 9) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. 9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area 10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 0 /OS 11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport • of the flood waters expected at the site. 12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Paragraph 62.800. Staff Recommendation: The staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use under the provisions of Paragraphs 61.146 and 62.824 of the Land Development Manual and suggest the following findings: 1. That the proposed use does not pose a danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. That there is minimal danger of materials being swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others based upon the proposed use. 3. The proposed use poses no burden on water supply and sanitation systems ability to prevent disease or contamination. 4. The proposed use maybe susceptible to flood damage. The effect of damage on the owner may be costs associated with cleanup and replacement. That cost is not presently known. • 5. The park services provided by the proposed use are important to the community. 6. The proposed use as an open space park use is considered appropriate for flood plain areas, and the proposed use is compatible with existing development and consistent with the City's flood plain management program. 7. The access area for the play area is located outside of the floodway and provides safe ingress and egress to the site in times of flooding. Based upon these findings, the Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request. Attachments; 1. Copy of Application 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Applicant's Site Plan 4. Copy of Referral Comments (2 lett ) Reviewed by �6� L 403 EAST CENTER STREET ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 55904-4612 (507)281-6160 FAX = (507) 281-6165 20 June 1995 • RE: Silver Lake Adventure Playground Dear Ron, As you may or may not recall, in April 1994 the Rochester Park Department employed Barr Engineering to perform a hydraulic modeling of the proposed playground that was being considered for Silver Lake Park. A copy of their report along with all attachments is enclosed. At the time this study was done, all of the playground equipment proposed was to be located within the 100 year floodway. The footprint for the playground was over 3,100 square feet. Barr's study (Figure 4 Alternative C) indicated that by relocating one feature of the playground (Zumbro River Boat) the increase in the water surface elevation could be held to a neglible 0.01 feet increase 70' upstream of the 11 Avenue NE bridge. Since the Barr study was completed, two things have happened. First, the City flood zone maps were revised. This revision removed most of the adventure playground site from the 100 year floodway. Secondly, we have firmed up construction documents for the actual project and can now indicate exactly where the apparatus will set in relation to the floodway limits. As you can see in the enclosed site map, the playground still will have t 1,500 square feet of apparatus located within the 100 year floodway. Enclosed is a Type II Development application for the installation of that portion of the playground apparatus that would be within the 100 year floodway. I have previously submitted this information to Bob Bezek, Department of Natural Resources for his review and comment. In a telephone conversation this morning, Bob informed me that his office will be generating a response to the permit application within the next few days. A copy of this response will be sent directly to you. Please let me know if you have any questions. or require additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Denny Stotz Assistant Superintendent cc: Rick Engstrom, WHKS • \� \ 5286�9• \1 � 02BG*TSVr 5280-l75=2 j Sz6 Er_. }I I ru: naoc \ I 1 f.z P: 12"= oc' 3<9;-Ex 3ZQ:-Ica >29r-40C 3--?;-3cc 329l-?00 3292- Ioa &W S T N � r ~ ,L n • 5 TH S7. �. E. tj - v M-/0 TI OF Fftfd•- IM y c 7 450- !moo 4so-30C zoc lot STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONENO. (507) 285-7430 2300 Silver Creek Road N.E. - FILE NO Rochester, MN 55906 J N 2 9 1995 June 27, 1995 Candy Wright, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Consolidated Planning 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Dear Ms. Wright: Re: Conditional Use Permit 95-12, City of Rochester, Playground Within 100 yr. Floodplain The Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters (DOW) has received notice that the above referenced permit request is scheduled for consideration by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission on June 30, 1995. • A playground is an acceptable use within a floodplain area. Information provided to me by the City indicates that the playground will have a negligible effect (<0.01 ft.) on flood elevations upstream of the site. it appears that a portion of the playground is within the limits of the floodway and will therefore be more susceptible to damages given large events. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or telephone number if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bob Bezek Area Hydrologist cc: Jim Cooper, Regional Hydrologist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 June 28, 1995 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Conditional Use Permit 95-12 by the City of Rochester to develop a playground within the 100 year flood plain. The property is part of Silver Lake Park located south of 7 Street NE and west of 11 Avenue NE. Dear Ms. Decklever: Our review of the referenced conditional use permit is complete and our comment follows: . 1. It is our understanding_ that there is a need for a water service to the proposed playground. The service should be sized to meet future demands for an irrigation sys- tem and possible shelter with restroom facilities. There is a 12" water main in -place along the south side of 7 Street NE Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if there are questions. Very truly Yours, q�c 00W e5 u% o $e-� Harold E. Wobschall Senior Engineering Technician Water Division 0 Page 6 I�1/ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minuses Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 Ms. McGowa ted that safety is first and she would like to see a five foot fence. Ms. Haley stated that if a can see the pool, that creates the likely hood of going into the pool. Ms. McGowan askeyhy not go to five foot Mr. Bellinger stated the\mrec2 n seeover a four foot fence to see if the toddlers are in ea The motion failed 2 d. Ilinger and Ms. Schultze voting for the motion. Mr. Spaeth stated that the CoNmission could look at the fence height at the Ipal review of the manual and look at this issuXin a more comprehensive review. He staoMat maybe that would be the time to initiate it the nce height. He stated that this is on anging the definitions. Ms. Schultze stated that it has been mented that all pools a e 18" may need to have a fence. Ms. Wiesner stated that she would like to a ress the ftv of fence later and only review the definitions at this time. Ms. McGowan moved to approve the d ons as presented by staff and change the height of fence to five feet, Mr. B r seconded the motion for discussion purposes. • Mr. Bellinger stated that if the fence h ' is changed, i ters another issue a whole other issue. Ms. Haley stated that since thi a public hearing, are we ab o change what has been recommended. Mr. Spaeth stated that can make a recommendation to the Cou 'I that is different than what staff has prose Ms. McGowan d that she feels that safety is first Th otion carried 4.2. Wiesner and Bellinger voting nay. Ms. nor and Mr. nger noted that they voted against this amendment because do not gree with the V high fence requirement, but they wanted it noted in record that they feel that the definitions of above and below grade pools is appropriate, Conditional Use PermR 095-12 by the City of Rochester to develop a playground within the 100 year flood plain. The property Is a part of Silver Lake Park located south of 71h Street NE and west of 11th Avenue NE Mr. Spaeth presented the staff report dated July 6, 1995. He stated that this property's play land equipment is located In the Floodway, and the support structures would be in the Floodway. Mr. Spaeth addressed the findings of the staff. Pi Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes f Hearing Date: July 12. 1995 Mr. Bellinger stated that he understands the flood heights and asked if there is any design so that a child could not be trapped under the equipment in case of a flood. Mr. Spaeth explained that the flood heights in this area would only be a couple of inches of water and should not pose a danger. Ms. Haley move to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #95-12, Mr. Bellinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Ms. Kansier presented the report dated July 6, 1995. She stated the proposal is to create 17 large lots for devel ant Their idea is to create an !eat type of density. The property was annexed in April. access to this property is to be m Fox Chase Road. She stated that the two roads sho robably match in pavemen dth. It is noted that sidewalks should be required on bo es of the street Ms. Kansier noted that due to the large lol drainage. She noted that there is a water the property develops, there will be a necr shown, but a cash dedication would be rei The staff would recommend that the General Ms. Kansier addressed those conditions. She vacation of Gates Drive. would notj4 a lot of requirements for I alreadyjffns through this property and as relocaWthe water line. There is no paridand Plan be approved with conditions. s plan is contingent upon the Ms. McGowan moved to recommenyapproval of General Development Plan for the Mike Younge property wit a following eo ons: 1. The Assessment/General Dev pment Agreement pre\cashication ust be signed and approved by the veloper. 2. Parkland dedication for area must be satisfied by n lieu of land. 3. A drainage/grading art must be prepared at the timthis Property 4 As the Propel lops, the developer is responsible for any relocation utility lines. Ms; VVie r seconded the, motion. The motion carried 6-0. • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETINGDATE: August 7. 1995 PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING .3 DN: Text Amendment #95-4 to Define "Above" and "Below" Grade PREPARED Swimming Pools lane Kane July 27, 1995 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on July 12, 1995, to consider this amendment to the text of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The proposed amendment defines the terms "above" and "below" grade swimming pools as follows: Swimming Pool, Above Grade: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have. a height of four (4) feet or greater above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. Swimming Pool; Below Grade: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of less than four (4) feet above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at some length. The members agreed with the definitions, but felt that the ordinance should include a 5' high fence requirement rather than the current 4' high fence. The Planning Commission found that the proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Land Development Manual, and serves to clarify the intent of the swimming pool provisions of the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this amendment with the following modification: Paragraph 60.200, Definitions, should be amended to add the above definitions of an above grade and a below grade pool, and Paragraph 62.278 (5,b,1) should be amended to require a 5' high fence instead of a 4' high fence. Motion by McGowan to recommend approval of the proposed amendment as described above; second by Bellinger. The motion carried 4-2 (Weisner and Bellinger voting no). Ms. Weisner and Mr. Bellinger noted that they voted against this amendment because they do not agree with the 5' high fence requirement. Zoning Administrator's Action and Report: On July 13, 1995, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The Planning staff recommendation is included in the staff report dated July 5, 1995. The City Clerk scheduled this Text Amendment for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Friday, July 28J19geod.ition tqa Rochster st-B Iy letin.Council Action Needed:1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the prof Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve or deny the proposed text amendment. The Council's decision on the text amendment must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 of the Land Development Manual, as follows: COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second (lgage2 CA July 27, 1995 • a) , Whether there is a public need for this amendment. b) Whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans and policies of the City of Rochester. c) Whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the tent amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the zone change that can be adopted Attachments: 1 Staff Report dated July 5, 1995 2. Minutes of July 12, 1995, CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of Proposed Text Amendment Language is contained in the attached staff report. 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 7, 1995, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. L J cAmrduroumiaext= TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Terry A. Spaeth, Plann6 DATE: July 5, 1995 f�OCHESTERryr11 .��Lp i e �Ra 1'ED•{CGI�T•'. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285.8232 PLANNING HOUSING/HRA 507.'2B5-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 wELLSEPTIC 507/285-8345 RE: City Council Initiated Amendment to the Land Development Manual to define "above" and "below° grade swimming pools. On June 19, 1995 the Common Council initiated a text amendment to the provisions of the Rochester Land Development Manual to add definitions of what constitutes "above" and "below" grade swimming pools. This amendment comes about due to a recent argument from a landowner that the present language in the LDM relating to private swimming pool fencing requirements would not require a fence for an above grade pool with walls less than 4' above grade. • Based upon the existing language in the ordinance, that may be a valid argument, although it is not the intent of the swimming pool requirements. This stems from the fact that the LDM does not presently define "above" and "below" grade swimming pools. The staff feels that a solution to the problem is an amendment to define both above and below grade pools in the following manner. 60.200 DEFINITIONS: Swimming Pool, Above Grade: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of four (4) feet or greater above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. Swimming Pool, Below Grade: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of less than four (4) feet above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. These proposed definitions would clarify the swimming pool provisions, and would be consistent with Minnesota Rules (Chapter 4717). Attachments: 1. Referral Comments from Olmsted County Public Health Services 2. Copy of June 15, 1995 memo to Council • 3. Copy of Provisions of 62.278(5) of Land Development Manual AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Jf PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES 1650 Fourth St SE • Rochester MN 55904-4718 507/285-8370 DATE: June 27, 1995 TO: Rose Decklever, Olmsted County Planning Department FROM: Scott Fryer, Olmsted County Public Health Services (OCPHS) vx� RE: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT 495 - 4 (DEFINITION OF ABOVE GRADE AND BELOW GRADE SWIMMING POOLS) Thank you for your referral concerning the proposed Text Amendment. OCPHS supports the proposal to define "Above Grade" and "Below Grade" swimming pools (as written in Mr. Spaeth's June 15th memo to the Rochester Common Council). These definitions will clarify the intent of the Land Development Manual in preventing • unauthorized access to the private pool for safety reasons. This is consistent with current language in Minnesota Rules (Chapter 4717) which requires controlled access of all public pools, through fencing and self-closing/latching gates. SF/lm a:,VM.d«,sf AN EOUAL OPPORTUNnY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER l �OCNES7ER. M� A { � I °Rd rED.ADGLST'S.. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 TO: Rochester Common Council PLANLANNIs7RA7ow 507r285 8232 PNING HOUSING/HRA 507/28"224 FROM: Terry A. Spaeth, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLSEPTIC 507/285-a345 DATE: June 15, 1995 RE: Request to initiate a text amendment to the Land Development Manual defining "above and 'below' grade swimming pools for the purpose of administering those provisions of the Land Development Manual. Recently, a citizen brought up an argument that the way that the present language relating to private swimming pool fencing requirements is written, a fence would not be required for an above grade pool with walls less than 4' above grade. Based upon the existing language within the ordinance, that may be a valid argument, even though it certainly is not the intent behind the swimming pool regulations. Based upon the staffs concern that there are a number of these types of swimming pools ( with 3' side walls) being erected on properties within the City, the staff feels that a solution to the potential problem is an amendment to the Land Development Manual that defines both above and below grade pools in the following manner. Swimming Pool, Above Grade: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of four (4) feet or greater above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. Swimming Pool, Below Grade: A swimming pool whose exposed sides have a height of less than four (4) feet above the natural ground located adjacent to said swimming pool. We would like to request that the Council initiate such an amendment to preclude persons seeking permits for these types of pools and not having to meet the intent of the ordinance, which is to prevent uncontrolled access into swimming pools for safety reasons. The staff will be prepared to discuss the issue at the meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this item. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AMRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ordinance. For the purpose of determining the front yard in such case, the rear line of the reo 'id rear yard for the principal building `rant shall be considered / the front lot lir,., for the building in the rear. In additio(t, .nere must be provided for any such rear dwelling an unoccupied and unobstructed accessway to a public street of no less than eighteen (18) feet in width. Private Swimming Pools and Tennis Courts: No swimming pool or tennis court shall be allowed in any residential district unless it complies with the following requirements: a) The pool or court is not operated as a business or private club, except when allowed as a permitted home occupation. b) It shall not be located in any required front or required side yard, and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any property line of the property on which it is located. Pump and filter installations for pools shall not be closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. 1) For a below grade swimming pool, the pool or the property upon which said pool is located, shall be enclosed by a fence of a type which effectively controls the entrance by children to the pool area, said fence to be at least four (4) feet in height. Wooden fences with boards placed vertically shall not have any opening wider than four (4) inches per opening and wooden fences with boards placed horizontally shall not have any opening wider than one (1) inch per opening. 2) Gates installed for access to the property or pool area shall be equipped with an automatic closing and latching device to protect against uncontrolled access to the property. 3) For an above grade swimming pool, the pool shall be equipped with an automatically retractable type ladder, a retractable ladder, or a removable ladder or shall be fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,i) said ladder to be removed or retracted when said pool is not being attended. • 4) If access to the pool is via a deck or porch, then no access from the ground is permitted to the deck area unless the property or the ground access to the deck is fenced in accordance with Paragraph 62.278(5,b,1). 5) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner upon where said pool is located to maintain all fences, gates and closure devices in good operating condition. 6) Failure to maintain fences, failure to have gates closed, or failure to either remove or retract the ladder access to the pool shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore be subject to the penalties contained therein. c) Enclosed pools and courts shall be considered to be structures for purposes of regulations limiting lot coverage. 6) Fuel Tanks: An accessory fuel tank may be permitted in any zoning district for the purpose of heating on -site structures. Such fuel tanks shall be located in the buildable area of the lot or the required rear yard, subject also to the fire protection regulations, and shall be screened from adjacent properties with low hedges, evergreens or other plant materials in association with a fence. 0 0 Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 Ms. Kansier tated that the nature of the plat depends on what they do. She st that the . Commission not see this again because it may proceed to the final plat s e, but would have public revi at the Council. Mr. John Klopp, of Fo oft, stated that he agrees with all the conditi of the staff and would like to keep this project g ' g. C� 0 Ms. Jana Melana, 2929 Fox C Circe, asked a/whatf buildings could go there? Ms. Kansier stated townhomes.Mr. DeWitz closed the public hearing.Ms. Wiesner moved to approve P i ith the following conditions: 1. The name of Spruce road SW hang�to County street system. \ 2. Parkland dedication re ments must be n land. This dedication I be in the forth of a parkland dedicatio dits. a name not already used within the a cash dedication in lieu of [ion of the developer's existing 3. A grading plan fFthis plat must be submitted and appr d prior to any constructionAP the site. 4. A streetiorne sign charge of $100 per intersection is required �id must be includ m the owner contract S. E&*ments for any construction or utilities located outside of the plat boundaries st be provided with the final plat Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Text Amendment 095-4 to Section 60.200 of the Cfi► of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual adding a definition of "Above Grade" Swimmina Pools and "Below Grade" Swimming Pools. Mr. Spaeth presented the staff report dated July S. 1995. Mr. Spaeth stated that the ordinance is not Gear on above and below grade pools. He stated that the Land Development Manual changed and adopted what other municipalities had adopted. He explained that the ordinance never had a definition of above and below grade pools. Staff is asking to have the definitions added so that there would not be a gray area in the Land Development Manual Mr. DeWitz asked if there is a definition of a swimming pool? Page 5 2io City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 Mr. Spaeth stated that there is. Ms. McGowan stated that the insurance company requires a six foot fence. She stated that the 3' x 12' pools are all over the City. Mr. Spaeth stated that a 3' high pool would require a fence. The Commission discussed the definitions of above grade and below ground. Mr. Spaeth stated that the verbiage is somewhat confusing and that is trying to be clarified. Ms. Wiesner stated that she agrees with the amendment, yet she feels that it is still confusing. Mr. DeWitz stated that he would suggest that every pool have a five foot fence. Mr. Spaeth stated that is how it used to be. Ms. McGowan asked where is wading pool defined and would it require a fence. Mr. Spaeth stated that it is not considered a swimming pool since it does not hold more than 18 inches of water and would not require a fence. No one wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. Mr. DeWitz closed the public hearing. Mr. DeWitt stated that his concern is whether or not a 4' fence is high enough. He feels that . for safety reasons it should be provided and he does not feel that it is cost prohibitive. Ms. McGowan asked what is the standard height of fencing? Mr. DeWitz stated that it comes in 4', 5', 6', and on up. Ms. McGowan stated that we should go to the five foot fence. Ms. Haley asked about those who have an existing fence, would they be required to put up a five foot fence if they only have a four foot fence now. Ms. Kansier stated that if the ordinance was changed, the 4' fences would be nonconforming. Mr. Bellinger stated that he is comfortable with 4' and so is Ms. Schultze. Mr. DeWitz stated that there are a lot of children that are 8-10 years of age that can climb a fence. Ms. Schultze commented that there is no visibility into the fenced area if it is five feet She stated that it limits people seeing into the pool to see if a child has crept into the pool. Mr. Bellinger moved to approve the definition as defined, Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. 0 Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: July 12, 1995 • • 0 Ms. McGowan stated that safety is first and she would like to see a five foot fence. Ms. Haley stated that if a child can see the pool, that creates the likely hood of going into the pool. Ms. McGowan asked why not go to five foot Mr. Bellinger stated that he can see over a four foot fence to see if the toddlers are in the area. The motion failed 2-4. Mr. Bellinger and Ms. Schultze voting for the motion. Mr. Spaeth stated that the Commission could look at the fence height at the annual review of the manual and look at this issue in a more comprehensive review. He stated that maybe that would be the time to initiate it the fence height. He stated that this is only changing the definitions. Ms. Schultze stated that it has been commented that all pools above 18" may need to have a fence. Ms. Wiesner stated that she would like to address the five foot fence later and only review the definitions at this time. Ms. McGowan moved to approve the definitions as presented by staff and change the height of fence to five feet, Mr. Bellinger seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Mr. Bellinger stated that if the fence height is changed, it enters another issue a whole other issue. Ms. Haley stated that since this is a public hearing, are we able to change what has been recommended. Mr. Spaeth stated that you can make a recommendation to the Council that is different than what staff has presented. Ms. McGowan stated that she feels that safety is first The motion carried 4.2. Wiesner and Bellinger voting nay. Ms. Wiesner and Mr. Bellinger noted that they voted against this amendment because they do not agree with the 5' high fence requirement, but they wanted it noted in the record that they feel that the definitions of above and below grade pools is appropriate. Mr. Spaeth presented the staff rap July g Land equipment i. located odway, and the suppoi Floodway. Mr. Spae seed the findings of the staff. that this property's play -would be in the REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I�W3 DATE: 08/7/95 SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM r' CITY ADMINISTRATOR C-1-26 APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: C-1. Approval of Minutes C-2. Request for Funding/Multi-Cultural Back to School Picnic C-3. Change Order No. 4 - City Hall C-4. Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities C-5. Sound Amplification Permit - Multi -Cultural Back to School Picnic C-6, Sound Amplification Permit - Mayo Medical Center C-7. Sound Amplification Permit - AFL-CIO Southeast Central Labor Council C-8. Appeals Board Appointment for RCO 112.09 - Door -to -Door Salespersons C-9. Approval of Accounts Payable C-10. Authorizing Revocable License Agreement for Postage Vending C-11. Request to Approve Signatures for CPV Program C-12. Authorization of Signatory for Group Insurance Plan Amendments C-13. Appointment/Police Officer/Police Department C-14. Appointment/Police Officer/Police Department C-15. Vacation Petition by Lowell Penz to Vacate a Portion of the Right -of -Way for 36th Street SW and the Adjacent Utilities C-16. Vacation Petition by Clean Ideas, Inc., to Vacate a Portion of the 10' Easement Lying Southerly of the North Line of Lots 6 & 7 Hartman Square C-17. Request to Set Hearing for Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Anthony and JoAnn Bianco of the Property at 2520 Institute Road SW C-18. Request to Set Hearing for Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Timothy Buechler of the Property at 2009 Eastwood Road SE C-19. Request for Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the South Side of T.H. 14 East, 3850 Highway 14 East C-20. Advertise for Bids/Bituminous Walkway on South Side of 41st Street NW, West Frontage Road T.H. 52 to 31st Avenue NW C-21. Feasibility Report/Extension of Watermain in 23rd Avenue SW from South Pointe 2nd Subdivision, D' Easterly Across T.H. 63 to Serve Machinery Hill Subdivision >� I I� 22. Proposal by McGhie & Betts/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Gates Drive SW C . 7. Advertise for Bids/1lth Avenue NE Bridge Deck Replacement }U Jos C-24. Consideration of Special Assessment Abatement Requests C-25. Advertise for Bids for Electronic Parking Meters C-26. Parking Requests for Drivers License Testing Z ("- COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:� Motion to annrove, consent agenda items - COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 1 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR LI 2 ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/MULTI-CULTURAL BACK TO PREPAREVOLD SCHOOL PICNIC The City of Rochester has previously provided funding for the Multi -Cultural Back to School Picnic. The picnic to be held this year will be the 4th annual event, and the City is requested to donate $400, the same amount as was granted in 1994 (see attached). The City has previously appropriated the money to the Diversity Council (formerly known as B.E.T.), and they then disburse the money for the picnic expenses. Ms. Shumpert has submitted very detailed invoices for the 1994 expenses. This information is not reproduced for the agenda but is available if you should desire to see it. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Request .a motion appropriating $400 from the 1995 Contingency Account to the Diversity Council to fund the 4th Annual Multi -Cultural Back to School Picnic. NOTE: THE PICNIC WILL BE HELD SUNDAY, AUGUST 13, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. IN SLATTERLY PARK, COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 9 M � e; DIVERSITY COUNCIL • • �a7 9 MS CRYSTAL SHUMPERT MULTICULTURAL BACK TO SCHOOL PICNIC 607 1 1 TH AVENUE SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904 (507) 287-0779 July 17, 1995 Mr. Steve Kvenvold City Administrator 224 First Ave SW Rochester, b1N 55902 Dear Mr. Kvenvold, We are writing to you on behalf of the Fourth Annual Multi -Cultural Back to School Picnic. This year our goal is to reach out and help even more children in our community by providing them with positive encouragement, basic school supplies; such as paper, pens, pencils, and folders, as well as to provide them with one last fun -filled picnic. This year we are happy to be assisted by the members of Americorp in Rochester. To accomplish this goal, we are asking for your assistance. We are requesting that the City of Rochester again donate S400. This money will be used to help pay for food, advertising flyers, entertainment and school supplies. Our goals for this event include: Providing an opportunity for children and families of all kinds to have fun together Providing an event that encourages children to go back to school with a positive attitude Providing children with some basic back to school supplies Last years event was a huge success. There were over 500 people in attendance. We hope that this year will be an even bigger encouragement to the students who attend. The contribution of the City of Rochester will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Crystal Henry ShumpPChair Multicultural Back to School Picnic HELPING TOMORROWS FUTURE a MULTICULTURAL BACK -TO -SCHOOL PICNIC AUGUST 23, 1994 EXPENSES ORGANIZATION/STORE EXPENSES IN -KIND HY VEE $ 95.05 $ 27.55 (s, of brats) SAM'S CLUB (food items) $ 91.00 ROCHESTER RESTAURANT SUPPLY $ 17.12 Napkins (napkins) ROCHESTER RENT -ALL (tent) $ 42.69 $ 42.69 (s. of tent) SAV-ON FOODS (meat) $ 83.86 COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM - $ 25.00 K-MART (school supplies) $ 27.48 OLD AMERICA (school supplies) $ 26.75 TARGET (school supplies) $ 27.84 $ 23.04 SHOPKO (school supplies) $ 25.00 - CUB FOOD (foil, napkins, clean-up supplies) $ 45.67 PEPSI-COLA Co. Soda TOTALS $457.46 $143.28 0 0 r, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING. lOr DATE: 8/7/95 ORIGINATING DEPT, ITEM N0. iECT10N: Clt Admn/D77* Reports and Recommendations YBY: CRIPTION: t Change Order No. 4 - City Hall tem in the ment the Attached o contract isthe removal of the knock -out panel between the er #4 for the City Hall project. The largest lCity and County buildings at the construction co basement level. The balance of the changes are largely modifications to the electrical and mechanical City, field conditions, code interpretations and errors or systems that are the result of requests by the omissions in the plans. CPMI has reviewed the Costs and negotiated adjustments with the contractor where appropriate. The he contr, approximate a of $180,000Mafter signed off on the changes. The project contingency has an COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval of Change Order 04 in the amount of $49.064 to the Knutson City Hall contract. COUNCIL ACTION: Metier by: Second 130 PROJECT: G^NTRACT CHANGE ORDi� =, . Rochester City Hall CHANGE ORDER NO.: 4 OWNER: City of Rochester DATE ISSUED: 22 June 1995 CONTRACTOR: Knutson Construction Co. CPMI PROJECT NO.: 2216 5500 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 CONTRACT DATED: September 28, 1994 A fully executed copy of the Contract Change Order amends the above Contract as follows See Exhibit A attached. -ONTRACT TIME will be changed by 0 calendar days. All conditions of the Contract shall apply tc :his Contract Change Order unless specifically stated otherwise. CONTRACT STATUS Original Contract Amount $ 9,166,700.00 Change Order No. 1 37,295.00 Change Order No. 2 18,305.00 Change Order No. 3 50,084.00 Change Order No. 4 49,064.00 Net Amount of Contract including this Change Order: $9,311,428.00 Issued and recommended for acceptance: CONSTRUCT AER: CPMI By: Title/Date: By: Title/Date: ARCHITECT: By: Title/Date: OWNER: By: Title/Date: 0 r3r EXHIBIT A PCO #17 - Added lintels at overhead door on shop drawings PCO #22 - Misc. mechanical RFI's #25. 931, #35, #43, #46 and #48 S 866.00 2,529.00 PCO #27 - Adjust stair risers per Lindberg Pierce 1,148.00 PCO #29 - Revise size of exhaust from emergency generator 3,092.00 PCO #20 - ASI #19 - Sensing loop for overhead door 2,079.00 PCO #31 - Relocate transformer 3,176.00 PCO #33 - RFI 471 - Remove knock -out panel 5,861 .00 PCO #34 - Type Z fixture modifications 0.00 PCO #35 - RFI #77 - Layout generator room 0.00 PCO #36 - RFI #67 - Odor hardware issues 87.00 PCO #37 - ASI 418 - Revisions to rooms 9109 and #120 0.00 PCO #38 - Revised electrical layout of room #15 0.00 • PCO #39 - Support for precast at south jamb of knock -out 808.00 PCO #40 - ASI #23 - Misc. architectural and electrical items 3,183.00 PCO #41 - ASI #20 - Additional millwork and misc. 1,200.00 PCO 942 - Revise type H light fixture per Lindberg Pierce 1,004.00 PCO #44 - RFI #63 - Add stud wail at drinking fountains 0.00 PCO #45 - Revise condensate trench, reroute rain water leader, add grille, extend ducts third floor 5,211.00 PCO #46 - Premier Electric profit omitted from PCO #11 - C.O. #3 195.00 PCO #47 - Provide additional steam traps at AHU's 1,899.00 PCO #48 - RFI #72 - Strainer bowl and tail piece not specified 509.00 PCO #49 - Additional painting at dome 8,918.00 PCO #50 - ASI #25 - Relocate wall and add VCT. 574.00 PCO #55 - Provide two smaller CUH's in lieu of one large unit 3,199.00 PCO #56 - Add makeup water to humidifiers 3,526.00 . Total $ 49.064.00 MEETING 133 DA TE 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATION BUSINESS CITY CLERK c , (� ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: LICENSES AND BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES DONNA SCHOTT The following licenses and bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. TEMPORARY ON SALE NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Rochester Softball Association P.O. Box 6792 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Men's B State Tournament McQuillan Field 8/12 - 8/13 St. Anargyrui Greek Orothodox Church 703 W. Center St. Rochester, Mn. 55902 Greek Festival Silver Lake Park 8/27/95 CIGARETTES OVER - THE COUNTER Superamerica #4367 2025 S. Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55904 CERCUSICARNIVAL Bill Harries Shows P.O. Box 1377 Fort Worth, Tx. 76101 Olmsted County Fair 7/31/95 thru 8/6/95 GAMBLING GAMBLING - MPO ARYARY The Ruffed Grouse Society 240 Shady Ridge Ln Oronoco, Mn. 55960 Raffle at Radisson Hotel Centerplace 9/15/95 150 S Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55904 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ' LICENSES AND BONDS & MISCELLANOUS ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 AUGUST 7, 1995 Senior Citizens Center 121 N Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55906 Raffle at Mayo Civic Center 30 Civic Center Dr. SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Mt. Frontenac Ski Patrol 3614 15th Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Raffle at 4-H Building 3rd Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 9/21/95 10/15/95 Loren Woodhouse DBA A.B. Systems 9906 County Rd 7 SE Chatfield, Mn. 55923 , [11MIJ 401111Al 1 I _1111-11MOILWtill M1 Michael Bruce 9474 Cty Rd 105 NW Pine Island Mn. 55963 House from 1st Ave NW to New Haven Township Theresa M. Petruck Rt. 2 Box 52A Claremont, Mn. 55924 House from 1908 1st Ave NW to Dodge Center, Mn. (PRIOR APPROVALS ON BOTH - EVANS, MC CONNELL, HUNZIKER & SENJEW Robert Scott DBA M & M Signs 225 Ruby St. Mankato, Mn. 56001 _ A.B.A.T.E. Escort for Toy Run 8/19/95 Hwy 14 E to Toys R Us to Hiawatha Homes Rochester, Mn. 55901 • 0 • E • LICENSES AND BONDS CONTINUED PAGE 3 AUGUST 7, 1995 uIRWDLIM-10 ►_ 6 :- - 1 Alzheimer's Association Walk A Thon 9/9/95 Around Silver Lake Rochester, Mn. 55904 Rochester Track Club Bear Creek 7 Mile Race 11/4/95 Willow Creek School & Bear Creek Trail Rochester, Mn. 55904 Rochester Track Club Med City Relays & Marathon 5/26/96 Soldiers Field Rochester, Mn. 55902 Sheri Boysen Neighborhood Party at 926 7th Ave SW 7/29/95 Rochester, Mn. 55902 (APPROVALS - HUNZIKER, MCCONNELL, SENJEM, CANFIELD) Max Trenery for Mayo Clinic Division of Psychology Division Picnic at Quarry Hill Park 8/6/95 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM Rochester, Mn. 55904 (APPROVALS - HUNZIKER, MCCONNELL, MYHROM) r3s A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses and bonds and miscellaneous activities. P • ZKO10111►Lei I MOM 11 Lei ►1 MEETING l DATE: 08-07-95 SECTION: Reports & Recommendations DESCRIPTION: Sound Amplification Permit - ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk Back to Cr+ PREPARED Judy Scheer The organizers of the Multicultural Back to School Picnic are requesting that the Common Council approve their request for a Sound Amplification Permit. The picnic will be held on Sunday, August 13, from 12 Noon to 6:00 P.M. at Slatterly Park. Amplified music will be a part of the program. A motion to approve the resolution for a Sound Amplification Permit for the Multicultural Back to School Picnic on August 13th at Slatterly Park from 12 Noon to 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQU SE T FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 08-01-95 IDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: i tm NU. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I City Clerk C. -(P DESCRIPTION: SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT - MAYO MEDICAL PREPARED Sr. CENTER Judy Scherr Mayo Medical Center is sponsoring an outdoor concert for their staff and families on Friday, August 18th, from 6:00 to 10:00 P.M. in the outdoor riverside area of Mayo Civic Auditorium. They are requesting that the Council approve a sound amplification permit for this event and waive the required 8:00 P.M. closing time. They sponsored such an event last summer for their employees. A motion to approve a Sound Amplification Permit and waive the time restriction for Mayo Medical Center for an outdoor concert at Mayo Civic Auditorium on Friday, August 18th. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING «r % DATE: 08-01-95 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING N3 DATE: 08-01-95 DA SECTION: =RCO NATING DEPT: ITEM NO.. Reports & Recommendations Clerk (�+ PREPARED DESCRIPTION: Appeals Board Appointment for 112.09 - Door -to -Door Judy Scherr Salespersons We are requesting that the Council approve the appointment of an Appeals Board to hear appeals in the event a peddlers license is revoked or suspended or registration is refused by the City Clerk. Over the past few years, and particularly in the last few months, violations are occurring on a regular basis by individuals licensed under the door-to-door ordinance. RCO 112.09 provides for an Appeals Board to be appointed by the Mayor consisting of three residents of the City. The terms of appointment are for three years staggere&in one, two and three year increments. Since the Board would meet on a very infrequent basis, we are requesting that the Mayor appoint three Council members to serve. COUN 'iT erTION RF_.O EUM A motion to instruct the Mayor to appoint a three member Board of Appeals from the Common Council members as authorized under RCO 112.09. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second 10 CITY OF ROCHESTER City Clerk's Office • Date: July 19, 1995 To: Chuck Hazama, Mayor From: Judy Scherr, Deputy City Clerk Subject: Appeals Board - Door -to -Door Salespersons The current ordinance, RCO 112.09, provides for an Appeals Board in those instances where peddlers permits are refused and/or revocated or suspended. The enclosed copy of the ordinance outlines the structure and responsibilities of the Board. We currently do not have an Appeals Board in place and have not needed such a vehicle in the past. We are seeing more and more instances where door-to-door salespeople are committing violations of the ordinance and are currently involved in a situation where such a Board may be needed in the near future. I request that you place this item, if at all possible, on the August 7th Council meeting for approval. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. • cc: Steve Kvenvold Carole Grimm Dave Goslee LJ !VS ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES • (6) The refusal or failure of the registrant or permittee to leave the property or premises of others when requested to leave by the owner or occupant thereof. (7) The making of any false statement or misrepresentation by the registrant or permittee to gain entrance to any building or structure within the city. (8) The use of any false or fraudulent statement, whether written or oral, or any misrepresentation concerning the price, terms of payment, quality, quantity, or.delivery of personal property, goods, wares, merchandise or services. (9) The violation by the registrant or permittee of any other provisions of this chapter. 112.08. Right of Appeal. If the city clerk refuses or fails to register the applicant or permit the organization, or if registration or permit is suspended or revoked, the applicant, permittee or registrant may appeal to the appeals board by filing a written notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten days after the city clerk's decision. If the notice of appeal is not timely filed, the right of appeal is terminated and thereafter no appeal may be brought. A timely appeal from a suspension or revocation shall stay the • suspension or revocation until the decision of the appeals board is rendered. 112.09. Appeals Board. There is hereby created an appeals board consisting of three residents of the city to be appointed by the mayor. Members of the appeals board shall serve for a term of three years except that the first members shall be appointed as follows: one member shall be appointed for a term of one year; and one member shall be appointed for a term of two years; and one member shall be appointed for a term of three years and shall serve until a successor is appointed and qualified. The members of the board shall elect a chairman from among their members, and may promulgate rules governing the conduct of their meetings. Vacancies shall be filled by the appointing authority for the unexpired term of the vacant office. The appeals board shall have authority to hear appeals from the action of the city clerk on the following matters: (1) The refusal or failure to register an applicant or permit an organization. (2) The revocation of a registration or permit. (3) The suspension of a registration or permit. • May 19, 1995 - update 338 f CHAPTER 112. DOOR-TO-DbOR SALESPERSONS appeals board may receive all evidence, and hear witnesses • The on matters germane to the appeal before the board. The board shall afford the registrant, permittee or applicant making the appeal an opportunity to present evidence, cross examine witnesses, and to be heard. The appeals board may affirm, modify or reverse the 'action taken by the city clerk. The appeals board shall hear all appeals within ten days after written notice of appeal is filed with the city clerk and render a decision within ten days thereafter. 112.10. Mrr+ner of Giving Notice. All notices to be given to an applicant, permittee or registrant under this chapter shall be given either by personal service, or by mail to the address for service of notices as shown on the application form. Service by mail shall be deemed complete on the date of mailing and shall be conclusively presumed that notice by mail was received by the applicant,per ittee or or registrant, and the failure of the applicant, p registrant to receive such notice shall naction ot invalidate the taken pursuant to such notice. 112.11. xnt;nn of Hearing. Notice of any hearing involving the registrant, permittee or the applicant shall be given by the city clerk in writing, setting forth specifically the purpose, time and place of hearing. Such notice shall be mailed to the registrant, permittee or applicant at least five days prior to the date set fore hearing or shall be personally served at least three days prior to the date set for hearing. 112.12. No"•^^ 91 v;^latien. The police department shall report to the city clerk all convictions for violations of the provisions of this chapter. A registration or permit shall be automatically cancelled and terminated without further action by the city clerk upon conviction of the registrant -or permittee of a violation of this chapter or upon a forfeiture of bail by a registrant or permittee charged with a violation of this chapter. 112.13. FYn;rations. All registrations and permits under this chapter shall automatically expire 90 days from the date of issuance. 112.14. :o Representations by City. The city and its duly authorized agents and employees make no representations whatsoever as to the quality of the merchandise, service or other thing offered for sale, and make no representations whatsoever concerning the honesty, integrity or reliability of persons registered under this chapter. 112.15. •^••'' Noise Prohibited. No registrant or permitter, nor any person in his behalf shall shout, cry out, blow a horn, ring a bell or use any sound amplifying device on any of the streets, alleys, May 19, 1995 - update 339 . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 'Y DATE: 08/07 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports and Recommendations Finance EM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $2,521,387.52 Less: Any exceptions ACTION: Motion by: Seoond by: ITEM NO. C O. +-I PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR CQUNCIL ACTION MEETING M AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: FINANCE DESCRIPTION: AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR POSTAGE VENDING ITEM NO. c-10 PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Background The Clerk's Office requested we examine ways to reduce demands on staff due requests for both monetary change and for the purchase of stamps. There will be a significant increase in the number of employees at the new location and the Clerk's office is trying to anticipate additional demands. The first issue will be addressed through the installation of change machines and/or vending machines that provide change as part of the City Hall furniture and equipment budget. We also contacted the post office to see if they would provide a machine for dispensing postage stamps to city staff, county staff, and the public. They believe there could be sufficient traffic to support a machine at the new building and are therefore requesting we enter into the attached revocable license agreement. All the city provides under this agreement is a place to plug the machine in at the new City Halt. U.S. Post Office staff will service the machine, replacing stamp inventory, providing needed repairs, and handling cash received. Recommendation They originally feared it would take up to a year to receive one of these machines, but for whatever reason, one will be available shortly. We may need to temporarily locate the machine at the current City Hall, but we feel this is a worthwhile arrangement to reduce staff demands in the Clerk's office. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Respectfully request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a revocable license agreement for postage vending equipment. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion W. second by REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR VENDING EQUIPMENT This Agreement is entered into by the United States Postal Service, hereinafter referred to as USPS; and hereinafter referred to as the Licensor. The undersigned Licensor hereby grants the LISPS a revocable license to install, service and maintain the stamp vending equipment which will be placed at the following location: BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS - CITY, STATE, ZIP+4 2. The Licensor shall retain all rights to the use, occupancy and ownership of the aforementioned facility and such use, occupancy and ownership shall not be interfered with by the exercise of the license granted herein. 3. The USPS will provide all materials and labor for normal installation of the vending equipment and after installation, the USPS agrees to maintain said equipment in good repair at its expense. 4. The USPS agrees to service the equipment as often as necessary to provide reliable and efficient service. This service shall include stocking the machines, collection of monies and necessary repairs. 5. The Licensor agrees to provide and pay for electricity, heating, plumbing, air conditioning, snow removal and trash removal related to the operation of said equipment. 6. If aesthetic enclosure or housing is desired, the Licensor agrees to erect and bear the expense of such enclosure or housing. 7. This License Agreement may be terminated or revoked by either party upon submission of a written notice thirty (30) days prior to the effective date. The USPS shall address its notice to the Licensor's representative cited below. The Licensor shall address its notice to: RETAIL SPECIALIST U S POSTAL SERVICE 100 S 1ST ST RM 115A MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-9611 SIGNATURE NAME - PRINTED TITLE SIGNATURE NAME - PRINTED • TITLE PBSM-624 /s/ 0042.1 MODEL PBSM-624 Operational Factors * Accepts $1 through $20 bills * Accepts pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters and dollar coins * Vends four booklet selections and two individual stamps * Price setting range from 5 cents to $50 * Product capacity -1600 booklets and 6000 stamps * Change payback - unrestricted Description • Firs tClass or po uses two card stamp pps and four arias --crass vdispe individuale t vend stamp booklets. The currency validator accepts $1 through $20 bills and has the cappacity to stack 2,000 bills. High capanty change payback hovers will liminate change restrictions and will permi� acceptance o 10 and 120 bills for purchasing lower priced products. Pays back in dollar coins. Installation Requirements SIZE - 34 W x 24-lW D x 7r H WEIGHT - 700 pounds POWER -115 V, 60 Hz and 5 amps (max) MOUNTING - Free-standing; front loading; indoor r n *nu r n. e ***REQUIRES ANCHORING AT THE BASE OR AGAINST STATIONARY WALL, • FOR SAFETY REASONS p Produyction deThere eries estimated o begin A gust I994�ment. _ � __ _ 7,s � c..,_r,� � r.� �r : . ram` _ .t e`.-.. akin- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t 0 n ATC• A n ioc AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINANCE �► _ �' ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED B REQUEST TO APPROVE SIGNATURES FOR CPV PROGRAM JENNIFER KINY: G The Finance/Purchasing Department requests approval of signatures to continue membership in the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) program so as to be able to take advantage of purchasing products at lower prices through state contracts. COUNCIL ACTION Give approval of signatures to continue membership in Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) program.. COUNCIL ACTION: Motlon by. Second by: to: 1Stj TA EE OF MINNFSOTA Department of Administration On behalf of the Materials Management Division welcome to the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) program. Outoussion Enclosed lease find one 1 co of the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement, To improve the quality P () PY P 9 9 , andp,educovity which has been executed by the State of Minnesota and contains your CPV of Minnesota e.We ft. - order permit number. Any previous agreement is now void. Please have the Agreement signed by an authorized person. Make and retain a copy for your records and return the original to the State. For those members who have a FAX machine, your CPV order permit number/fax security access code will enable you to utilize the Voice/FAX system to receive contract releases. Please follow instructions in the enclosed brochure titled, 'The FAX from Contracts". In the event you do not have a facsimile (FAX) machine, a Contract Commodity Index has been enclosed to assist you. It lists contracts now in force from which you may make purchases. Please submit, in writing, your requests for the actual contract release which contains all pertinent ordering information. When placing orders with the contract vendor, please state your current permit number and the applicable State of Minnesota contract number on all orders. If you have any questions or problems regarding registration, please call Sherry Brown at 612-297-2683. If you have any questions regarding contract information, please call the Helpline at 612-296-2600. nicer y, John Hagge Director Mawlah Mono=iamw Dh6lon, 112 Admkds&adm BAft SO SbQbww Any At Pa4 ADV SSISS Vokc 612 297 2W 779/lDD: 612 2MSM- A= 612 297-39% .0 0 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA Ss DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION / MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DIVISION M COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT STATE CONTRACTS WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Administration of the State of Minnesota, procures for State Agencies through competitive bidding various supplies, commodities and equipment, which are then ordered by or for State Agencies, and WHEREAS, the State Legislature by Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 471.59 Subd. 10, has authorized the State and its Political Subdivisions to enter into agreements to exercise jointly the governmental powers and functions each has individually, and WHEREAS, the State and (the)i1C.k f S (— wish to combine their purchasing functions as specifically pr vided below so that the State Political Subdivision may avail itself of the prices which have been agreed upon by the State and its vendor. THEREFORE, it is the purpose of this agreement to make available to the aforementioned Political Subdivisions the commodities as listed on the State's contract index and contracts at the prices and terms as are available to the State, except delivery charges, under said contracts entered into under competitive bidding pursuant to M.S., Chapter 16B, by the Commissioner of Administration. IT IS AGREED that if the Political Subdivision chooses to buy any of the commodities from any such State contracts, it will issue purchase orders in accordance with all conditions, terms, specifications and prices stated in such contracts and will send the purchase orders directly to the vendors who entered into the contracts. The Political Subdivision also agrees to make payment directly to the vendor in accordance with its established procedures and conditions and terms of the contract. Neither the State nor its purchasing agent, personally, or officially, assumes any responsibility for the accountability of funds expended hereunder by the Political Subdivision, or the issuance or non -issuance of any purchase order by the Political Subdivision. The Political Subdivision further agrees to save and hold the State harmless from any loss, damage or expense arising from this agreement or from any purchase order issued by the Political Subdivision. This Agreement expires on June 30, 1996. POLITICAL SUBDIVISION STAT F M PESO BY: BY: Dir o , Materials Ma (Ttle) S (Date) • (Address) 1995-1996 Permit Number/FAX Security Access Code: (Date) TC I -SS I rn 5o I ssa �-au,�-I* REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Me) DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINANCE TEM DESCRIPTION: AUTHORIZATION OF SIGNATORY FOR GROUP INSURANCE PREPARED BY: PLAN AMENDMENTS Jennifer King The group insurance plan has changes that are made to it periodically because of changes in the law, changes in benefits that occur under the approval of the City Council, or changes that affect the administration of the plan but do not affect the benefits being provided. These changes require amendments to the plan which need to be signed by an authorized person. The staff would like to request that the City Administrator be authorized by the Council to sign these amendments on the City's behalf. The original group insurance plan was submitted to the Council for approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt a resolution that gives the City Administrator authorization to sign amendments to the Insurance Plan which affect the administration of the plan but do not affect the benefits being provided. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORGANIZATIONAL MAYOR EM DESCRIPTION: APPOINTMENT - POLICE OFFICER - POLICE DEPARTMENT MEETING / S 5 DATE: 8/T95 C 43 . PREPARED BY: S. NORRIS THE RETIREMENT OF RONALD E. JOHNSTON, CAPTAIN, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31, 1995 ULTIMATELY CREATES A VACANCY FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. (SEE ATTACHED) NOTE: AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1995 THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE ADVISED OF THE APPOINTMENT OF TODD A. RUBIN TO FILL THE VACANCY CREATED BY THE RETIREMENT OF RONALD E. JOHNSTON. CANDIDATE RUBIN WAS DETERMINED TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT. POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED SECTION 9.00 OF THE ROCHESTER HOME RULE CHARTER STATES THAT THE MAYOR APPOINTS ALL MEMBERS OF THE ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT. PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY, THE MAYOR HAS APPOINTED FREDERICK J. FANNING TO THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER IN THE ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINGENT UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AN INDEPTH BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. THIS INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL SO THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF THE APPOINTMENT. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seoond MAP i "`_WER""m ROCHESTER <rh ,4e POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION JOY FOGARTY RICHARD MAHLER ARNOLD HILL August 1, 1995 Honorable Mayor Hazama City Hall Rochester, Minnesota 55902 Dear Mayor. Hazama: The retirement of Ronald E. Johnston, Captain, effective January 31, 1995 ultimately creates a vacancy for the position of Police Officer. We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment for the position of Police Officer from the following list of three (3) names which stand highest on the Police Officer Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates: *1. Kurt P. Meyer • *2. Wayne A. Quiram 3. Frederick J. Fanning Police Chief Farrell desires to have this appointment effective as soon as possible subject to the candidate's successful completion and passing of an indepth background investigation, a medical examination and a psychological examination. Respectfully Submitted, Richard Mahler Secretary Police Civil Service Commission * Does not desire to be appointed at this time An Fpd 4prfandyl. }y.nnatile Adion T pbyer ►_•1111 *is misivuelelliz • MEETING /L r DATE: R/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORGANIZATIONAL ORIGINATING DEPT: MAYOR ITEM NO. 0-4 EM DESCRIPTION: APPOINTMENT - POLICE OFFICER - POLICE DEPARTMENT PREPAREABY- S. NORR THE RETIREMENT OF WAYNE W. WELCH, POLICE OFFICER, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 31, 1995 CREATES A VACANCY FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. (SEE ATTACHED) POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED COUNCIL ACTIONREQUESTED: SECTION 9.00 OF THE ROCHESTER HOME RULE CHARTER STATES THAT THE MAYOR APPOINTS ALL MEMBERS OF THE ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT. PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY, THE MAYOR HAS APPOINTED DAVID D. DREES TO THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER IN THE ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINGENT UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF AN INDEPTH BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. THIS INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL SO THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF THE APPOINTMENT. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: r� ALL ER,a m ROCHESTER POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION JOY FOGARTY RICHARD MAHLER ARNOLD HILL August 1, 1995 Honorable Mayor Hazama City Hall Rochester,Minnesota 55902 Dear Mayor Hazama: The retirement of Wayne W. Welch, Police Officer, effective August 31, 1995 creates a vacancy for the position of Police Officer. We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment for the position of Police Officer from the following list of three (3) names which stand highest on the Police Officer Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates: *1. Kurt P. Meyer . *2. Wayne A. Quiram 3. David D. Drees Police Chief Farrell desires to have this appointment effective as soon as possible subject to the candidate's successful completion and passing of an indepth background investigation, a medical examination and a psychological examination. Respectfully Submitted, Richard Mahler Secretary Police Civil Service Commission * Does not desire to be appointed at, this time • An Equal OpportunitylA ineotiie Action Employer IG3 1] 0 0 ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT m opimum TO: Fred Wagner FROM: Pat Farrell DATE: July 13, 1995 SUBJECT: Request for Replacement Officer We are expecting to receive soon a notice from Officer Wayne Welch announcing his retirement from this Department. The informal message we have received is that his final date of employment will be on or about August 31, 1995. We are requesting that a name be provided to us for the purpose of initiating a background investigation on a candidate to replace him, and that this additional person proceed through the hiring process. We understand that one of the persons to whom a job offer has recently been made will not be joining us. We therefore are expecting the material necessary for a background investigation on the next person on the eligibility list to replace that candidate. We are prepared to receive the new officers for our orientation training on September 4, 1995. July 31, 1995 Chief P. Farrell Rochester Police Dept. Rochester, MN Dear Chief Farrell, Please except this as my resignation from the -Rochester Police Dept. on August 31, 1995. Sincerely, wo�-4-v 0 • LI REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 1995 — --- CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING C DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition "195-12 by Lowell Penz to Vacate a Portion of the PREPA Right -of -Way for 36th Street SW and the Adjacent Utilities Jane pi July 27, 1995 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On July 26, 1995, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition to vacate the right-of-way and adjacent utilities for 36th Street SW platted in Willow Ridge Subdivision. This right-of-way is located on the west side of Willow Ridge Drive SW and east of Willow Heights Drive SW. The petitioner is proposing to develop this area as the last phase of the mobile home park, and provide access with a private street. The Planning Commission found that there does not appear to be a public need for this street as a public right-of-way. The connection between Willow Heights Drive and Willow Ridge Drive will be made with the private street, and the existing and proposed utilities can be protected with an easement. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner must provide legal descriptions for all of the necessary easements to protect the existing and planned utilities. 2. The petitioner must submit a design for the private street which specifically addresses the connection to the existing 36th Street fight -of -way. This design must be approved by the City Public Works Department Motion by Suk to recommend approval of Vacation Petition t195-12 subject to the above conditions; second by Beed. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated July 20, 1995. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date of September 5, 1995, on this matter in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. 2. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the right-of-way as petitioned. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated July 20, 1995 2. Referral Comments (3 letters) COUNCIL ACTION: btouon by: Second by CJ TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission RVEHElTER•�,/'�� Rq r6: {Cci`T'! ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Jane A Kansier, Planners WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: July 20, 1995 RE: Vacation Petition #95-12 to Vacate the Right -of -Way for 36th Street SW and the Adjacent Utility Easements as Platted in Willow Ridge Planning Department Review: Petitioners: Lowell Penz 3705 Enterprise Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 Location of Property: This right-of-way and the adjacent utility easements are located on the west side of Willow Ridge Drive NW, east of Willow Heights Drive SW and Willow Heights Second Subdivision. The right-of-way is platted in Willow Ridge Subdivision. Reason For Request: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: The petitioner has noted that the public road in this location is no longer needed. Easements for any utilities will be granted. Comments from the RPU Water Division and the RPU Power Division are attached. No other comments have been received at this time. 1. Referral Comments (2 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Petition The petitioner is beginning development on the last phase of the Willow Ridge Mobile Home Park. He is proposing to vacate the right-o%way for 36th Street SW, and provide access to this area through a private street, similar to the private cul-de-sacs located in the mobile home park. The private street would then conned with 38th Street SW as platted In Willow Heights 2nd Subdivision. The RPU Water Division has noted that utility easements are required for the public water facilities that are scheduled for construction. There is also an existing 24- water main within this area that requires an easements. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNnY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (4 Page 2 Vacation Petition #95-12. July 20, 1995 There does not appear to be a need for this street as a public right-of-way. The connection between . Willow Ridge Drive and Willow Heights Drive will still be accomplished through the private street. In addition, the existing and future utility easements can be accommodated through the dedication of utility easements. The Planning staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following condition: f. The petitioner must provide legal descriptions for all of the necessary easements to protect the existing and planned public utilities. 2. The petitioner must submit a design for the private street which specifically addresses the connection to the existing 36th Street right-of-way. This design must be approved by the City Public Works Department Plannina Commission Action Reyuired., The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of this request. This recommendation will then be forwarded to the Council. The Council will hold a public hearing on this item at a later date. • 0 /49 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester. MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507 /280-1542 July 18, 1995 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Vacation Petition 95-12 by Lowell Penz to vacate the right-of-way for 36 Street SW and the adjacent ten foot wide utility easements platted in Willow Ridge and located east of Willow Heights 2 Subdivision and west of Willow Ridge Drive SW. Dear Ms. Decklever. Our review of the referenced vacation petition is complete and our comments follow: 1. Utility easements will need to be dedicated following the alignment of the public water main facilities that are scheduled for construction. 2. The is an existing 24' water main across Block 3, Lot 1 within the petitioned area that will require the dedication of utility easement also. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 there are questions. Very truly yours, Harold E. Wobschall Senior Engineering Technician Water Division • y JLLl9M 110 � ROCHESTER July 20, 1995 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 - FROM: - Department of Public Works ��..ur.. r r a •,q. gyp'. i!;;' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 4th Street S.E. Rarester, MN 55904.4718 (507) 281-6008 FAX 4(507) 281.6216 RE: PETITION TO VACATE #95-12 BY LOWELL PENZ TO VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 36TH STREET SW dt: ADJACENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENTS The Department of Public Works comments are as follows: • 1. Per agreement with developer, 36th Street to be vacated to Willow Heights Drive. 2. Consideration should be.given to vacating Willow Ridge Drive. 3. Developer to construct entrance to 36th from Willow Heights drive per agreement with Public Works. 4. A public sidewalldbikeway should be constructed between Willow Heights Drive and Willow Ridge Drive. - S. Easements to be provided for sanitary sewer and watermain within area to be vacated. MEETING If DATE: August 7, 1995 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING e _ k# ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #95-14 by Clean Ideas, Inc., to Vacate a Portion of the l0' PREPARED BY: easement lying southerly of the north line of Lots 6 & 7 Hartman Square Terry Spaeth, I I July 31, 1995 Planning Department Review: Petitioner. Clean Ideas, Inc., Darrell Hewitt Mermaid Car Wash 3939 West River Parkway Rochester, MN 55901 Location of Proms 3939 West River Parkway This property is legally described as Lots 6 & 7, Hartman Square Requested Action: Vacation of the 10' utility easement lying southerly of the north line of Lots 6 & 7, Hartman Square adjacent to vacated 40th Street NW, except the east 10' thereof. Reason for Request To facilitate the expansion of the Mermaid Carwash located upon the property Referral Agency Comments: No comments have been received from any of the referral agencies at this time. We will forward any comments to the Council at the time of the public hearing. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a hearing date of September 5, 1995, on this matter in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. i 2. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the utility easement as petitioned. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Petition COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: 147?% r— EASEMENT EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED: . SCALE 1" 40' U v F 1, T T E D r--61, UTILITY EASEMENT^+N— N89'07'37"W 235.57 NO h�T � —_ 4 0 T T_i �--SST— R—F F T N. W. 890T3T-E— — ——— In1_204.69 11 1 T _w z ��a12.00 S89'07'3i'E �10' VnLTTY EASEMENT W.I— I rwm uor m.sr-+ I I I .tu eorlol� Np...^� 52'. Aco AM%pa ar w� �10' UTILTTY I� F to . z l EASEMENT ''off 3 r :n to II' I � I III I i®rir H• An E....�o,.r. .•c-ar7 e7 E" I F]4E0ASEmmEuNTTYI,oaI89 37'35"W L75.45 F 11 N8&'35'E 1 Q I � vieownrri V I1 no; ueers�l m I I I m � I i I I N sn1 � So E :awrrrrrl. 7.�� rrwwersl� S tlQ2] E $2, uu AL 2 B i U ]= 10"' 'IT /SI1 °�R CAR WASH McGhie Betts ''� tN� 3939 WWr RIVER PRRY N.W. setts atE:" Os—t2-9s ROCRESTER. MINNESOTA war. ■n: 2226/4429 55901 cw m : 4499EASE 5 •1 A 173 City of Rochester, Minnesota . DATE: July 28, 1995 TO: Mayor and Common Council City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota. 55901 PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR UTILITY EASEMENT We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal descrip- tion and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) OWNERS NAME (If in joint tenancy, both or all LEGAL DESCRIPTION parties must sign) Clean Ideas, Inc. Lots 6 &71 Hartman Square We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate the following described public property: The 10' easement lying southerly of the north line of Lots 6 & 7 Hartman Square adjacent }} to vacated #1.9.t Street NW except the east 10' thereof.. The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: 2 3. .rsrrssrs Sheet 1 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t DATE: August 7, 1995 CONSENT CALENDAR Request to Set a Public neann #95-16 by Anthony and JoAnn PLANNING of the Property at 2520 Institute July 27, 1995 Plannin.a Department Review: Petitioner: JoAnn and Anthony Bianco 2520 Institute Road SW Rochester, MN 55902 C -17 Jane Location of Property: 2520 Institute Road SW This property is located on the south side of Institute Road SW, east of CSAH 8 (Bamber Valley Road) and west of Crest Lane SW. Area: The request includes 11.0 acres of land. Requested Action: To permit the extension of municipal sewer and water to the property. Planning Department Recommendation: The Planning staff recommends that this petition for annexation, filed under Minnesota Statutes 414.033 Subdivision 2, Paragraph 3, should be scheduled for a public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes 414.033 Subdivision 2b. The required 30 day notification period would mean that the earliest hearing date would be September 18, 1995. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council should instruct the City Clerk to schedule this annexation for a public hearing on September 18, 1995. The annexation laws require that the Township Officers and adjacent property owners receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days in advance of the hearing. These notices must be sent by August 13, 1995, for the September 18, 1995, public hearing. 2. The Council should refer this matter to the City Planning and Zoning Commission for review and comment. The CPZC may consider this annexation request at their August 23, 1995, meeting. Attachments: 1. Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second / Iry i 1 MAYowD 1 � BAMBER / r � r 5 M < YOWOOD 0 MAYOW000 Sw OW000 COMMON 3 COMMON ST IN 3 as,Ar WOOD HILLS' RO' DR e r AN1lEXiq Rp Ull DR. �iMtco McGhie Betts,rVb A,"t4fxAnW £xNi&T Peppelmy :r 1 W >a M[ S(. be/�. YN 591M SOT-299-]H9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t --Jr? I DATE: August 7, 1995 CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING I (t - /g Request to Set a Public Hearing Date for Annexation by Ordinance Petition Nrttr,a #95-15 by Timothy Buechler of the Property at 2009 Eastwood Road SE Jane July 27, 1995 Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Timothy F. Buechler 2009 Eastwood Road SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: 2009 Eastwood Road SE This property is located on the north side of Eastwood Road SE, about 1/4 mile east of Eastgate Drive SE. It the site of Artistic Fabrication Minnesota. Area: Approximately 0.55 acres. Requested Action: To permit the extension of municipal sewer and water to the building. Planning Department Recommendation: The Planning staff recommends that this petition for annexation, filed under Minnesota Statutes 414.033 Subdivision 2, Paragraph 3, should be scheduled for a public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes 414.033 Subdivision 2b. The required 30 day notification period would mean that the earliest hearing date would be September 18, 1995. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council should instruct the City Clerk to schedule this annexation for a public hearing on September 18, 1995. The annexation laws require that the Township Officers and adjacent property owners receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days in advance of the hearing. These notices must be sent by August 18, 1995, for the September 18, 1995, public hearing. 2. The Council should refer this matter to the City Planning and Zoning Commission for review and comment. The CPZC may consider this annexation request at their August 9, 1995, meeting. Attachments: 1. Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second ,:sit �� [pill•[ • Z • MEETING t 79 DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Public Works C 119 EM DESCRIPTION: Request for bids: Project 9407-95 J-9347 PREPARED BY: Sanitary Sewer Plat 5065 Parcel 00800 Mac illivray This is a request for a resolution advertising for bids to be received until 11:00 AM, September 1, 1995 and considered by the Council on September 5, 1995 for the following project: Project No. 9407-95 J No. 9347 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to serve the South Side of TH 14 East, 3850 Hwy 14 East, Plat 5065 Parcel 00800" The estimated cost for the work is $127,000 and will be funded by Special Assessments and City participation for the highway crossings and oversizing of the watermain. Council Action Requested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. . Note to City Clerk: Please advertise in the Construction Bulletin beginning on August 11, 1995. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 18 / DATE: 8/7/95 IDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Public Works C DESCRIPTION: Advertise for bids: Project 7503-16-95 J-4946 PREPARED BY: Bituminous Walkway 41st St. NW �IVcGillivray rws This is a request for a resolution advertising for bids to be received until 11:00 AM, August 18, 1995 and considered by the Council on August 21, 1995 for the following project: Project 7503-16-95 J-4946 "Bituminous Walkway on South Side of 41st Street N.W. West Frontage Road TH 52 to 31st Avenue N.W." Bike Trails are included in the 1995 - 2000 C.I.P. Item No. 2, page 28. Funding will come from the Bike Trails account and a DNR Grant for one half the cost of the project. The estimated cost of the work is $20,000. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Advertise only in the Post -Bulletin. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 93` DATE: 8/7/95 4 4 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works C -a ' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report - Watermain South Pointe PREPARED By: 2nd Sub. Machinery Hill Sub. Gillivray This is a request for a resolution ordering the preparation of a Feasibility Report for the extension of watermain in 23rd Avenue SW from South Pointe 2nd Subdivision, easterly across TH 63 to serve Machinery Hill Subdivision. Three property owners representing approximately 34 percent of the assessable frontage have petitioned for the extension of services. The petitioners claim that a fourth owner is agreeable which would bring the percentage of petitioned frontage to 48 percent. The prime motivator for the project appears to be a Fire Department requirement for sprinklers in the expansion of the Mack Truck facility. The project will require extension through the future South Pointe Subdivision. Council Action Requested If the council wishes to proceed a resolution (Form 2A) could be adopted ordering the preparation of the feasibility report. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: MEETING' K S� I DATE: 8/7/95 Reports & Recommendations (Public Works DESCRIPTION:Proposal by McGhie & Setts: Project 9106-95 J- 9353 San. Sewer & WM to Gates Drive SW C-2x BY: vray This is a proposal by McGhie & Betts, Inc. to provide design and construction services for the following local improvement project: Project No. 9106-95 J No. 9353 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in 23rd Avenue S.W. from 4th Street S.W. to Gates Drive, in 5th Street S.W. from 500 Feet East to 650 Feet West of 23rd Avenue.S.W. and in Gates Drive S.W. from 23rd Avenue S.W. to 200 Feet West". The fee for design services is a lump sum of $16,000. Construction staking and inspection services will be at an hourly rate with a total fee not to exceed $12,100. The hearing for this project is also being held on August 7th. Authorization to proceed would be contingent upon the project being ordered by the Council. council Action ReQ11ested If the Council approves the proposal, a resolution should be adopted authorizing the execution of a contract with McGhie & Betts. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t f 7 DATE: 8/7/95 F- L AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public works TEM DESCRIPTION: Project 6311-1-93 J-2291 - llth Ave. NE Bridge PREPARED BY: Deck Replacement MacGillivray This is a request for a resolution advertising for bids to be received until 11:00 AM, September 1, 1995 and considered September 5, 1995 for the following project: by the Council on Project 6311-1-93 J-2291 1111th Avenue NE Bridge Deck Replacement" The project was included in the 1993 Capital Improvement Budget (page 257). $240,000 was allocated to this bridge at that time. Funding will come from the Municipal State Aid Account. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The utility work (relocation of the sanitary sewer and watermain under Silver Creek) would be done this fall and the bridge deck would be replaced in the spring of 1996. This permits coordination with the 4th Street SE projects. Council Action Reauested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted authorizing the City Clerk.to advertise for bids. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I ( / DATE: 8/T95 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works C DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ABATEMENT PREPARED RE LOEHR REQUESTS Three applications for abatement of special assessments has been filed with the Olmsted County Assessor's Office from March 31, 1995 to July 31, 1995. No other petitions for abatement of special assessments have been received after the July 31, 1995 date. The abatement requests number 147. 148, and 149 represent requests for abatement of special assessments of sanitary sewer and watermain extension to Oakhills, Kleist Replat, Golden Hill The Department of Public Works has reviewed the applications for abatement based on the Special Assessments Abatement Policy adopted by resolution dated April 4, 1994 and amended by resolution on July 17, 1995. The applications represent areas that had the Environmental Remedition of the Factor (Ee nt previously determined. The Department of Public Works is recommending approval requests in the amount of $10,795.06. (The attached spread sheet outlines the abatement requests, the assessments considered for abatement, the amount recommended for abatement and the total revised assessment amount). The approved abatement amount would be released to the petitioners as allowed by Policy. The current balance in the funding source for abatement of special assessments is insufficient for the applications for abatement under consideration. The abatement requests number 148, 148, and 149 would not receive an abatement at this time. The. abatement would be released as additional funds become available and in the order the applications for abatement were filed with the County. Council Action Requested 1, The Department of Public Works requests a motion to adopt the findings of fact to approve the special assessment abatement petitions and referring said petitions to the County Board for their consideration. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Seoond 00. W 2 W Q m multi INNER UNK I SEE BRIM • • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works C -O S DESCRIPTION: Advertise For Bids for Electronic Parking Meters I PREPARED I D. Rossman This is a request to advertise for bids for Electronic Parking Meters, Hand Held Terminals, Debit System Software and Parking Meter Managdmdnt'Software as per City of Rochester Specifications. Bids are to be received at 11:00 AM, Wednesday, August 30, 1995. This equipment was recommended by the 1995 CAD Parking Taskforce. It is needed to implement the time zone and rate changes adopted by the City Council on June 5, 1995. Estimated cost is $240 - $300 per unit. Funds are available in the Parking Enterprise Fund. Approval of advertisement with bid opening 8/30/95. To be considered for award at the first meeting in September, 1995. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 IDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 364 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works C� DESCRIPTION: PARKING REQUEST FOR DRIVERS LICENSE TESTING PREPARED BY: D.M.ROSSMAN , This office has received a request from Mr. Dave Kulzer of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. concerning parking adjacent to their drivers testing office at 506 1st Avenue N.E. He is requesting a 2 hour parking zone on the east side of the First Avenue from 5th Street to 6th Street. This is needed to keep this area available for drivers taking the road test, especially semi -truck drivers. Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph: (2.0) to Section H Zone F 2 hour limited parking to read: (2.0) First Avenue N.E. on the east side from 5th Street to 6th Street 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday thru Friday. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second W lilillilliql1ir si� MKI r� mrm" "M arm FTM I M I 4m 11Q i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. LETTERS, PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR D EM •DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: LETTERS, PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: 9W This agenda section is limited to 30 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. 1W Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. cW A citizen may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. wr Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. av Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ;4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 i AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. LETTERS AND PETITIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR D _ EM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE NEAR WEST PREPARED BY: IDE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM R-2 TO R-1 S. KVENVOLD I The Committee of the Whole recommends that the Council initiate a request to rezone a portion of the near west side neighborhood from R-2 to R-1 as outlined on the attached map. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion initiating the rezoning request and referring the petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. OUNCIL ACTION: Modon by: Second by: to: �MI Kim !Milos N_ mm LIM 1 3tt MM 1111111111011 ®1 y TO: COMMON COUNCIL 1100 BLOCK 1ST STREET NW :OM: 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW 1100 BLOCK OF WEST CENTER STREET SUBJECT: REZONING ABOVE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK UP TO R1 FROM CURRENT R2 ZONING. WE, THE CITIZENS OF 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW...1100 BLOCK WEST CENTER ST, 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, HEREBY REQUEST TO BE REZONED UP TO R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FROM R2. J //Z,6 Al0 St Z &ti -b ib`� A 4 g� boa, �i2Sb rJc�, �-(Rs'i S�- ?sW�6� ZSiK•(e-lb�,Na..�o.a..,y jj rMWa 4 It TO: COMMON.COUNCIL FROM: 1100 BLACK 1ST STREET NW 1100 BLACK 2ND STREET NW • 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW 1100 BLOCK OF WEST CENTER STREET SUBJECT: REZONING ABOVE NEIGHBORHOOD.BACK UP TO R1 FROM CURRENT R2 ZONING. WE, THE CITIZENS OF 1100 BLOCK 2ND.STREET NW, 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK WEST CENTER ST, 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, HEREBY REQUEST TO BE REZONED UP TO R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FRCM R2. STGNATURR/NAME ADDRESS TEL�EPHONE / HOMEOWNER _A . _ /ILl /sT s t�cu �2�a l t t t l >3+ � cx pj ai �f lit NHS' /"#�Sr. A11V ZVO - 4 q &74 i%£S TO: COMMON COUNCIL FROM: 1100 BLACK 1ST STREET NW 1100 BLACK 2ND STREET NW 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW 1100 BLACK OF WEST CENTER STREET SUBJECT: REZONING ABOVE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK UP TO R1 FROM CURRENT R2 ZONING. WE, THE CITIZENS OF 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK WEST CENTER ST, 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLACK 2ND STREET NW, HEREBY REQUEST TO BE REZONED UP TO R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FROM R2. t_ ��-4__ 4sti liS3 Gtl, �c'il,�iZ Si- 2d91-i302- /,,7-g7,,3,;2 Szf+IIt 47 ICJ. tiUl 51 L tipgD�,: //a��RgqR 1�Sy `/iv/Hn 2cT Cz� `:,7 ,I59_r�I YawsUci II .tn- V- Jl Lo0 0"-i 6 II�x^ 1ti �f,�eY 75-S Col" Q A TO: COMMON COUNCIL } FROM: 1100 BLOCK 1ST STREET NW 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW 07-200 11TH AVENUE NW 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW 1100 BLOCK OF WEST CENTER STREET SUBJECT: REZONING ABOVE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK UP TO Ri FROM CURRENT R2 ZONING. WE, THE CITIZENS OF 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK WEST CENTER ST, 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, HEREBY REQUEST TO BE REZONED UP TO R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL;, FROM R2. O�/✓eve LI 21-1 Off_ ST Nf.✓ s TO: COMMON COUNCIL FROM: 1100 BLOCK 1ST STREET NW • 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW 1100 BLOCK OF WEST CENTER STREET SUBJECT: REZONING ABOVE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK UP TO R1 FROM CURRENT R2 ZONING. WE, THE CITIZENS OF 1100 BLOCK 2ND STREET NW, 0-200 12TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLOCK WEST CENTER ST, 0-200 11TH AVENUE NW, 1100 BLACK 2ND STREET NW, HEREBY REQUEST TO BE REZONED UP TO R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FROM R2_ STGNATURR/N ME ADDRESS/ / T/FT-VPHON,E� / HOMEOWNER / 12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING M DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT - TED ERICKSON PREPARED BY: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PLAZA 41 G. NEUMANN The City staff has received a request from McGhie and Betts on behalf of Ted Erickson for issuance of a revocable permit to allow construction on a building to commence in advance of the utility easements being vacated. The hearing on the utility easement vacation is scheduled for August 21, 1995. The revocable permit approval would save them two weeks. There have been no objections received to the vacation of the utility easements in this instance. The staff is becoming increasingly concerned that we have had a number of requests for the issuance of revocable permits simply to shorten the waiting period to commence construction. The City has in the past issued a few revocable permits for the early construction of new buildings. This makes the subsequent hearing rather meaningless. We have typically indicated that the property -owner is proceeding at their risk and is holding the City harmless as a condition. However, as is indicated in the attached memos, the rationale and purpose for a revocable permit is for installations which are temporary in nature or for situations in which a vacation of the easement or land right is not feasible and is not going to be completed. The items for which a revocable permit have been issued which fall in the temporary category are typically fences, patios, decks, outdoor basketball courts, retaining walls, landscaping, etc. Those for which a vacation is not feasible include footings for existing buildings in rights of way which cannot be vacated. In essence, the issuance of a revocable permit to allow a short cut to completion of the vacation process is not viewed by the staff as consistent with the intent of a revocable permit and is not an appropriate process. The concern of some building owners which has resulted in some of the requests for a revocable permit is that the vacation process can take a considerable amount of time. In some instances, this could be as long as two months. The staff would prefer to have some changes made to shorten the vacation process. This would .better respond to the needs of the builders and should also eliminate the need for revocable permits to allow building construction to proceed in advance of the approval of the vacation. I would suggest the following actions by the Council: 1. The Charter does not require that the Council call the public hearing for a vacation. In the last few years, the Council has rather automatically called the hearings under the Consent calendar. I would recommend the adoption of a resolution to authorize the staff to schedule and publish the notice of the hearings for vacations without a Council action to call the hearing. This may save up to two weeks time. 2. The Charter does require three weeks published notice for a hearing on a vacation with 10 days notice to the abutting property -owners. The staff believes that the publication time could be reduced to a published notice for 10 days. The staff recommends adoption of a motion to request that the Charter Commission provide a recommendation on the reduction in the public notice time for vacations to 10 days or 2 weeks. COUNCIL ACTION:. Motion by: Second by: to: lq0 Request for Council Action Request for Revocable Permit - Ted Erickson Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 • August 7, 1995 page two With these changes the staff would prefer to return revocable permits to their original purpose of temporary installations and those for which a vacation is not feasible. If the Council agrees, the staff will not even hold out the issuance of revocable permits as a possibility to shorten the waiting period for the approval of a vacation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Approval of the request for a revocable permit for Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 Second Subdivision subject to receipt of a letter from the owner indicating that they are proceeding at their own risk and are holding the City harmless. 2. Adopt resolution allowing the staff to call the public hearings on vacation requests. 3. Instruct staff to use revocable permits for temporary installations and those situations wh vacation is not feasible but not as a short cut to the hearing process for the vacatiAw easements for the permanent construction of new buildings. 4. Refer to the Charter Commission a request to reduce the publication time for vacation hearings to 10 days or 2 weeks. • • Mc Ghie &Betts, jrc. Consulting EngineersLand Surveyors Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 July 28, 1995 Mr. Gary Neumann Assistant Administrator City of Rochester 224 SW 1st Street Rochester, MN 55902 Re: Lot 1, Block 1 Plaza 41 Second Subdivision Dear Mr. Neumann: On behalf of our Client and the Owner, Mr. Ted Erickson, we are requesting a revocable permit to allow the start of construction prior to finalizing the vacation of the easement on the above referenced lot. The request for this permit stems from the need to complete the project and obtain occupancy prior to winter. There is a permit pending for the footings and foundation on this project. have included for your review the following items: 1. R.C.A. for the pending vacation request. 2. Comments from the referral organization for the pending vacation request. 3. Copy of the Site Plan. Based on our conversation, this request would go to the August 7, 1995 Council Meeting. If you have any questions regarding this request please contact me. Very truly yours, MCGHIE & BETTS, INC. Michael J. Nigbur, AICP MJN/jw K_ M. McGhie, P.E.. H.L.S. 1904-1975 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.. R.L.S. Vice President Allan J, King, PE. Larry J. Shannon, R.L.S. Andrew R. Kehren. P E. Mark E. Severtson. R.L.S. Michael E. Gowin, P.E.. R.L.S. Michael J. Nigbur, A.LC.P An Equal Opportunity Employer U t..-2T_95 RE�JF�T ena COUNCIL ACTIN AE: DATE: Ju1V 17 1995_ 41 July 12.1995 EWLIW••SIP-ak � ent Re ie Petitioner. Location of Property: Requested Action: Reason for Request: Referral Agency Comments: rg Date torE. lLocated Lot 1, the Utility ZWZ Plaza 41 Northwest. Inc. Jim Benike, Treasurer po Box6506 Rochester, MN 55903.6506 Jane This property is located at the south legcomer of 43rd, ally descn'bed Street Nw and 31 st Avenue NW. 41 Northwest. as Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza Vacate several of the utility easements Located on the lot describe above- The With The petitioners are proposing to develop this p a building that would encroach Into these easements. No comments have been received from any of the ies at this l forward any comments toottime. t he Councilat the timeof the public hearing. !an r o Department Recommendation: earing on August.21, 1995. led for a Public 11 The Planning staff recommends that this item heuP tinning staff would recommend approval of If the utility Companies do not obJecl to this request, this request. ouncil A Lion Needs: a If Council wishes to pr 1 oceed as pesi°ned, N should instruct the city Attorney toPrepare date of August 21.199s, on this matter in accord with the resolution setting a public hearing provisions of the City Charter. 2. Following the hearing, if the council wishes to PMco ad, it should Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating tX ascondbY:-� COUNCIL ACTION: rY+ouon �: is U EASE'i�NT VACA4111UIN DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT SCALE 1" = 50' 40EE ATTACHED: i i.---------- —__- p 4 3 r d S T R E E T W IA1 1. BI% PL12A 41 1fQ&[STB SCCOItfl S118D. FLU LWLOW N. 40 + 40 I r 1 I 1 7 � 1 l0' FnLx Vw Lsma g TO 9 T►CATO /` g 3 3S: � •ti > SO PQ8!16 OL1f[T umm — i S ?o P118as .. SO TrACARD ; _ acres 1.98— — — - - - - - - - - - - - d v� s 4r�r�r r 40 40 Legend EASEMENT TO BE VACATED EASEMENT TO REMAIN INPLACE ROFESSIONAL DESIGN GROUP McGowd"Mh_ie � FEMB'MC D7-10-95 : 4095/522! „f10. : 5229EX01 Betts, w s+o.. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 1, 1995 TO: Gary Neumann - Assistant City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins - Rochester City Attorney 10� SUBJECT: Revocable Permits Thank you for your July 31, 1995, memo regarding revocable permits and vacations of public utility easements. You suggest a scenario where a person receives a revocable permit to allow the construction of a building upon a utility easement pending the vacation of that easement. I am concerned that the revocable permit process might be inappropriately used in _ your scenario which could provide an inappropriate precedent for future similar circumstances. Cities are required to hold and maintain public rights -of -way and • easements in the public trust for the intended public purposes. For example, a city holds dedicated streets in the public's trust for public travel and access purposes. However, courts allow cities to permit small and temporary obstructions to those rights of way so long as the underlying public purposes are honored and maintained. Accordingly, this city permits a person to temporarily sell merchandise on a sidewalk or temporarily place cable on a skyway bridge crossing over a public street. Permission for temporary interferences with public rights -of - way occurs by way of a revocable permit. courts require a city to honor the underlying purpose of the right-cf- way. (The cases usually speak in terms of a city's."fiduciary duty" to the public to hold streets "in the public's trust.") The cases do not allow cities to take any action that would appear to be a lease of the right-of-way. A city's authority over rights -of -way stems from its regulatory power; not from any ownership of the underlying land. Technically, the city need not use the permit process and, instead, simply allow the obstruction to occur and remain. However, the permit's advantage is that it provides a method to state the conditions by which the temporary obstruction is allowed (for example, there is usually a requirement for a hold harmless agreement between the city and the permittee). 0 �03 In your scenario, there is no temporary obstruction or interference with the public purpose behind the right-of-way or easement. Instead, the permit would allow a permanent obstruction to the public easement. More importantly, the permit would essentially defeat the utility easement's underlying public purpose. (I assume it would not be possible to place or repair utility .lines in a utility easement located underneath a building.) Thus, the issuance of a revocable permit may. be viewed as an impermissible lease of the land. For this reason, I suggest that the issuance of a revocable permit in the circumstances described in your memo would be inappropriate and would exceed the city's authority to maintain public rights -of -way. adlmmab.per 0 0 O`er ALL -AMERICA CM I I I I P August 1, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ROCHESTER � Gary Neumann Richard Freese Y F Request for Revokable Permit Plaza 41 Northwest Lot 1, Block 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-4718 (507) 281-6008 FAX #(507) 281-6216 I agree with your analysis of this petition to vacate the unused utility easements. A revokable permit issued by the City to provide a two week earlier start, while creative, is an abuse of that process. I'd suggest that the Council be advised by the City Administrator at the August 7, 1995 Committee of the Whole meeting that staff recommends vacation of the easements and ask for the Council's concurrence to authorize an early start permit for footings and foundations prior to the vacation hearing on August 21. No conceivable party can be identified that would be opposed to the vacation. The work should be allowed to proceed with no risk to the City or the property owner. An T4wl Opportm4 Eapbya aag CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 1995 TO: Terry Adkins Richard Freese Ron Livingstone FROM: Gary Neumannl.// SUBJECT: Request For Revocable Permit A request has been received for a "revocable permit" to allow the construction on a building to commence prior to the approval of a vacation of a some utility easements. The hearing on the vacation is scheduled for August 21st while the revocable permit is being requested for the August 7 meeting. The adoption of a • resolution approving the vacation at the August 21 meeting would grant approval of the vacation and allow construction to proceed. The revocable permit would save them 2 weeks time. Apparently McGhie and Betts in contacting the Planning staff was advised that the City could perhaps issue a revocable permit which would allow the construction to proceed at the owner's risk. I do recall that this was discussed in conjunction with a property which wished to commence construction on a garage. I do not recall if this was ever approved or not. If you have any information in your files please provide it. I do have some serious concerns that the City is being requested to utilize a revocable permit process which was intended to address non -permanent type construction or secondary uses such as underground cables which are proposed to be located in the right of way to shorten the construction process for permanent structures. Under a revocable permit presumably the property is still reserved for its original intended use and is not overly encumbered by the temporary use. I do not believe that allowing buildings to be constructed in public right of way or across utility easements under a revocable permit process was ever intended. Conceivably every party that is requesting a vacation and receives a favorable staff report could similarly request a revocable permit to proceed presumably at their own risk. I personally do not believe that the staff should be holding out the use of revocable permits as an option to shorten the waiting period for the building construction process as it was not intended for the construction of permanent structures. . If there is a problem with the utility vacation process taking too much time than I believe that this should be addressed directly rather than using a process intended for temporary installations only. One alternative for this for would be to allow the staff to advertize for the public hearing for the vacation without requiring the Council's approval to call the hearing. For over a year we have placed the requests for hearings for Planning items under the Consent Calendar and the Council's approval has been rather automatic and perfunctory. The Charter requires that the Council hold a public hearing with three weeks published notice and notice of said hearing to all abutting owners at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The Charter does not state that the Council has to call the hearing as I read it. In addition I would ask you to consider whether three weeks published notice could be shortened to two weeks as a recommended Charter change. Please provide any comments or suggestions relating to this request for a revocable permit and for revisions to the vacation process. Since this matter is going to the Council on August 71 unfortunately need your comments by August 4. cc: Stevan Kvenvold Dave Olson 0 �a_ • HOME RULE CHARTER - CITY OF ROCHEST7R MINNESOTA SECTION 17.00. (Procedure). The Common Council may, by resolution adopted by five affirmative votes, vacate any public street, alley, way, grounds or easement, or any part thereof, upon its own motion or by acting upon a petition filed by the owners of at least fifty percent of the lands which abut the line of the portion of the public street, alley, way, grounds or easement, or part thereof, proposed to be vacated. No vacation shall be made unless the Common Council finds that to do so is in the public interest. Prior to adopting said resolution, the Common Council shall conduct a public hearing preceded by three weeks published notice, and notice of said hearing shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the date thereof to all owners of record of lands which abut the line of the portion of the public street, alley, way, ground or easement, or portion thereof, proposed to be vacated. Following adoption, the resolution shall be published once and thereafter a copy shall be filed by the City Clerk in the Office of the County Recorder for Olmsted County. SECTION 17.01. (Compensation). The Common Council may, by resolution, provide that no such vacation shall be valid until the value of the premises so vacated shall be deposited in the City treasury, which value shall be fixed by such resolution which shall • be passed by a vote of five members thereof - at not less than a proportionate average value of. the abutting property, according to the last previous assessment for taxation. SECTION 17.02. (Appeal). A person aggrieved by the vacation of any public street, alley, way, grounds or easement, or any part thereof, may appeal to the District Court of Olmsted County by filing with the court a petition for review, with proof of service upon the city clerk, within 20 days of the publication of the vacation resolution. CHAPTER XVIII MISCELLANEOUS. SECTION 18.00. (One wav pair: referendum). No development project involving the establishment of a paired, one-way street system shall be undertaken, nor shall any agreement or action or proceeding therefore have any force or effect or be binding in any way upon the municipality, unless and until such proposed development project, be ratified and approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the municipality cast upon the question at a general or regular city election, or special election for that purpose, at which such question shall be submitted in substantially the following terms: • 36 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 00 9 DATE: 817/95 SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT I ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Admn/Development Dist 1 E � x DescRlPTtoN: Amendment to Yaggy Colby 3rd Street Streetscape 1 Doug Knott'�9— Design Contract Yaggy Colby has requested a fee adjustment for their work on the 3rd Street project. The project was originally intended to be constructed in a single phase but was later broken into two phases to coordinate with flood control work. Construction was to have been completed in 1994 but was carried over to 1995 to allow for the completion of the 4th Street bridge last fall. The original contract with Yaggy Colby was for $15,000. Yaggy Colby requested an amendment which would have taken their fees to $26,694.20. Staff recommends an adjustment which would result in a fee of $21,249.00. This fee adjustment has been reviewed with representatives of the Public Works Department. Amendment to the Yaggy Colby 3rd Street design contract from $15,000 to $21,249.00 4� COUNCILACTION: Motlontly: Seeond REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ^411 DATE: 8f7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Admn/Development Dist �F, . 3 TEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Bendel Hills Development Assistance Agreement Doug Knott Last fall the City created the Bendel Hills Tax Increment District. We held off on entering into a development assistance agreement for the project until the Housing Partnership completed arrangements for the balance of their financing. This RCA summarizes the status of the project and describes the terms of the agreement. The project is scheduled to begin construction in October with completion by May 31, 1996. TSP is the architect and Weis Builders, Inc. will probably be the general contractor. The total project cost is estimated at $2.4 million. The City is providing assistance in the form of tax increments and in the allocation of low income housing tax credits. The balance of the financing is coming from the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency and grants from various foundations. The development assistance agreement is a two party agreement between the City and the Bendel Hills Affordable Townhomes Limited Partnership of which the Rochester Olmsted Community Housing Partnership is the general partner. The project consists of 25 units of low income housing located east of Bandel Road and north of 59th Street (see attached map). The TIF assistance is set up on a "pay as you go" basis similar to recent economic development projects we have undertaken. Under this arrangement, the Partnership will finance the TIF eligible costs and be reimbursed over time as the increments are received. This relieves the City from any borrowing obligations and thereby reduces our risk in the event of any default. he City will provide the Partnership with $282,000 in TIF assistance at 8.5% interest. The first increment would be payable August 1, 1997 and continue through February 1, 2014. If tax increments are generated faster than anticipated we can pay the loan off early and terminate the district prior to the 2014 date. Conversely, if increments received are less than anticipated, our only obligation is to provide the Partnership with the amount of increment available after we deduct our administrative expenses. In the event the Partnership defaults on the agreement and does not cure the default within a specified time period, the City can suspend performance and terminate the agreement. Events of default include failing to perform obligations required by the assistance agreement and failing to pay taxes or any special assessments on the property. MHFA has requested modifications to the project site plan. Suzanne Snyder of the Housing Partnership will be present at the Council meeting and should be able to review the status of theplan with the Council and respond to any questions Councilmembers may have. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the attached resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a development assistance agreement with Bendel Hills Affordable Townhomes Limited Partnership. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: • �� • ze•d a0.ncte,l Roaaa Se96. i.Le zT9 T dIH8M3Hl WUA 9NIsnOH NW Nd e4:ze nHl Z6-so-nnv 0 U 0 Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM N Rochester Public Utilities Reports & Recommendations - ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on July 25, 1995 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with AEG Electric Power Systems for four 161 kV gas circuit breakers. The amount of the agreement to be $228,270.00 and AEG Electric Power Systems being lowest responsible bidder. - to approve a resolution requesting the State of Minnesota to provide 50 percent cost -sharing funding for the repair of the Lake Zumbro Dam. Rochester Public Utilities will budget adequate financial resources for 50 percent of the cost of the necessary repairs which are estimated to be $2,000,000.00 - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Sandy Slopes Well Corporation for the purchase of the Sandy Slopes water system. The amount of the agreement to be $1.00 and other valuable consideration. Q,Yit� COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by, to: '9 FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date: 7/25799 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS 1611V GAS CIRCUIT BREA PREPARED BY: Greg Woodworth Manager of Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: On Monday, July 17th, five responsible bids were opened for 161kV gas circuit breakers. The low responsible bid was submitted by AEG Electric Power Systems. The breakers were bid in order to replace four existing breakers on our system that are in need of extensive repair. The reason for the bidding is given in the attached approval to advertise. The manufacturer's advisory for the repair is attached for your information. The breaker repair cost is $208,500, with a relatively high probability that the costs could increase to an estimated maximum of $237,000. Replacing the four breakers is estimated to cost $238,500, with a low probability of additional costs. A business case analysis was performed due to the unequal lives of the breakers within the two options. The excess life cycle costs of repairing the breakers is $37,100, making the total 1995 cost of repairing the breakers from $245,600 to $274,600. Based on this analysis, staff is recommending that four breakers and spare parts be purchased from AEG Electric Power Systems for a total of $228,270. This purchase and the total project costs will be completed by the end of 1995 from the existing capital budget monies. The monies for the project will come from existing completed project savings and future project deferrals. Staff will be available to answer questions at the Board Meeting on Tuesday. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the Utility Board approve a resL�:;�don requesting the Common Council to approve the purchase of four (4) 161kV gas circuit breakers at a total cost of $228,270 with AEG Electric Power Systems being the lowest responsible bidder. RevCewed -I-M-R5 WYIir Aelip General Manager ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES 7 3d -9,& Date 0 FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 6 SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE 161kV GAS CIRCUIT BREAKERS PREPARED BY: Greg Woodworth` Manager of Engineering ITEM DESCRIPTION: Meeting Date: 6/13/95 We need to do extensive repairs on four 1611V breakers on the system. The expected cost to repair all four breakers will be approximately $190,000. The breaker manufacturer is no longer in business. All four of these breakers are currently in service on the RPU system and cannot be removed from service at the same time without dramatically affecting system reliability. The repair of these breakers is labor intensive and would require that all four breakers be disassembled and six bushings per breaker sent back to Pennsylvania for refurbishment. A staged repair of the four breakers would take from 8 to 12 months and there are numerous unknowns in the process. The last new breaker that we purchased was $71,000 plus tax. It appears that the price of new 1611V circuit breakers is currently lower than that level. In order to compare all options, we would like to invite competitive bids on three new breakers. If prices are what we believe, the cost of replacing three of the breakers and moving one existing breaker currently on our system would be approximately $225,000 for the replacement of the four breakers, thus eliminating the need for the repair work. The project would be funded out of savings from the current year 161kV conversion project and deferral of other 1995 budgeted projects. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: The Board is requested to approve advertising for bids for three 161kV gas circuit breakers. The . estimated cost of the three breakers is $195,000. RevCelued (0--7-Q5 cVq General Manager Date ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES I Westinghouse. Electric Corporation March 17. 1995 R PAWE MGR ROC STER PUBLIC RIVER BLIC UTIL DEPT 400 E RRD NE ROCHESTER, MN 55904-2813 RECEIVED MAR 2 7 1995 ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES M 11 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15222-1384 Subject: Bushing Flange Inspection and Recommended Corrective Actions for Westinghouse -Tyne DWE Power Circuit Breakers IMMEDIATE ATTENTION: DANGER! It is the purpose of the this advisory to alert users of Westinghouse -type DWE Power Circuit Breakers rated 121, 145, and 169KV of the need to make an immediate visual inspection of the lower bushing flanges of the interrupter side of 121 and 145KV breakers and both lower flanges of breakers rated 145KV, 50KA and 169KV. It has been discovered in some field installations, that the cast aluminum alloy flanges at the bottom of the larger and tapered porcelain weather casing which houses the interrupter on 121 and 145KV breakers or the same weather casing on both sides of 145KV, 50KA and 169KV breakers may not meet metallurgical specifications and are therefore subject to cracking at the thin wall section adjacent to one of the flange mounting bolts. If cracking occurs, the strength of the mechanical attachment of the flange to the weather casing is reduced and it is possible for the pressurized porcelain to eject out of the flange. This has happened in three cases. Ten other flanges are known to have cracked. Fortunately there have been no personnel injuries, although it is clearly recognized that the potential exists for damage to substation eauinment and iniury to personnel or even death. It is recommended that the 121, 145, and 169KV-type DWE breakers be considered as potentially dangerous to personnel and property until the recommended corrective actions are completed. An immediate visual inspection of lower flanges on the specified breakers is recommended to search for cracks. a1-7 • March 17, 1995 Page 2 In order to make the visual inspection, the breaker must first be de -energized electrically and grounded following local safety procedures. The SF, gas pressure must be reduced to 5 psig while personnel make the visual inspection for cracks in the lower flanges to preclude a bushing ejection from occurring during inspection. After de -energizing and grounding the breaker and reducing the SF6 pressure to 5 psig, a careful visual inspection should be made for longitudinal cracks in the thin wall sections of the flange which are recessed for the flange mounting bolts. Refer to Figure 1. All thin wall sections adjacent to the flange mounting bolts are to be inspected. If any cracks are observed, the breaker should remain off-line with S176 pressure at 5 psig until corrective action is completed. If no cracks are found in the specified lower flanges, the breaker may have the ground removed, be re -pressurized; and energized electrically, but still considering it as potentially dangerous until the following three corrective actions are taken. These three corrective actions are recommended to be taken as soon as the specified breakers can reasonably be scheduled for outage. • Corrections are: (1) Because of a recognized quality problem in the metallurgy of the lower flanges of the interrupter side tapered bushings of 121 and 145KV and the tapered bushings on both sides of 145KV, 50KA, and 169KV breakers those bushing assemblies should all be replaced in order to eliminate the possibility of future flange cracking and subsequent porcelain ejection with the obvious risk to personnel and property. The porcelain/flange assemblies should be returned to ABB in order to have the marginal flanges removed and replaced with quality flanges, reusing the existing porcelains. ABB Power T&D Company presently supports all named breakers with replacement parts, service, and technical assistance as Westinghouse no longer manufactures high voltage circuit breakers. Inspection at the factory once the flange is removed may reveal that some porcelains shipped prior to 5/31/83 might also need to be replaced. Some pre- 5/31/83 porcelains have been found to not have the sand band fully applied. (The abrasive gripping surface on the lower end of the porcelain that is enclosed by the flange.) There have been several instances reported where a slow SF6 gas leak has been determined to be caused by the short sand band allowing • minor movement of the porcelain which defeats the gas seal. arg March 17, 1995 Page 3 (2) Loose hardware has been found in several DWE breakers, one of which failed catastrophically due to the loose hardware. The loose hardware was found at the top and bottom of the internal epoxy insulating pedestal which supports the interrupter. Refer to Figure I. The loosening of the hardware is more likely in breakers with higher numbers of operations, but there is long term potential for loosening in all DWE breakers and therefore the problem must be corrected to prevent jamming of the contacts and possible failure to close with attendant hazard to personnel and property. Loosened hardware was also found in a breaker that would not be considered as having a high number of operations. Corrective action involves removing the hardware, applying Loctite#271 (red), reassembling hardware with applied Loctite, and torquing to 40 ft-lb. The Loctite may be purchased from local supply houses. (3) Excessive wear has been observed in several 145DWE40 breakers in regard to a linkage connecting pin in the lever box. Refer to Figure 1. The wear is more apparent on breakers with a high number of operations, but is also a potential long-term problem for all of the following type DWE breakers, and excessive wear was also noted on some breakers with a moderate number of operations. 121DWE20 145DWE20 121DWE31 145DWF40 121DWE40 Consequences of excessive pin wear are the potential for jamming or the contacts being left in an intermediate position, both conditions possibly resulting in breaker failure with hazard to personnel and property. For breakers subjected to frequent operation, the following corrective action is recommended: • Replace shaft seal lever located inside lever box with heavy-duty lever having approximately 75 % contact surface between lever and pin. • Install new more durable pin connecting vertical operating rod to shaft seal lever. Corrective action recommended forbreakers operating on, an infrequent basis consists of replacing the pin connecting the vertical operating rod to the shaft seal lever with a new more durable pin. • • es'] March 17, 1995 • Page 4 There is no recommended corrective action for lever box components on the following type DWE breakers: 121DWE50 169DWE31.5 169DWE20 169DWE40 Heavy duty shaft seal levers and more durable pins were used on these breakers when they were originally manufactured. In summary, an IMMEDIATE visual inspection for cracks in lower flanges of tapered bushings on the interrupter side of 121 and 145KV DWE breakers and the tapered bushings on both sides of 145KV, 50KA, and 169KV breakers is urgently. recommended. Breakers determined to have cracked flanges should be kept off-line with reduced SF, gas pressure of 5.psig. ALL DWE BREAKERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS UNTIL THREE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: • (1) Replacement of all lower flanges on the tapered bushings to prevent future cracking and the potential porcelain ejection. (2) Application of Loctite#271 on hardware at the top and bottom of the internal epoxy insulating interrupter support in order to prevent future hardware loosening. (3) RepIace shaft seal levers and pins connecting vertical operating rods to shaft seal levers to prevent possible jamming or malfunction in the following DWE breakers: 121DWE20 145DWE20 121DWE31 145DWE40 121DWE40 For assistance in developing a corrective action plan, please contact the ABB Electric Utility Sales Office serving your area, or the local ABB Distributor. A follow-up advisory will be issued by ABB to inform of the availability of the replacement bushing assemblies to permit initiating a rotation program for replacement and also the availability of shaft seal levers and durable linkage pins. The materials will be available for 18 purchase from ABB Power Circuit Breaker Parts and Service. . March IT, 1995 Page 5 • During the interval when the breakers are in service waiting for the three corrective actions to be completed, a significant change in the SF6 leak rate should be recognized as an indication that a bushing flange problem has developed and the visual inspection of flanges as outlined at the beginning of this letter should be undertaken. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, ALL DWE BREAKERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS UNTIL THE THREE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE COMPLETED. Users of SF6 DWE breakers should contact your ABB Electric Utility Sales personnel or your local ABB distributor to: 1. Obtain written instructions to assist you with making the corrections. 2. Obtain RMR instructions for the return of bushings and/or breakers to ABB for refurbishment. 3. Obtain pricing and scheduling information for the parts and services to implement the above corrections. If your company has taken any of your DWE breakers out of service and sold them to • another company, please forward this letter to that company, or advise the writer of the new owner and their address. Your help in assisting us reach all present users with the above information would be greatly appreciated. Attached is a list of the DWE breaker(s) that our records show to be sold and delivered to you. This advisory consists of seven pages. If you do not receive all of the pages, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Ven re te Customer Service Discontinued/Divested Products Attachments: Figure 1 and list of DWE breakers sold to you. cc: Larry Brunson - ABB Power T&D Company, Inc. Foster Plaza 5 651 Holiday Drive Pgh., PA 15220-2740 FOR BOARD ACTION • Agenda Item # 5 SUBJECT: Meeting Date: 7/25/95 STATE FUNDING FOR REPAIRS TO THE ZUMBRO HYDRO DAM PREPARED BY: Bob Pawelski, General Manager ITEM DESCRIPTION: RPU is seeking funding in the amount of approximately $1,000,000 from the state for repairs to the Zumbro Hydro Dam. Repairs are estimated to be in the $2,000,000 range. Staff is asking the Board to approve the attached resolution and request the Council to approve the same resolution. The resolution will be used in our efforts with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN-DNR), the Governor's office, and area legislators to secure this funding. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is requested to approve the attached resolution and request Council approval of same. General Manager PUBLIC UTILITIES 7-ao-?&� Date DATE: ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES July 19, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Chuck Hazama City Council President John Hunziker City Councilmembers RPU Board President Roger Toulouse RPU Board Members City Administrator Stevan Kvenvold FROM: Bob Pawelski, RPU General Manager 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-28� 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 SUBJECT: STATE FUNDING FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE ZUMBRO HYDRO DAM As some of you may recall, two years ago we attempted to secure state funding for the • repair of the Zumbro Hydro Dam At that time, we had estimated the repairs to be about $1,400,000 and were seeking $700,000 from the state for those repairs. That effort was not successful and the Zumbro Dam repairs wound up fifth on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' (MN-DNR) priority list in a budget that provided repairs for only four dam projects. Since our last attempt to secure funding, the repairs to the dam have risen to an estimated $2,000,000. This is due to inflation and the continued deterioration of the dam. We will again be seeking funding from the state for the, repairs of this project in the amount of $1,000,000. In order to secure this funding from the state, we are planning the following Program: 10 9 2- 4. We have been working with the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association's (MMUA) Director of Government Affairs and will be establishing contacts in the MN-DNR's office and the Governor's office through her. 5. We will be asking the House Capital Investment Committee (of which Representative Dave Bishop is a member) to put the Zumbro Dam on their southeastern Minnesota tour. 6. We will be contacting other area legislators for support who represent people who use the Lake Zumbro area. 7. If the above plan fails, we would consider introducing special legislation for this funding with the help of MMUA. 8. In addition to the above, we plan to update the brochure that was produced on the Zumbro Dam several years ago and to offer interested parties tours of the Hydro facility. In conclusion; RPU would appreciate your support of this very important project. The.dam condition is such that RPU does not want to wait any significant amount of time longer to make those repairs. Also, I would appreciate any comments or suggestions that you may have on how we could improve the action plan described above. Thank you for your interest in this important project. cc: Gary Neumann, Assistant. City Administrator Joyce Grendahl, RPU External Affairs Division Director Walt Lorber, RPU Power Division Director Joe Hensel, RPU Environmental & Regulatory Affairs Manager RRP:kaw �r FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 6 Meeting Date: 7/25/95 SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF SANDY SLOPES WATER SYSTEM PREPARED BY: Doug Rovang, Director 1 p1 , . Water Division UU�� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Management and representatives of the Sandy Slopes Well Corporation have agreed to terms under which the City would acquire the Sandy Slopes Water System, a suburban water system with approximately 60 customers located within the urban service area just southeast of the City. Enclosed for Utility Board review is the proposed Purchase Agreement and a separate Letter of Understanding. The Agreement specifies a total purchase price of $1 and other considerations and a closing date of August 8, 1995. If approved by the Utility Board, City Administrator Kvenvold will be asked to present the Board's resolution for concurrence by the City Council at its meeting on August 7, 1995. If acquisition of the water system is completed, RPU will assume operation of the Sandy Slopes Water System at 12:00 noon on August 8, 1995. The customer accounts acquired by RPU will be handled under the same service rules and regulations which apply to all other customers receiving water service from RPU. However, management is proposing that Sandy Slopes Water System customer rates be 2.0 times the customer and commodity charges in RPU Rate Schedule WTR. If at some future,date the Water System is connected directly to the municipal water system, Sandy Slope Water System customer water rates would be the same as municipal water customers. As shown in the attached business case summary, such a rate would cover anticipated operation and maintenance expenses for the system and would provide a capital improvements reserve similar to that paid by municipal water customers. The resulting monthly water bills would be very similar to current Sandy Slopes Water System water bills, and the current Water System owner has indicated that current Water System rates have not been increased for several years. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Management recommends the Slopes Water System with Understanding dated July Mayor and the City Clerk Corporation. Utility Board approve the Purchase Agreement for the Sandy supplemental conditions as stated in separate Letter of 19, 1995, and request the Common Council to authorize the to execute the Purchase Agreement with Sandy Slopes Well MOO General Manager ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES -7-a0 PJ Date PURCHASE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, entered into this day of 1995, by and among Sandy Slopes Well Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Seller") and the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting through its utilities department, ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES, (hereinafter collectively "Rochester"). WHEREAS, Seller operates a water supply and distribution system and is engaged in the retail sale of water from a well located on Lot 1, Block 1, Sandy Slopes Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota to customers collectively known as the Sandy Slopes water system; and, WHEREAS, Seller desires to sell said water system; and, WHEREAS, Rochester desires to purchase the water system of Seller. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: Description ofPrope[ty to be Sold. On the terns and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement, Seller agrees to sell to Rochester and Rochester agrees to purchase, on the closing date, the following property: a. The real property described as Lot 1, Block 1, Sandy Slopes Subdivision, Olmsted • County, Minnesota (the well site); b. All wells, pumps, tanks, mains, pipes, lines, valves, and other property owned by Seller, and presently used in the distribution of water located within the water system and attached to it (with the exception of individual water service lines extending from the water mains to individual customer property, said service lines to remain the property of individual customers); C. Any interest in real property in the nature of an easement, permit, or license presently held by Seller for the purpose of maintaining and operating said water system; d. Any contracts held by Seller to serve customers of the water system in the systeds service area; e. Any payments due Seller for water service provided prior to the closing date, which payments have not been paid. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the property shall be One Dollar ($1) and other valuable consideration. 3. Term ofP ,vmThe total purchase price shall be paid by Rochester in cash on the purchase closing date. aa40 4. Warranties of Seller. Rochester has been afforded an opportunity to inspect the property to be purchased. Seller makes no representation or provides any warranty whatsoever with respect to the property except as follows: a. Seller will have at the date of closing and will convey to Rochester good and marketable title to all property agreed to be sold to Rochester, free and clear of any Gen, encumbrance, claim, or damage whatsoever. b. Seller will not be in default on the closing date with respect to the performance of its obligations under any contract or agreement assigned to Rochester hereunder. C. Sandy Slopes Well Company is a corporation duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing with the laws of the State of Minnesota and has full power and authority to carry on its business as it is presently conducted and all corporate action necessary by Seller to execute, deliver, and perform this Agreement has been taken. d. Seller is not a party to or bound by any written or oral contract to convey to any other . person any of the assets to be purchased by Rochester hereunder. e. The execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by Seller will not violate the Articles of Incorporation or By -Laws of Seller, or any indenture, agreement, commitment, or order of any tribunal or administrative agency to which Seller is a party or by which it is bound. f. Seller is not a party to any pending, and has not knowledge of any threatened, litigation, or government action, with regard to the property being sold hereunder. 5. Indemnification. Seller agrees to indemnify Rochester with respect to loss or damages (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) incurred by Rochester as the direct result of the breach by Seller of the representations, warranties, or covenants contained in this Agreement; provided, however, that Seller's obligation to indemnify is subject to the following conditions: a Limitations and Liability. Seller shall be obligated to indemnify Rochester.only if the aggregate amount of any claim exceeds the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100). If this occurs, Seller shall reimburse Rochester for the entire amount of damages. b. Damagcs. In the event any claims are made against Rochester and are required to be paid by Rochester as a result of the actions of Seller or obligations of Seller, Seller agrees to indemnify Rochester and defend and hold it harmless. It is specifically understood that Rochester is assuming no liabilities of Seller as a result of this purchase and that any liabilities against Rochester as a result of Seller obligations or liabilities shall be included in this indemnification agreement. • 6. Claaing. The closing date shall be August 8, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. and shall be held at the office of Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, or at such other place as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 7. Continaencv. Performance of the obligations contained in this Agreement by all parties is contingent upon Seller providing marketable title of the real property to Rochester. In the event Seller is unable to do so, at the election of Rochester, the closing may occur in escrow in order to give Seller an opportunity to make said title marketable. The escrow agent shall be selected by the mutual agreement of the parties, and the terms and conditions of said closing in escrow shall be set forth by a separate agreement executed by the parties on the date of closing. 8. Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the successors and assigns of each of the parties. 9. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of Minnesota 10. ,Steps to be taken at the Closine. a. General Procedure, At the closing, each party shall deliver or execute such documents, instruments, and materials as may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent and provisions of this Agreement, and all such documents, instruments, and materials shall be satisfactory in form and substance in all material respects to counsel for the other . party. The listing of specific deliveries or executions to be made in the following Subsections of this Section shall not be deemed to limit the provisions of this subsection. b. Items to be Delivered by Seller at the Purchase Closing. [Seller shall have no obligations to deliver these items until Rochester supplies the items required under the terms of Subsection (c)]: i. bill of sale for all personal property being purchased hereunder, ii. evidence that the appropriate corporate officers of Seller have authorized the sale of the water system and property to Rochester; M. warranty deed or easements for the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto; C. . Items to he Delivered to Seller at Purchase Closing. [Rochester shall not be required to deliver the following items until such time as Seiler has available for delivery the documents set out in Subsection (b)]: i. A check made payable to Seller for the purchase price. 11. operation At the closing and at anytime or from time to time thereafter, each of the parties agrees to cooperate in carrying out the terms of this Agreement and the agreements and documents executed in connection herewith, including the execution and delivery of such further instruments and documents as may reasonably be requested in order to more effectively carry out the terms of and conditions hereof. 0 12. Expenses. Each party hereto shall pay its own expenses in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby whether or not the transactions contemplated hereby are • consummated. In the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute among the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or relating to.this Agreement or breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party reasonable expenses and attorney's fees. 13. Failure to Provide Marketable Title. In the event that Seller cannot provide marketable title to the real property to be conveyed hereunder, this Agreement shall be deemed null and void and neither party shall have any obligation hereunder except that Seller shall return to Rochester any payment made under Section 3(a) herein. Provided, that in the event Rochester elects to close in escrow as provided in Section 7, this Agreement shall not be deemed null and void unless Seller is unable to subsequently provide marketable title to said real estate. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and the exhibits, schedules, and letter of understanding attached hereto, contain the entire agreement among the parties superseding in all respects. any and all prior oral or written agreements or understandings pertaining to the subject matter hereof and transactions contemplated hereby, and shall be amended or modified only by written instruments signed by all of the parties hereto. 15. Notices. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given or served upon any of the parties under this Agreement shall be sufficiently delivered, given, or served if delivered personally to such party or sent to such party by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to such patty as set forth below or such other address as such party shall . designate by giving written notice to the other parties as follows: In case of notice to Sellers: Mr. John Christensen Sandy Slopes Well Corporation 906 11th St SE Rochester, MN 55904 In case of notice to Rochester: General Manager Rochester Public Utility Department 4000 East River Road, NE Rochester, MN 55906-2813 16. General. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The paragraph headings contained herein are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provisions hereof and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. 4 SELLER: • SANDY SLOPES WELL CORPORATION By CARLTON F. PENZ, PRESIDENT . Lei JOHN CHRISTENSEN, MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )as. • COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) BUYER: CITY OF ROCHESTER a Minnesota Municipal Corporation By MAYOR By CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM ROCHESTER CITY ATTORNEY BY: GENERAL MANAGER, ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES On this _ day of .1995, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared CARLTON F. PENZ, to me personally ]mown, who, being by me duly sworn did say that he is the President and Secretary of Sandy Slopes Well Corporation, the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board ofDirectors and the said CARLTON F. PENZ acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation Notary Public, Olmsted County, Minnesota My commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) On this _ day of 1995, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared JOHN CHRISTENSEN, to me personally ]mown, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the majority shareholder of Sandy Slopes Well Corporation and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and the said JOHN CHMSTENSEN acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public, Olmsted County, Minnesota My commission expires • This Document Drafted By: Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETINGA*3/ DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHARTER COMMISSION f'- 5 TEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT PREPARED BY: BY ORDINANCE OF CHARTER BOARD SECTIONS. The Charter Commission proposes that the City Council amend the Rochester Home Rule Charter so that it reads as indicated on the attached pages. The changes are highlighted and provide consistent treatment to all department heads under the direction of charter boards. These provisions allow the charter boards to evaluate their respective department heads and approve pay increases within the limits of the budget and salary increase guidelines adopted by the council. Under Minn. Stat. 5410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Amendment of a charter may be made only after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment. Following the hearing, the council may adopt the ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members. The public has sixty days following adoption to present a petition objecting to the proposed amendment by ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, direct the City Clerk to publish notice of a public hearing to be held Tuesday, September 15, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following the hearing on September 5th the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. 7✓� COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second a 3� PROPOSED AMENDMENT: • LIBRARY SECTION 13.03. (Powers of board). Subd. 2. said board shall have power to lease and provide appropriate rooms for the use of said library and shall have power to appoint, employ, evaluate, remove and fix compensation for a suitable librarian and necessary assistants subject to any employment procedures consistent with Chapter 13 or established by this charter or the common council. It shall in general carry out the spirit and intent of the provisions of this charter relating to such library board. Said board shall have the power, when approved by the common council, to purchase ground and erect thereon other suitable buildings for the use of said library. PARK SECTION 14.01. (Organization). Each person so appointed shall file a written oath and acceptance with the city clerk before entering upon the discharge of the duties of his office. The park commissioner at large shall, by virtue of his office, be the president of the said board. They shall, as soon as this charter takes effect, choose from the members thereof a secretary, and at the first meeting thereof in June in each year thereafter, the members shall again so elect a secretary. Said board .shall have power to appoint, employ, evaluate, • remove and fix compensation for a superintendent of parks and recreation and such other agents and employees as it shall deem necessary subject to any employment procedures consistent with Chapter 14 or established by this charter or the common council. Compensation for the superintendent of parks and recreation and other agents and employees shall be paid out of the park fund. UTILITY SECTION 15.05. Subd. 2. The public utility board may create such departments and divisions for the administration of its affairs as it may deem necessary and from time to time alter their duties and organization. The board shall have power to appoint, employ, evaluate, remove and fix compensation for a general manager and such other employees as it shall deem necessary subject to any employment procedures consistent with Chapter 15 or established by this charter or the common council. MEETING DATE: 08-01-95 r r L AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations City Clerk G ITEM DESCRIPTION: Renewal of On -Sale Liquor Licenses PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr At the March 20th Council meeting, the Council renewed the on -sale liquor licenses with a .90-day period on certain licenses having outstanding public utility and real estate tax amounts and the renewal of the exclusive license held by the Tropic Lounge, Incorporated. The following licensees have fulfilled their obligations for renewal of the on -sale liquor licenses: Moose Lodge John's Family Restaurant Hinck Lounge, Incorporated DBA RochesCheer Rochester Economy Lodge Christensen Food & Drink DBA Ed's Attic Rookies The Two Worlds Restaurant, located at 340 Highway 52 North, has had some difficult in clearing up the problems that resulted in a liability notice from the Fire Department. In talking further with Dennis Olson, we would recommend that they be allowed until September 7th to clear up the problems. If, however, they do not correct the needed items by that time, we will recommend that the Council schedule a hearing to suspend the license. Tom Rubenstein, Tropic Lounge, Incorporated, has indicated that he intends building an establishment to house a night club. He states that as soon as land problems are resolved, he hopes to have the business open by Christmas 1995. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the renewal of the on -sale liquor licenses for the businesses above,and continue the Two Worlds Restaurant until September 7th.� OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: a34 From the Desk of... . Tommy Rubenstein • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING;?3S7 DATE: 7 AUa 1995 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Park and Recreation Si - 7 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY Revised Parkland Dedication for Waterford Development Denny Stotz The Waterford development was approved by the Council on May 16, 1994. The approval contained approval of parkland dedication in the form of dedication of a 3.88 parcel of land located in the NE corner of the development. This dedication was for the entire Waterford Development. The developer's original intent was to extract sand/gravel from the parcel, refill with suitable material, grade and seed the site to turf and dedication it to the Park Department to meet parkland dedication requirements. The site work at Waterford apparently required more material than was originally anticipated. As such, the developer, John Bouquet, has requested that the dedication be changed from a land dedication to a cash in lieu of land dedication. A letter from Mr. Bouquet requesting the change is attached. The Park and Recreation Department supports the following change in parkland dedication for the Waterford development: Parkland dedication for the development be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Phases 1 -2 which have been platted and are under construction contain 128 units on 14.7 acres of land. The dedication for Phases 1 and 2 is $15,450 (2.06 acres X $7500/acre which is the recommended fair market value for land in the Waterford development). This amount to be due within 30 days of Council approval of the change in parkland dedication. The developer will have additional dedication when Phases 3-4 are initiated. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Resolution authorizing the change in parkland dedication for Waterford Phases 1-2. Parkland dedication to be cash in lieu of land in the amount of $15,450 payable within 30 days of Council approval. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: A MP9503180ARMATERFOR.RCA ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 0 DATE: July 19, 1995 TO: Gary Neumann FROM: Denny Stotz SUBJECT: Revised Parkland Dedication Waterford Development On May 16, 1994 the Council approved the final plat for the Waterford Development. A condition of the plat was that parkland dedication requirements were to be met via the donation of 3.88 acres of land (Outlot B). The dedication was to occur after the developer mined the area, filled the mined area and seeded the area to turf. John Bouquet, developer of the project, and I have had several conversations over the past six months regarding the status of the property to be dedicated. It appears that more fill material was needed for the site development than was originally estimated. Outlot B was mined for the fill material and a lake created. Mr. Bouquet has been unable' to locate suitable material to refill the area and restore it to grade/ turf to be dedicated for park purposes. The Park Department is not interested in acquiring and maintaining a 3.0 acre lake. Mr. Bouquet and I have agreed that the dedication should be changed to cash in lieu of land As per my suggestion, Mr. Bouquet has requested this change in the attached letter. The land dedication was a condition of the plat approved by the Council. I suspect that the Council will need to consider Mr. Bouquet's request if a change in the dedication is to occur. The Park and Recreation Department supports the change in dedication to cash in lieu of land. The cash payment should be considered to be due within 30 days of Council approval of the change. 0 A:\WF9503\PROS M\RAT RPo .t 2,33 Waterford Development Corp. 827 Woodgate Lane N.W. Rochester, Mn. 55901 May 31, 1995 Rochester Park & Recreation 403 East Center Street Rochester, Mn. 55404-4612 Attention: Denny Stoltz Dear Denny, After due consideration I have decided to request that the parkland dedication be changed from the dedication of 3.68 acres to a cash payment of $27,600 ($7,500 per acre). The availability of fill and the • expense of its acquisition has prompted my decision. Please make preparation for the Council to approve this• matter. Thank You, John Bouquet 1: PLAT. APPROVED____-- ------- ____ _ DEED RECEIVED----- ------------ ;12 COMPUTER IN ----- - May 5, 1994 To: Rose Johanns Consolidated Planning From: Denny Stotz Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Waterford Acerage .............................. 36.80 acres Number of Dwelling Units .............. 52.0 Dwelling Unit Density ................. Density Factor .10 Dedication Requirement ................ 3.68 acres Fair Market Value of Land ............. The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirement for the plat be satisfied by: The applicant has agreed to dedicate Outlot "B" to the City for park purposes. The dedication to occur after the outlot is graded and turf restored. This dedication is intended to occur within one year of the plat approval. The dedication of the 3.88 acre outlot "B" will fulfill the parkland dedication obligation for the entire Waterford development. Applicant: John Bouquet 827 Woodgate La SW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING4Wr DATE: 8/7/95 r IL AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works s - g EM DESCRIPTION: Bids Project 9407 J-2246 - Grading & Surfacing PREPARED BY: Silver Creek Road MacGillivray V� 4 Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M., August 2, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 9407J-2246 "Grading and Surfacing on Silver Creek Road from Quarry Hill Park to East Circle Drive." The following bids were received: Rochester Sand & Gravel $28,989.00 Road Constructors $35,835.00 Elcor Construction $36,694.50 Engineers Estimate $37,000 The project is funded from Tax Levy. Council Action Requested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Rochester Sand & Gravel. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: MEETING— ` 3 AGENDA SECTION: Reports and Recommendations ITEM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreem( Agreements for 4th St. S.E. The Council at it's July construction of a turn lane of providing parking relief street parking (driveways) street parking for their project. Public Works itPlus Assessment Reconstruction DATE: 8/7/95 ITEM NO. E-q PREPARED BY: '%4oGi l l ivray 17th meeting directed staff to pursue the on the 4th Street SE project for the purpose for two property owners who do not have off at their property and who would be without properties as a result of the 4th Street We have determined that we can construct such a lane and have proposed to the two owners a split of the costs for such a lane.. The total cost is $7,000. We have proposed a sharing agreement to the owners with Mr. Gander assuming two-thirds of the owners share and Mr. Leach assuming the other one-third. We have a verbal acceptance from the owners. Assessment Agreements will be prepared and must be executed by the owners prior to proceeding with the work. The agreements must be executed by both parties and not later than August 18, 1995. Council, AGtiOn Req P4 d Authorize the Department of Public Works to construct the turn lane at 4th Street SE and 9th Avenue SE (east bound) by Supplemental Agreement on the 4th Street project and to enter into an agreement with the property owners to recover one half the cost of the additional construction. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second MEETINGaq DATE: 8/7/95 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works ? _10 TEM DESCRIPTION: 2 ids: Project 6202-2-95A J-2254 - Concrete PREPARED By: Replacement 2nd St. SE MacGillivray Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M., August 2, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 6202-2-95AJ-2254 "Concrete Replacement on 2nd Street S.E. from 1st Avenue S.E. to Civic Center Drive." The following bids were received: Progressive Contractors Inc. $43,604.95 Doyle Conner Co. $43,742.00 Don Prow Cement $69,396.00 Engineers Estimate $49,000 The project is funded from Municipal State Aid Funds. Council Action Requested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Progressive Contractors Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ;f? DATE: 8117/95 4 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works I G -I' TEM DESCRIPTION: Bids: Project 6201-4-95 J-2253 - Construct 1st PREPARED BY: St. NW, 19th Ave. to West; West Zumbro Estates illivray Bids were received and opened after 11:00 AM, August 2, 1995 for the .following local improvement project: ,Project 6201-4-95 J-2253 "Construct 1st St. NW from 19th Ave. NW to the West ending in a Cut -de -sac" The following bids were received: Rochester Sand & Gravel $243,713.25 (low) Fraser Construction $285,453.00 Road Constructors $329,162.10 Engineers Estimate $300,000.00 The project is funded from Sales.Tax (Flood Control) funds. Council Action on R aua ed If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Rochester Sand & Gravel. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: jd MEETING f / DATE: 8/7/95 F— L F- L r L_ AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works L/�f EM DESCRIPTION: Bids: Project 6202-3-95 J-2173 Construct PREPARED BY: Sanitary Sewer 2nd St. SW, 14 to 16th Ave. a Gillivray Bids were received and opened after 11:00 AM, August 2, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 6202-3-95 J-2173 "Construct Sanitary Sewer in 2nd Street SW from 14th Avenue SW to 16th Avenue SW" The following bids were received: Road Constructors $127,807.20 (low) Elcor Construction $138,625.80 Swenke Company $175,000.00 Winona Mechanical $242,924.14 Engineers Estimate $88,000 A review of the bids with the bidders indicated that the preliminary estimate did not adequately account for the number of obstructions that would have to be dealt with and the restricted area in which the Contractor would have to work. We are reviewing the bids with St. Marys staff and we will advise of any concerns they may have with their participation. It appears that there are limited options. The hospital needs the work completed prior to next April when they will begin work on the 2nd phase of the new underground parking ramp. This work forces the relocation of their sanitary sewer services. The cost of the work is proposed t be funded equally from retained. earnings and a St. Marys contribution. Council Action Reauested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Road Constructors. OUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: Reports and Recommendations Public Works S -1 3 EM DESCRIPTION: Bids; Project 6214-4-95A J-2108 - Overlay PREPARED rir: Bridge Deck on 14th St. NW 09 illivray Bids were received and opened after 11:00 AM, August 2, 1995 for the following local improvement project: Project 6214-4-95A J-2108 "Overlay Bridge Deck on 14th Street N.W. Bridge No. 55524 over Cascade Creek" The following bid was received: Progressive Contractors, Inc. $59,172.01 Engineers Estimate $51,000 The Public Works Department recommends award of the contract to PCI. The work was bid to be constructed this season which will permit better traffic coordination with the Civic Center Drive project which will be under construction in 1996. council l ActiQn—Eg-Que-91ad If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Progressive Contractors, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second aS3 ,' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/9 5 4GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ' Reports and Recommendations Public Works PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bids: Project 6311-3-95 J-9337 - Watermain MacGillivray through future Gerlach Sub. t,r,;, Bids were received and opened after 11:00 AM, August 2, 1995 for the following local improvement project: "Watermain Extension in llth Avenue SW from South Pointe Drive SW to approximately 2800 feet north of 60th Street Sw, then through the future Gerlach Subdivision for a distance oProxi ately 1100 feet returning to 11th Avenue SW approximately north of 60th Street SW." The following bids were received: Elcor Construction $382,377.00 Barbarossa & Sons $430,567.00 Swenke Company $473,776.00 Winona Mechanical $482,405.90 Road Constructors $526,555.50 Engineers Estimate $360,000. The .project will be funded by Special Assessments, developer contributions and the Water Department for oversizing of mains. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Elcor Construction. 110 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETINGS 0 go DATE: 8/7/95 4 is AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendation Public Works S _11; ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment Agreement for 3850 Highway 14 East PREPARED BY: J' Loehr Mr. Mark Mathis, the owner of 3850 Highway 14 East, Plat 5065 Parcel 000800, has requested permission from the City to connect the property to the adjacent public sanitary sewer and watermain to be constructed by City Project J-9347. Mr. Mathis acknowledges the. property is subject to certain special assessments and fees for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the area. 'The assessments and fees relative to the property are: J8358 Area Assessment for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 0.75 Acres x $611.46 per acre $ 458.60 Water Availability Fee 0.75 Acre x $1100.00 per acre $ 825.00 Total Amount to be Immediately Assessed $ 1,238.60 J9347 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Estimated Amount of Assessment $10,800.00 J9347 will be assessed when the project is completed and final project costs have been determined. Mr. Mathis, agrees to have the Water Availability Fee considered delinquent so it can be immediately assessed against the property as a service charge. An assessment agreement has been prepared between the Owner and the City of Rochester. Assessment Spread = 10 Years. Council Action Requested 1. Authorize the Mayor andCityClerk to enter into the Assessment Agreement. 2. Adopt the resolution leaving the assessments for Project J8358 and the Water Availability Fee against the property. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4L?'+ + ; 12 .4 4 DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Public Works TEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction - 4th Ave. SW/1800 & 1900 PREPARED BY: Blocks DM Ro s$man The City has received a request to restrict parking on 4th Ave. SW between 18th Street and 20th Street for traffic safety. The pavement width is 20 feet. A survey of the residents was conducted with the following results: fpr Yes, restrict parking on both sides. 3 No, leave things as they are. 1.2 No Response 16 Total A list of comments received is attached. Staff recommends parking be restricted on at least one side. It appears that the majority of parking is provided in the driveways or side yards. Very little on -street parking occurs and it probably just during. large family gatherings or parties. All the mail boxes are located on the east side; therefore, it is recommended to place the restriction on the east side also. Council Action Requested Adopt the prepared resolution adding Paragraph (Ii!) to Section B "No Parking Zones" to read: (111) To Section B "No Parking -Zones" to read: Fourth Avenue SW on the east side from 18th Street to 20th Street, At All Times. 1 ' ' OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 1ST Sw LJ t TUDOR N CT <' �n 17TH ST SE 161 L< < s < < CT 18TH ST 18TH ST 17 1, �.,C3 z 181 t h < CV 19TH ST 19TH ST S Sw 20TH ST WASHiy i c C9 - Tt? .8 21 ST ' < ST SW 21 ST ST SE 1 FIRESI e � dp 1� 22ND ST SW , c� 2�R 3� ro w <�c ST SW 23 0 _ z ST cad" J Y ST c C.4 MY 1 _ M i. _ N MEADOW RUN z F25THy ST ," A�� SLj e IST" Zo a _ 25T1 ST SW ■L ! N f 1AK Hlt IS OR 1 Comments - Parking Survey 4th Avenue S.W. - 18th to 20th Street You need parking for friends or family to park when visiting your house. ------------------------------------ The 4th Avenue S.W. street is narrow. A lot of people use it for bicycling (no sidewalks). Also people use it for walking too, there is just not room. There are lots of kids in this area and we don't need it any more dangerous than it already is. We do not want no parking signs in our front yard or along our street. This is a residential area with many small children. Cars trvebeanolcarrs along drivers too fast will only drive there vefaster! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever cars my neighbors park on the Avenue don't bother me at. Some of them have children who have cars and there is not enough room in the driveway. The fault lies in the fact that the City allow so many new homes to be built in a locale that isn't prepared for so many homes. 40 1 A 43AIT01 • • MEETING0 DATE: 8/1/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works 0-1-1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bids : Walkway Project No. 5-1995 J-4946 PREPARED BY - Mike Cox Bids were received and opened at 11:00 AM, August 2, 1995 for the following project: Walkway Project No. 5-1995, J-4946 "Bituminous Path Along Viola Road N.E. from Parkwood Drive to Northern Valley Drive N.E." The following bids were received: Rochester Sand & Gravel $16,463.20 Elcor Construction $17,780.00 Road Constructors $21,626.00 Engineers Estimate $14,970.00 Abstract of bids attached. Council Action Requested Adopt the resolution accepting the low bid of Rochester Sand & Gravel for $16,463.20•. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6 DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Public'Works TEM DESCRIPTION: Bids: Handicap Ramp Project No. 6-1995 J-9342 PREPARED 8Y Mike Cox Bids were received and opened at 11:00 AM, August 2, 1995 for the following project: Handicap Ramp Project No. 6-1995 - J-9343 "CDBG" "Construction of Handicap Ramp at Various Location Throughout the City" The following bids were received: Doyle Conner Company $23,234.00 Don Prow Cement $30,720.00 Engineers Estimate $22,106.00 Abstract of bids attached. Council Action Requested Adopt the resolution accepting the low bid of Conner Company for $23,234.00. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PUBLIC WORKS 'C' 4 9 _ M DESCRIPTION: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FLOOD CONTROL PREPARED BY: PROJECT/ACQUISITION SETTLEMENT 1828 FIRST STREET NW R. HALLING .The City is requiredto purchase the above home as a part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control project. The home is one of the 21 homes.in the West Zumbro Addition. The City made an offer on January 5, 1995, in the amount of $77,500. Negotiations with the property owner have resulted in a settlement of an additional $1,000. Total settlement being $78,500. Staff requests approval to purchase 1828 First Street NW from David Carrow in the amount of $78,500. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of prepared resolution approving the purchase of 1828 First Street NW from David Carrow in the negotiated amount of $78,500. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING UH 1 t: E/ AGENDA REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CITY ADMINISTRATOR E-AD DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION/LOTS 5-10, PREPARED BY: --K 11, WEST ZUM3RO ADDITION I G. NEUMANN A request has been received from Forrest Sargent, one of the owners of these lots, to vacate a utility easement which contains a telephone cable. The telephone company has agreed that the owner can construct a building over the telephone cable provided that the telephone is placed in a conduit. That being the case, a private easement agreement could be secured and the easement could perhaps be vacated and the building would then not be subject to a revocable permit. A request to call a public hearing for the vacation is submitted for a hearing on September 5, 1995. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to call a hearing for the utility easement vacation for September 5, 1995. ACTION: Motion by: Second to: ,._. A U G -„ 4— 9 5 F R I 1 0: 1.2 R o n h a s b City of Rochester, Minnesota P . 9 2 DATE: /{ TO: Mayor and Common Council City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota 55901 PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR UTILITY EASEMENT - We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal descrip- tion and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) OWNERS NAME (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) LEGAL DESCRIPTION ls-'ys Y- Zet.-ter 6io �ls�, fro We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate the following described public property: ire- /fi' ZW,, The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: 1 3 l/!r GAce ov ews7` 719� K Qecze-L e?f C/EGC/ C17ee�a4C ,O ESTE •0LM D PL414G c AM 4 : Ap S (d . er R0CNESTEflOLNST a e. .swan Mr IMS s.R t of 2 by tonjngAdmin trattx f.J 9 A B U G- 4- 9 5 PRI 1 0: 1 3 R o o h a s 6 s r- P 1 a .. 1 n v- D � P- 0 3 0 • 4, Your petitioner respectfully requests that such proceedings as shall be necessary to accomplish this vacation be instituted as soo as Note: In cases where the property Lpossible. ,c,f" e��(i/i�,� 79Lt /t /..��c 4/"/ is owned in joint tenancy, Signature of Petitioner Piis+s fq" (Husband and wife, etc.) both owners must sign the petition. Signature'of Petitioner Address STATE OF MINN/l�riNEgS�OTA��/ } . COUNTY OF 6il,(i. e ) On this 'qO Public within and Signature of Petitioner Address Signature of Petitioner Address Signature of Petitioner Address day of 19 —, before me,, a Notary for said County personally appeared �D {dlZeSf 50.Rf to me personally known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing -instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be }iis)•(her) (their) free act and deed and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of hi (her) (their) knowledge. LR0$F.W3QM WTMVKW; •� El�6UDISTRIBUTION: A R��►No�--t''ary Public, Olmsted County Minnesota 'I�y�¢ommission Expires on City Clerk (white copy �� R H 0 STED NNINf3 D'er'7. Consolidated Planning D'ggpa tment y) Petitioner (goldenrod cbpy) R^C,'cSiEROLE_ cfl t VACATING STREETS, ALLEYS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS: FORM' Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement =? ng Ad" ratty Sheet 2 of 2 Revised 3/17180 A—S5 FRI r'QN--M7-1 ti FT - 04 Nv 7-- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES F. 1. RESOLUTIONS F ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE s� MEETING - '' DATE: 8/7/95 ITEM NO. F PREPARED BY: TERRY ADKINS (a) Resolution Appointing Election Judges for 1995 and Approving the Salary for said Judges as well as Approving Polling Places for 1995. . FADING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 32.03, 32.04, 34.07, 34.09, 34.17, 34.25, 34.28, 35.05, 35.21, 35.22, 38.06, 38.07, 38.12, and 38.13of the Rochester Code of ordinances, Relating to Revisions to the Housing Code. An Ordinance Amending Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1466. Relating to the Establishment within the city of An Urban Service District and a Rural Service District as Separate Taxing Districts. ... f, F. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption) . None Scheduled F. 4. MISCELLANEOUS. a) Owner Contract; Basic Construction in Southern Hills Subdivision; Charles W. Gerlach and Elcor Construction. c9/ COUNCIL ACTIONS Motion by: Second by: to: �® ga � � � °h'1G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ;✓ 7 / DATE: 8/7/95 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED ITEMS CITY ADMINISTRATOR 0-1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED PERSONNEL POLICY ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY PREPARED BY: BY CITY EMPLOYEES S. KVENVOLD The City Council considered the proposed personnel policy which placed some restrictions on City employees who sought the elected positions of the City organization and tabled the matter for further discussion. On May 15, 1995, the Council, meeting as a Committee of the Whole, reviewed the subject and a majority of the Committee indicated a preference for a policy which: • Encouraged City employees to run for the City's elected positions in order to take advantage of the employees' experience and talent. • To not require a City. employee to take a leave of absence while campaigning for elective office. • To provide a leave of absence for a City employee if he or she is elected and the employee's current position is ruled as incompatible with the elected position of Mayor/Councilmember. Attached for your review is the information which was previously supplied to the Councilmembers on this subject. J QQiclari� . COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ?'H The personnel policy is revised, amended or added to by resolution. The Councilmembers should indicate the provisions which they want included in the personnel policy relating to this subject, and the City Attorney will prepare aresolution for adoption. ZE. � Se,� j en1 �d ��C7131GiGi:�+� �s y 3 _ L COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 11/15,'-�,�►s i DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM April 26, 1995 Mayor and Common Council Stevan E. Kvenvold 1¢ Proposed Personnel Policy on Political Activity by City Employees The above referenced policy was placed on the 3/6/95 Council agenda for consideration. The Council tabled the matter and referred it to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration. A copy of the proposed personnel policy and an alternative policy prepared by Shawn Palmer was made available to all City employees for their review and comment. I had not originally scheduled this matter for Committee review prior to the Council's consideration since I believed that the public policy issues contained in the proposed policy were clear cut and would be readily accepted by the Council. The proposed policy would require a City employee to take a leave of absence if he or she desires to campaign for a Mayor or Councilmember position for the City organization and would require the person to resign his or her position in the City organization if elected as Mayor or Councilmember and the position was ruled as incompatible. The attached memorandum from the City Attorney indicates that a City employee may not hold two or more public offices which are ruled as incompatible. The proposed policy clarifies the fact that a City employee would belrequired to resign his or her current position before assuming an elective or appointive office which would be incompatible with the current City employment. Another element of the proposed policy would require a City employee to request a leave of absence to campaign for elective office in the City organization. I believe that this is good public policy and avoids the creation of conflict of interest situations when City employees may seek the Mayor/Councilmember positions. It would not be in the public's interest to allow a City employee to enforce City regulations on agencies, businesses or individuals at the same time as he/she is seeking support for his/her election. �J • 0 Proposed Personnel Policy on Political Activity by City Employees • April 26, 1995 page two Mr. Adkins' memorandum quotes Minnesota Statute 211B.09 that indicates "our history as a democratic nation demonstrates that broadly prohibiting political activity by government employees is necessary to ensure that civil servants serve the public and not a political party." I strongly believe in the principle of the above statement, and I do not believe that the citizens want or would be supportive of a policy that would allow for the governing body of the City organization to be comprised of the employees of the organization. It is my opinion that a City employee has the right and freedom to seek elective office of the City organization but does not have the right to hold both positions at the same time. By accepting employment with the City organization, the employee gives up some of. the options that he/she has in holding the elective positions of the organization. Some of the department heads have commented on the difficulties associated with the granting of a four year leave of absence for a City employee, and I agree that the length of a leave would not be a very workable situation. • I recommend your adoption of the proposed policy with the revision of A3 to provide for the City Council to be the approving entity for any leaves of absence.. 0 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 1995 TO: Terry Adkins Patrick Farrell Richard Freese Carole Grimm David Kapler Dale Martinson Robert Pawelski Steve Schmidt Roy Sutherland Judith Taylor Fred Wagner Don Woes Phil Wheeler FROM: Stevan E. Kvenvold �� .;/"(r • SUBJECT: Proposed Personnel Policy on Political Activity by City Employees The City Council discussed the attached proposed personnel policy on political activity by City employees and tabled the matter for further discussion. The Council indicated that opinions from City employees should be sought on this matter. Shaun Palmer, a City employee who previously ran for a Councilmember position, has prepared a proposed personnel policy on this subject which is less restrictive than the proposed policy currently under consideration. Please take whatever steps necessary to alert your employees to the proposed policies on political activity by City employees and indicate that they are welcome to submit any of their comments/suggestions to the Administrator's Office. Also, I would appreciate your thoughts on how your department would accommodate a four year leave of absence in any of your positions. 0 • SECTION XXVUI - POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT It is the purpose of this policy to preserve and promote efficiency and political neutrality in the City of Rochester employment and the conducting of the City's business, while affording City employees the opportunity to participate in political activities not inconsistent with this goal. This policy is not intended to impose any additional limitations on the City employee's political activity beyond those limitations provided by state law. Instead this policy addresses the effect of City employee's political activity upon their employment. Specifically, this policy seeks to implement the common law doctrine prohibiting a person from holding incompatible public offices. A. Candidacy for Office An employee shall be considered a candidate under this section of the policy upon filing for political office. 2a. If a City employee becomes a candidate for a City elective office which, in the City Attorney's opinion, is incompatible with their municipal employment, the employee must request a leave of absence. • 2b. If a City employeoffice �.. . e seeks an elective oce which, in the City Attorneys opinion, is NOT incompatible with their municipal employment, the employee may, but is not required, to take a leave of absence. 3. The employee's department head and the City's Director of Employee Relations may grant such leaves of absence for the duration or any part -of the candidacy for public office, provided the required job' functions and tasks of the employee can be satisfactorily reassigned as determined by the department head. 9110FT77., . . „ _, . • ti 1 a. If an employee is elected or appointed to a position on the City of Rochester's Common Council or any other office which is legally incompatible with City of Rochester employment, the employee must resign from employment with the City of Rochester before assuming the responsibilities of the elective or appointive office. 1 b. Taking the oath of the elective office without submitting a written resignation of municipal employment to the Director of Employee Relations shall be, considered as an implied resignation of municipal employment and shall be . sufficient to terminate said employment. Under no circumstances shall a City employee be entitled to a leave of absence during the employee's tenure as _ an elected City officer. 2. If an employee is elected to the State of Minnesota Legislature or to another . full-time public office, the employee shall be granted a leave of absence, as provided by state law. 3. If an employee is elected or appointed to a part-time public office which, in the City Attorney's opinion, is incompatible with their municipal employment, and as a result cannot simultaneously and effectively discharge the responsibilities of full-time City employment, the employee shall resign from employment with the City of Rochester. 4. If an employee is elected or appointed to a part-time public office which, in the City Attorney's opinion, is NOT incompatible with their municipal employment, the employee may, but is not required to, take a leave of. absence. S. The employee's department head and the City's Director of Employee Relations may grant such leave of absence for the duration or any part -of the term of the part-time office, provided it is in the interest of the City and if the required job functions and tasks of the employee can be satisfactority reassigned as determined by the department head. . � a �3 AdnJ /ALn�e 4S �ep•sr' • SECTION XXVIII - POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND MUNICIPAL GOVERN T It is the purpose of this policy to preserve and promote efficiency and political neutrality in the City of Rochester employment and the conducting of the city's business, while affording City employees the opportunity to participate in political activities not inconsistent with this goal. This policy is not intended to impose any additional limitations on the City employee's political activity beyond those limitations provided by state law. Instead this policy addresses the effect of City employee's political activity upon their employment. specifically, this policy seeks to implement the common law doctrine prohibiting a person from holding incompatible public offices. A. Candidacy for Office 1. B. 7$i An employee shall be considered a candidate under this section of the policy upon filing for political office. • b. if after one term of any Zenvth an employee on leave absence files for a consecutive term the Ieave of absence shall end and the em,21< yee shall be considered as n implied resianation of municipal employment and shall be sufficient to terminate said employment. 2 E ' V CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 1995 TO: Terry Adkins FROM: Stevan E. Kvenvoldfi� SUBJECT: Proposed Personnel Policy on Political Activity by City Employees Shaun Palmer spoke to me about the above referenced personnel policy. He had the following questions which I seek some input on from you: 1. Mr. Palmer questions why Section A2b is needed if every office other than the Mayor/City Council positions are not incompatible. 2. Mr. Palmer questions why the City Council is not the granting authority for leaves of absence under Section A3. 3. Mr. Palmer wants to know the meaning of Section B3. I believe that he is attempting to identify what other types of public office may be incompatible with his City employment. 4. Mr. Palmer was told by John Wallace that a St. Paul City firefighter serves on the St. Paul City Council and wonders why his service on the Rochester City Council would be ruled as incompatible if City employees may serve on the City Council in other jurisdictions. Fred Wagner did check this out, and a St. Paul firefighter is on the St. Paul Council. Apparently, a City police officer in Minneapolis also serves on the Minneapolis City Council. c: F. Wagner ate' OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 1995 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold - City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins - Rochester City Attorney TVA" SUBJECT: Questions on Incompatibility of Offices Policy Thank you for your March 14, 1995, memo describing some questions which have occurred in response to the proposed personnel policy on city employee's political activities. You asked for my help in responding to the questions. I am able to respond to the questions as follows: 1. Proposed section Alb involves those city employees whose responsibilities/functions/fiduciary duties are not incompatible with that city elective office which they seek. In my mind, there • are few such city employees, but there will be some who can seek city elective office while maintaining their municipal employment. For example, an employee of the Civic Center working irregular hours as a stagehand may seek the Mayor's office. I believe it would be difficult to label an irregular stagehand position and the mayor's position as incompatible. Thus, section A2b is designed to address this category of city employees. If there is no incompatibility of office problem, the proposed policy allows, but does not require, the taking of a leave of absence. 2. I cannot tell you why the City Council is not the granting authority for leaves cf absences under section A3. I was not involved in this portion of the draft policy. Obviously, it is within the Council's authority to determine who shall grant the requested leave of absence. 3. Section B3 simply says a city employee must resign his or her city employment if they are elected or appointed to a city elective office which is incompatible with the municipal employment. .This is the essential provision of the legal doctrine known as "incompatibility of offices." The section incorporates the city attorney's determination of incompatible offices so as to comply with the home rule charter ("It shall be the duty of the city attorney to ... give his opinion upon any legal question"). It is not possible to list in advance all offices which are incompatible. The determination of incompatibility can be made only after a is review of the functions, duties, and responsibilities of both positions. a10 4. It is true that a firefighter sits on the St..Paul City Council. St. Paul City Attorney Timothy Marx issued an,opinion determining that one person may hold a "line firefighter" position and a councilmember position at the same time. Mr. Marx concluded that there is no incompatibility of office problem because the firefighter does not have any management or fire administration responsibilities. I disagree with Mr. Marx's opinion, and I know of other city attorneys who also disagree. I believe the current controversy surrounding the study of a part-time or full-time volunteer fire department in Rochester best illustrates the conflicting responsibilities, duties, and judgments which would face a firefighter/councilmember. Yet, -in light of the ambiguity surrounding the "incompatibility of offices" doctrine, it is not surprising to learn that what may be permitted in one jurisdiction is not permitted in another. By the way, I asked Tim Marx about a building inspector position and how he would respond to the potential incompatibility issue. He told me he would have found a violation of the "incompatibility of offices" doctrine if a building inspector became a councilmember. According to his analysis, a building inspector's responsibility to enforce building and safety codes to the full extent of the law may be compromised if the same inspector is able, as a councilmember, to make management or policy decisions as to what provisions should be in building and safety codes, and how they should be enforced. Mr. Palmer's attorney reached the same conclusion one year ago. In his January 17, 1994, letter, attorney Charles P. Nicholas wrote the following: In reviewing the memorandum from the office of the City Attorney, I find that the research done on the issue of the incompatibility of the offices of city employee and city official are correct. There is little doubt that there is a conflict of interest with regard to your position as a City Housing Inspector and the position for which you would run for office, namely the City Council. I hope this information is helpful to you. AdkMflLtPd cc: Fred Wagner 0 R77 ROCHESTER PUBLIC LIBRARY XEXOR]=UX ICJI i'm LLL91 • JUDITH KELLER TAYLOR. DIRECTOR TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: Judith Taylor 11 DATE: April 10, 199 SUBJECT: Policy on Political Activity by City Employees Although I circulated the proposed personnel policy on political activity to the various library divisions, I received no feedback. Perhaps, as you indicated would be appropriate, some of our people submitted comments directly to you. You have asked how our department would accommodate a four year leave of absence in any of our positions. It would be particularly difficult to accommodate a four-year leave of absence in any of our professional librarian positions, because . the pool of experienced librarians is not so large that we would be likely to attract many desirable candidates for even such an extended "temporary" position. We could find candidates for fill-in positions at the Library Associate level, but would need to spend significant time training them which would lessen our, efficiency noticeably for the first six -to -twelve months. Given the union rules and the interest among our staff in improving their status, we would probably promote from within for such positions. That would ease the task of training - in, but require hiring and training another person for the resulting vacancy, and on down the line, leaving us short-handed during the process. We could more easily replace the clerical, entry-level staff, because there is such a large pool of candidates. Needless to say, the arrangements implicit in ANY leave require us to re -direct some staff efforts away from the public service which is our reason for being, but if it is standard for private business to give such leaves, I agree that public employees should also receive some such consideration. cc: Fred Wagner, Personnel Director 0 oFRLMj= ROCHESTER PUBLIC LIBRARY 11 FIRST STREET S.E. / ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904.3777 / TELEPHONE 507.285.8000 i FAX 507-287.1910 An Equal Opportunity/Afflrmadve Action Employer FINANCE DEPARTMENT i MEMORANDUM DATE: March 24, 1995 TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: Dale Martinson, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Political Activity Policy I have routed a copy of the political activity policy memo to all finance and data processing staff and have requested they respond to either myself or directly to you with any thoughts or concerns they might have. You may have received individual response, but even after an e-mail reminder broadcast to staff, I have had only one comment. That comment comes from a supervisor who is very concerned about the possibility of an employee being allowed a four year leave of absence with a guaranteed job upon return. We find it quite wasteful to train a replacement employee only to have to let the employee go four years later. After a four year leave of absence, would likely need to provide extensive retraining for the returning employee as well. It just does not seem to be good use of taxpayers dollars. I also have a concern about the compatibility of the simultaneous roles of an elected council member and appointed city employee. It seems there would need to be considerable abstentions during votes on issues concerning either employment policies or specific policy concerning the department the official might be returning to. I assume the city attorney is charged with monitoring these potential conflicts of interest, but that puts that position in a tough spot. I agree with your thoughts, that an employee has every right to run for city council office and that they may well be able to contribute greatly. I do believe, however, that if successful in their campaign, the employee needs to resign and forfeit any appointed employee rights in order to completely avoid actual, or even the appearance of, conflict of interest issues. n 0 P9 CJ • ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 1995 TO: Steve Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: Dave Kapler, Fire Chief bv4c�- SUBJECT: LEAVE OF ABSENCE COMMENTS In the ranks of Firefighter through Captain, a four year leave of absence would be handled in one of two ways: 1. Depending on other vacancies and level of staffing at the time, the position may be left vacant. v 2. If it was not feasible to leave vacant, we would attempt to hire a person either on a permanent or temporary basis. If the vacancy was caused by a Captain or Motor Operator and we did not make a promotion, there would be out of classification to pay. In the Chief Officer ranks, a long term vacancy is more difficult to handle. Experience has shown that an acting person in a management position is not effective for a long term. If it were possible, I would prefer to make a permanent or temporary promotion. an elected City officer. 2, if an employee is elected to the State of Minnesota legislature or to another* full-time public office, the employee shall be granted a leave of absence, as provided by state law. 3. If an employee is elected or appointed to a part-time public office which, in the City Attorney's opinion, is incompatible with their municipal employment, and as _ a result cannot simultaneously and effectively discharge the responsibilities of full-time City employment, the employee shall resign from employment with the City of Rochester. 4. If an employee is elected or appointed to a part-time public office which, in the City Attorney's opinion, is NOT incompatible with their municipal employment, the employee may, but is not required to, take a leave of absence. 5. The employee's department head and the City's Director of Employee Relations may grant such leave of absence for the duration or any part -of the term of the part-time office, provided it is in the interest of the City and if the required job functions and tasks of the employee can be satisfactority reassigned as determined. by the department head. C • 1� PJ OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 1994 TO: Terry L. Adkins, City Attorney FROM: Thomas M. Canan - Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Incompatibility of Offices for City Employees and Officials You have indicated to me that a city employee may run for the city council at the next election. You have asked me to research the law on when a position as a city employee conflicts with a position as an elected city official. This memo is designed to address that issue. At common law, in order to find that two offices were legally incompatible, the functions of the two offices had to be inconsistent, such as when one office is subordinate to the other. Kenney v. Goergen, • 31 N.W. 210 (Minn. 1886). In Kenney, a person had allegedly received personal property from a relative in an attempt to evade creditors. He asserted the writ of attachment issued by the court was invalid because the person who had issued the writ while acting as deputy clerk of the court held an incompatible office as court commissioner. The supreme Court noted that neither of these offices was subordinate to the other and neither officer could interfere with or had any supervision over the other officer. As a result, the two offices were not incompatible. In State ex rel. Young v. Hays, 117 N.W. 615 (Minn. 1908), the Supreme Court elaborated on the Kenney standard. In Hays, the state sought to remove Mr. Hays who was simultaneously county superintendent of schools of Le Sueur County and the superintendent of public schools for the town of Mountain Lake located in Cottonwood County on. the grounds that the two offices were incompatible. The Court noted that "incompatibility does not depend upon the physical inability of one person to discharge the duties of both offices. The test is the character and relation of the offices; that is, whether the functions of the two are inherently inconsistent and repugnant." The Court went on to note that there must be ". . .some conflict in the duties required of the officers, as where one has some supervision of the other, is required to deal with, control or assist him." quoting State v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325, 36 S.W. 636. The Court found that based on this standard, given that the two offices were located in different counties and thus were not antagonistic to each other, the offices were not incompatible. tm( In State ex rel. Hilton v. Sword, 196 N.W. 467 (Minn. 1923), the Supreme . Court considered whether Mr. Sword who had first been elected treasurer of a school district in Itasca County could simultaneously hold the office of county commissioner of Itasca County. After noting the standards set forth in Kenney and Hays, the Court examined the duties of each position. It noted that the county board was responsible for the organization of school districts, the board could change district boundaries and it apportioned debts and property. The school board had the right to appeal certain cases to district court if it felt aggrieved by the county board's actions. The Court believed that a member of both bodies could not render impartial service and exercise his best judgment in the interest of both bodies. Therefore, the Court found the offices to be incompatible. Finally, in State ex rel. Klitzke v Independent Consol. School Dist. No. 88, 61 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. 1953), the Supreme Court considered whether the offices of school board member and county commissioner were incompatible with the office of school survey committee member. It also considered whether the office of county supervisor of assessors was incompatible with the office of school board member. As to the first alleged conflict, the Court found that the statute setting up the committees clearly contemplated that school board members could serve on the survey committee. Since, in addition, the survey committee members were only making recommendations which did not become legally binding until ratified by the electorate, there was no incompatibility between the two offices. As to the second alleged conflict, the Court also found no incompatibility again based largely on the fact that the survey • committee only made recommendations which had to be approved by the public. Finally, as to the third alleged conflict, the Court noted that a county supervisor of assessments acts in only a supervisory capacity and only makes recommendations to the county commissioners. This did .not conflict with the duties of a school board member and therefore the offices were found to be compatible. Two Minnesota Attorney General Opinions are also germane to this issue. The Attorney General found in one case that a member of a municipal volunteer fire department could serve on the City Council. Op. Att'y Gen. 358-e-4 (1965). In the other case however, the Attorney General found that the chief of a volunteer fire department could not simultaneously serve as a city council member. Op. Att'y Gen. 358-e-9 (1971). The 1965 opinion seems at odds with all of the other law on this topic. See also Belleville Tp. v._Fornarotto, 549 A.2d 1267 (N.J. Super. 1988)(holding that offices of township commissioner and township housing inspector were incompatible since commissioner was called upon to vote upon matters concerning his employment as inspector, his position as inspector was supervised by a fellow commissioner and the judge ruling on the propriety of his conduct as housing inspector had been appointed by him in his capacity as township commissioner), Vana v. Maple Heights City Council, 561 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio 1990)(holding that city charter provision prohibiting elected official from simultaneously holding other public employment did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio or U.S. Constitution). 0 �m Based on the caselaw, some guiding principles on this issue can be discerned. The last 4 guidelines are drawn from a November 1992 article by Carla Heyl of the Minnesota League of Cities on this topic. 1. Neither of the two positions should be subordinate to the other, have supervision over the other or be able to interfere with execution of duties of the other. 2. Neither of the two positions should deal with or assist the other. 3. Neither of the two positions should have duties which are inconsistent with or repugnant to each other. 4. The person should be able to discharge the duties of both positions with fidelity and propriety. S. The person should not have authority to appeal a decision to the courts which affects him as the holder of one position which he made in his capacity as the holder of the other position. 6. The person should not be able to make legally binding decisions (as to opposed to nonbinding recommendations) in his capacity as one officeholder) which are subject to review by him in his capacity as the other officeholder. 7. The person, as the holder of one position, should not hire or isappoint or set the salary for the holder of the other position. 8. The person, as holder of one position, should not make contracts with the holder of the other position or approve a bond for the holder of the other position. 9. The person, as the holder of one position, should not be precluded by statute from holding any other positions. 10. The person, should not have duties under a contract as the holder of one position which he obtained through approval of the contract as holder of the other position. It appears that a city employee who is elected to the city council would run afoul of several of these rules. A city council member has general supervision over all city departments, including the department where the person would be an employee. If the employee is a departmenthead, the city council is directly responsible for hiring the employee and setting a salary. The duties of a city council member could also be inconsistent with those of a city employee. For example, a city employee would undoubtedly be interested in obtaining the maximum annual raise possible for his or her own financial gain. In contrast, a city council member may be seen as having a duty to the public to keep employee salary . increases to a minimum in order to hold down tax increases. As another example, a city employee who is engaged in illegal activity on the job such as sexual harassment has a personal interest in seeing that he avoids punishment for his actions. In contrast, a city council member has a interest in seeing that illegal activity is halted and punished in order to maintain staff morale and to limit city exposure to financially crippling lawsuits. Therefore, for these reasons among others, this writer asserts that the position of city employee and city council member would be legally incompatible. Notwithstanding this, a person who is currently a city employee can run for the city council without resigning from the position he or she already holds. Op. Att'y Gen. 471-M (1953). However, if the person is successful in his or her bid for the city council, he or she is deemed to have resigned from .the city employee position and that position becomes vacant. Op. Att'y Gen. 471-M (1957), Kenney v GoerQen, 31 N.W. 210 (1886). OFFICEUNCOWAT.TOM • BAGNIEFSIG A NICHOLAS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS OF LAW 423 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST POST OFFICE BOX 189 ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55903 JEFFREY D. BAGNIEFSKI CHARLES P. NICHOLAS January 17, 1994 Mr. Shaun Palmer P.O. Box 334 Rochester, MN 55903 RE: City Employee Running for City Office Our File No.: 3-4005-91 Dear Mr. Palmer: TELEPHONE 507-2800100 FAX 507-280.6797 Pursuant to our discussions in my office, you have asked me to research and report to you the question of a city employee running for the office of City Council and the parameters which will be placed on this type of situation. This letter is designed to address that issue. . In reviewing the memorandum from the office of the City Attorney, I find that the research done on the issue of the incompatibility of the offices of city employee and city official are correct. However, this does not take into consideration the practicality of how the situation is properly dealt with once the incompatibility is acknowledged. Cases cited by the City Attorney do not address those in any extended manner. There is little doubt that there is a conflict of interest with regard to your position as a City Housing Inspector and the position for which you would run for office, namely the City Council. The City Council would have authority over your department and specifically your job in many areas, including but not limited to, wages, benefits, litigation, and the like. My research into the procedure and appropriateness of action after this conflict of interest is determined should shed some light on your decision as to what your options will be. Two cases that I found shed much light on this situation. The first case is Bolin v. The State of Minnesota. Department of Public Safetv, 313 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1981). In that case a state highway patrolman brought suit challenging the State Patrol I s regulation and a provision of the State Patrolman's Collective Bargaining Agreement requiring patrolmen to resign without prejudice if they desire to run for the office of County Sheriff. In that case, the District Court in Ramsey County determined those provisions were constitutional and that the decision for the patrolman in that case was to "resign to run". The Supreme Court, upon review, indicated that, while the right to run for public office is not a fundamental right, it is an important right protected by the first amendment. The Court continued to state that this right, however, is not an absolute right and may be subject to {y�Mr. Shaun Palmer January 17, 1994 Page -2- restriction, especially when government employees are the subject of restrictions. The Court determined that the State does have a compelling interest in the promotion of harmony and cooperation between two different elected and/or appointed offices. The State also has the compelling interest to insure that their employees and/or elected officials are acting independently and without any undue or outside pressure, either from their interest in their jobs or from contacts outside of there. The Court in Bolin indicated that there had been a denial of equal protection in violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution in that the "resign to run" rule was too restrictive to achieve the goals above stated. Where restrictions on the first amendment right are involved, such as the case cited above, the least restrictive means available to achieve the governmental purpose served by the restriction must be adopted. In that situation, the Supreme Court held the resign to run rule to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and suggested that requiring the trooper to take an unpaid leave of absence is the least restrictive means to accomplish the State I s goal. Therefore, in your situation, I believe that this case controls the law in the State of Minnesota in that the appropriate method for dealing with this situation is for. the City to grant you an unpaid. leave of absence while you run for office. A word of warning: The Bolin case has a strongly worded dissent, which means that the justices are split on the vote of the total Supreme Court. In the dissent, the dissenting Judge has indicated that it is their belief that the restriction of "resign to run" is not as restrictive as the majority would seem to believe and that in their minds that was an appropriate step. However, you must always keep in mind that the majority decision is the controlling law in Minnesota. Another case which was discovered that sheds light on your situation is the case of Martin v. Itasca County, 448 N.W.2d 368 (Minn: 1989). In that case a county employee who had been suspended from a job during the pendency of a campaign for elective office brought suit against the County for the County's alleged violations of his due process rights. The District Court entered judgment in favor of the County and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeals for the State of Minnesota reversed that judgment in an unpublished opinion. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota's review reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the District Court decision to enter judgment in favor of the County and its policy. The Court in that case centered its analysis around the question of due process and the right to be heard and notification of the impending action. It was held that a tenured County employee, who, could not be discharged without just cause, had "a property interest" in his continued employment which was protected by due process. In addition, the Court found that the County personnel policy which required any County employee seeking elective office to take an unpaid leave of absence during the campaign with loss of wages, seniority rights and fringe benefits, subjected the employee to a financial loss of a magnitude sufficient to constitute "a deprivation of property interest" in his job. However, in the final analysis, the Court indicated that there were no due process rights to Mr. Shaun Palmer January 17, 1994 Page -3- M a pre -action hearing due to the fact that the hearing will no better determine the relevant facts of this or any other case than a simple review of the recorded papers by the appropriate supervisory board. The Martin case shed light on the theory behind restrictive policies, citing the Hatch act of 1982 which broadly prohibited federal employees from any political activity. The case goes on to state that every state, including Minnesota, has enacted a "mini Hatch act" which prohibits political activities by state employees. The constitutionality of these prohibitions of political activity by government workers has been upheld in the face of a first amendment challenge, an equal protection challenge and a substantive due process challenge. The case further recognizes that broadly prohibiting political activity of government employees is necessary to ensure that civil servants serve the public and not a political party. For these reasons, it is constitutionally permissible to suspend, or even discharge a government employee who seeks elective office. The requirements of orderly management of administrative personnel outweigh the limited infringements on the first amendment rights of government employees to participate in political activity as long as these prohibitions do not infringe the employee's access to the ballot box. It is therefore my opinion that should you decide to run for this office of City Council, more than likely, you will be required to take a leave of absence during the campaign and any . term that you decide to hold office. As you can see from the cases that I have cited and the cases in the memorandum from the City Attorney's Office, such is an appropriate mechanism for dealing with the situation and you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, BAGNIEFSKI & NICHOLAS Charles P. Nicholas CPN/jaj OFFICE OF.THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1994 TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator Fred Wagner, Director of Employee Relations FROM: Thomas M. Canan - Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Issue Involving City Employee the Incompatible Office of City Shaun Palmer Councilmember Running for I am sending you this brief memo at the request of Terry Adkins. We have received a letter from Mr. Charles Nicholas, a local attorney who represents Shaun Palmer, an employee of the Building Safety Department who is interested in running for the .city council. A copy of his letter is enclosed. This office generally agrees with the conclusions reached by Mr. Nicholas in his letter with one major exception. He asserts in the last paragraph of his letter that Mr. Palmer may hold the office of city councilmember provided he takes a leave of absence from his position as a city employee. We believe this position is contrary to the caselaw. The Minnesota Attorney General and the Minnesota Supreme Court have both taken the position that when a person qualifies for a second and incompatible position, he or she automatically resigns from the first position and it becomes vacant. Op. Att'y Gen. 471-M (1957), Kenney v. Goergen, 31 N.W. 210 (Minn. 1886). Based on this, we believe that if Mr. Palmer wins an election to a seat on the city council, he would be considered to have resigned his position with the Building Safety Department and that position would be declared vacant. He could not, as Mr. Nicholas asserts, remain a city employee on an extended leave of absence and also function as a city council member. If you have any questions regarding this memo, please feel free to contact me at 8069. Thank you. Enclosure • • BAGNIEFSIG & NICHOLAS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS OF LAW 423 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST • POST OFFICE BOX 189 ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 5WW JEFFREY D. BAGNIEFSKI CHARLES P. NICHCLAS January 17, 1994 Mr. Shaun Palmer P.O. Box 334 Rochester, MN 55903 RE: City Employee Running for City Office Our File No.: 3-4005-91 Dear Mr. Palmer: TELEPHONE $07.280.0100 FAX 507.280-6797 Pursuant to our discussions in my office, you have asked me to research and report to you the question of a city employee running for the office of City Council and the parameters which will be placed on this type of situation. This letter is designed to address that issue. • In reviewing the memorandum from the office of the City Attorney, I find that the research done on the issue of the incompatibility of the offices of city employee and city official are correct. However, this does not take into consideration the practicality of how the situation is properly dealt with once the incompatibility is acknowledged. Cases cited by the City Attorney do not address those in any extended manner. There is little doubt that there is a conflict of interest with regard to your position as a City Housing Inspector and the position for which you would run for office, namely the City. Council. The City Council would have authority over your department and specifically your job in many areas, including but not limited to, wages, benefits, litigation, and the like. My research into the procedure and appropriateness of action after this conflict of interest is determined should shed some light on your decision as to what your options will be. Two cases that I found shed much light on this situation. The first case is Bolin v. The State of Minnesota. Degam_nent of Public Safetv. 313 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1981). In that case a state highway patrolman brought suit challenging the State Patrol's regulation and a provision of the State Patrolman's Collective Bargaining Agreement requiring patrolmen to resign without prejudice if they desire to rum for the office of County Sheriff. In that case, the District Court in Ramsey County determined those provisions were constitutional and that the decision for the patrolman in that case was to "resign to run". The Supreme Court, upon review, indicated that, while the right to run for public office is not a • fundamental right, it is an important right protected by the first amendment. The Court continued to state that this right, however, is not an absolute right and may be subject to Mr. Shaun Palmer January 17, 1994 Page -2- restriction, especially when government employees are the subject of restrictions. The Court • determined that the State does have a compelling interest in the promotion of harmony and cooperation between two different elected and/or appointed offices. The State also has the compelling interest to insure that their employees and/or elected officials are acting independently and without any undue or outside pressure, either from their interest in their jobs or from contacts outside of there. The Court in Bolin indicated that there had been a denial of equal protection in violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution in that the "resign to run" rule was too restrictive to achieve the goals above stated. Where restrictions on the first amendment right are involved, such as the case cited above, the least restrictive means available to achieve the governmental purpose served by the restriction must be adopted. In that situation, the Supreme Court held the resign to run rule to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and suggested that requiring the trooper to take an unpaid leave of absence is the least restrictive means to accomplish the State I s goal. Therefore, in your situation, I believe that this case controls the law in the State of Minnesota in that the appropriate method for dealing with this situation is for the City to grant you an unpaid leave of absence while you run for office. A word of warning: The B91in case has a strongly worded dissent, which means that the justices are split on the vote of the total Supreme Court. In the dissent, the dissenting Judge has indicated that it is their belief that the restriction of "resign to run" is not as restrictive as the majority would seem to believe and that in their minds that was an appropriate step. However, you must always keep in mind that the majority decision is the controlling law in Minnesota. Another case which was discovered that sheds light on your situation is the case of Martin v. Itasca County. 448 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. 1989). In that case a county employee who had been suspended from a job during the pendency of a campaign for elective office brought suit against the County for the County I s alleged violations of his due process rights. The District Court entered judgment in favor of the County and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeals for the State of Minnesota reversed that judgment in an unpublished opinion. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota's review reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the District Court decision to enter judgment in favor of the County and its policy. The Court in that case centered its analysis around the question of due process and the right to be heard and notification of the impending action. It was held that a tenured County employee, who could not be discharged without just cause, had. "a property interest" in his continued employment which was protected by due process. In addition, the Court found that the County personnel policy which required any County employee seeking elective office to take an unpaid leave of absent_ a during the campaign with loss of wages, seniority rights and fringe benefits, subjected the employee to a financial loss of a magnitude sufficient to constitute "a deprivation of property interest" in his job. However, in the final analysis, the Court indicated that there were no due process rights to • • Mr. Shaun Palmer January 17, 1994 Page -3- a pre -action hearing due to the fact that the hearing will no better determine the relevant facts of this or any other case than a simple review of the recorded papers by the appropriate supervisory board. The Marti 11 case shed light on the theory behind restrictive policies, citing the Hatch act of 1982, which broadly prohibited federal employees from any political activity. The case goes on to state that every state, including Minnesota, has enacted a "mini Ealgh act" which prohibits political activities by state employees. The constitutionality of these prohibitions of political activity by government workers has been upheld in the face of a first amendment challenge, an equal protection challenge and a substantive due process challenge. The case further recognizes that broadly prohibiting political activity of government employees is necessary to ensure that civil servants serve the public and not a political party. For these reasons, it is constitutionally permissible to suspend, or even discharge a government employee who seeks elective office. The requirements of orderly management of administrative personnel outweigh the limited infringements on the first amendment rights of government employees to participate in political activity as long as these prohibitions do not infringe the employee's access to the ballot box It is therefore my opinion that should you decide to run for this office of City Council, more than likely, you will be required to take a leave of absence during the campaign ands • term that you decide to hold office. As you can see from the cases that I have cited and the cases in the memorandum from the City Attorney s Office, such is an appropriate mechanism for dealing with the situation and you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, BAGNIEFSKI & NICHOLAS Charles P. Nicholas CPN/jai ROCHESTER January 24, 1994 TO: Shaun Palmer Inspector /� FROM: Fred L. Wagner T' Director Employee Relations RE: Leave of Absence FRED L. WAGNER Director of Employee Relations Room 107, City Hal 224 • 1 St Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902-3129 (507)285.8074 FAX #(507)285.8256 It has been brought to my attention that you have inquired regarding the City of Rochester's policy as it relates to running for the office of City Council. XIVV. r EAVE WPfHOUT PAY. As you will note it states: "...but leaves without pay shall normally be granted only for health, education, military service, or extenuating personal reasons." Most recently when we had employees running for elected office, they were required to take vacation (with department head approval) or unpaid leave of absence. An unpaid leave would also mean no benefits, i.e. vacation or sick leave accrual nor insurance benefits unless paid by the employee. The leave without pay option is available to you only during your political campaign. According to. the City Attorney, if you are elected to an elective office and you accept that office you must resign your City employment. Otherwise, the law will imply your resignation from City employment immediately upon acceptance of the elective office. • If you have any questions regarding City Policy and Procedure you may contact me at the Personnel Department• FLW/aed A. Erd Xfis. Z-Ar, INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 11 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of 4110195, 4117195, 4124195, 518195, 5115195, 5122195, 615195, 6112195, 6119195, 6126195, and 7110195 r� n LJ STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL is 10, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. PAGE (1-4) 1) Proposal for a "Voice of the People" Session at City Council Meetings (attachment) - / i.., �o„i�rti- ..L/�i• •� . J'r.•.....' .-[. c �.. ��e.-ram /'� � �^Y-�� f��., ur / �14e.[: L..- � r TJ�/ylYJ 1•� _ �p.�y�-r� � L 'J /� (5-10) 2) Proposed Ordinance Concerning Minors Present in Bottle Clubs (attachment) -` (11-34) 3) Proposal for a Fire Safety Demonstration House (attachment) ti (35-37) 4) Review of Proposed Design for Mayo Civic Center Improvements (attachment) 5) Approval to Hold Professional Boxing Events (Leonard, Anderson, McCaleb, Torjom) �1rtGr«:- - STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL APRIL 17, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3: 45 P.M. PAGE 1) Presentation of a Report from the Commission on Public Salaries � •U �� .t.'—Be ,.iGP..6._-Yc..�� Qr.�e.G � �frs•'v'.r— (1-21) 2) Review of Park Service Officers Program (attachment) 3) Closed Meeting to Receive Privileged Communication from the City Attorney and Special Counsel RE: Possible Termination of the Lovering Johnson Construction Contract STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL APRIL 24, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. PAGE (1-2) (3-10) (l 1-20) I Bix Stewart Wishes to be Heard RE: Public Library Centennial /Celebration 2) Norm Erickson Wishes to be Heard RE: RPU Conservation Program (attachment) �(A 3) Review of City Accomplishments and Property Tax Data/1984 to. 1994 (attachment) 4) Review of proposed Sidewalk Program for 1995 (attachment) (21-25) 5) Request to Amend the Liquor Ordinance to Allow Ownership or Management of More than One Restaurant Liquor License (attachment) 0 U� • • STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL MAY 81 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. PAGE (1-12) 1) Review Design of Proposed Animal Control Facility and Temporary Improvements to Current Facility (attachment) (13) 2) Review of Color Scheme for New City Hall (attachment) u STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL MAY 15, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. PAGE (1-20) 1) CBD Parking Task Force Recommendations (attachment) (21-32) 2) Sandy Peatrowsy Requests to be Heard RE: Sales of Tobacco to Minors . (attachment) j AI (33-57) 3) Review of Proposed Personnel Policy on Political Activity by City Employees (attachment) -...� . STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA • ROOM 4, CITY HALL MAY 22, 1995 • is COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. PAGE 1) Continued Review of the Proposed Design for Phase I of the Mayo Civic Center Improvements. 0 (1-54) 2) Project Update/U.S. 63 Corridor Study (attachment) STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL . JUNE 5, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. PAGE 1) Review of Revised Government Center Skyway Plans (1-2) 2) Continued Review of the Proposed Design for the Mayo Civic Center Improvements (attachment) (3-18) 3) Review of Proposed First -Time Homebuyers Program (attachment) • 0 STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL JUNE 12, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:45 P.M. [elm (1-36) 1) Mike Quirk and Denis Haack Request to be Heard RE: Neighborhood Problems in 800-900 Blocks of 1 st Street SW, West Center Street and 1st Street NW (attachment) !,�, C�`"+„`r�,�u�ri .c-G.•o ��-cv�.ve.� vim- .v� �-^ cis=-,•-e.1 Ac (37-64) 2) City of Rochester "Home Page" on Internet System (attachment) STANDING COb MrrfEE AGENDA ROOM 4, WY HALL JUNE 19, 1995 COMI4RM OF THE WHOLE - 3.45 P.M. PAGE 1) Report on Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Legislative EffortsiThn Flaherty 2) Discussion of Proposed RPD Rate Decrease (attachment provided separately) .tom Cv»ti.s.-�l% 'c�.v-•sw�eP � /''`� "a.`-�Q (136� 3) Continued Discussion of Additional Housing Code Provisions (attachment) Tour of New Library Building for City Council and Department Heads (meet in front of book drop area on west side of building) �� w STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL JUNE 26, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 3:30 P.M. PAGE 1) Review of Crime Free Housing Initiatives /y1 ..�... ,�J�.-✓� � J,� � �.. � � � i.��.« ate_ r� (1-14) 2) Funding Request for Gang Intervention/Prevention Program (attachment) C7 � 3) Review of Mayo Run Environmental Corridor Project (15-17) 4) Re -Establishment of Personnel Advisory Committee (attachment). :Yi✓dl+. w.f+..U-Ji"`hi-or n ♦ J �y iVti✓:+•c.,..r r�YI /iI'II'..f�_„6+�� . ��` 1Sl ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING TO CONSIDER BIDS FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON. SOUTH BROADWAY - 5:00 P.M. i,. STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 4, CITY HALL JULY 10, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE • 3.43 P.M. PAGE 11 Doug and Mary Cook Request to be Heard RE. Experience with Contract far Deed at 1005 M4et-Beatty / r 5. u `� 21 Presentation of. Request to Initiate Rezoning to R• 1 of an Area in West Side of RochesterlMike Quirk, et. a/. _ (1.14) 31 Review of Special Assessmartts to Mark Hanson Property (attachmenV /2 11&29J 41 Considera6on of Development Proposals for Old Library Property (attachmeat) Wednesday. July 12._ 1995 3.•09 pm. at Mayo Cke Can 11 The City Councr7 County Board and School Board will hold a consensus bm7dng mewing with Bob Chadwick from 3.•00 pm. to 9.•00 pm. % �^ /1 ir-a�s�r."rc